An open-source intelligence specialist operating under the username Britsky has tracked a major surge in Royal Air Force (RAF) P-8 Poseidon operations over the Norwegian Sea.
According to his analysis, Poseidon MRA1 aircraft flying from RAF Lossiemouth have been maintaining a 24-hour presence north of Norway.
Sustaining this required five of the fleet’s nine airframes in the past 24 hours, as the RAF cannot refuel the type mid-air. The operational limitation means only one or two aircraft can be kept in the patrol box at any given time, with continuous coverage demanding constant rotation.
Flight-tracking data confirms the pattern. The screenshot shows a Poseidon transiting from Scotland at high altitude, indicated by the dark blue and purple track, before descending into its patrol area where the light green racetrack loops appear.
Another RAF P-8 showing the current area of interest better. pic.twitter.com/97C8pzNYR9
— Britsky (@TBrit90) August 25, 2025
These lower-altitude orbits are consistent with active maritime surveillance or anti-submarine warfare tasks, such as deploying sonobuoys or conducting sweeps. The colour-coded trail makes clear the aircraft was not simply transiting but executing an extended mission on station.
The surge in RAF flights coincided with the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group operating in the North Sea, confirmed by the movements of a US Navy C-2 Greyhound resupply aircraft. US Navy Poseidons flying from Iceland were also present in the Norwegian Sea, but the concentration of British aircraft has been especially notable.
Over the past two weeks, tracking shows a shift in RAF Poseidon operations from the western approaches of the UK towards the Norwegian Sea. This repositioning places aircraft directly across submarine transit routes between the Arctic and the North Atlantic, a sector NATO planners have long prioritised.
The tempo strongly suggests a coordinated allied surveillance effort designed to ensure control of vital sea lanes in the High North.
The RAF received its ninth and final P-8 in January 2022, completing the programme that replaced the cancelled Nimrod. Since then, the fleet has been heavily tasked in NATO operations monitoring Russian naval deployments across the North Atlantic, Baltic and Arctic.
Can we not set up a ten year research program to develop a framework and feasability study for a new system of Drones ? Let’s say £1 billion over the next ten years starting in 2030 subject to approval.
It does highlight how long it is taking to get MQ-9B fully operational. We appear to have bought them underspec for the marine task, without a centerline marine radar, even though the Leonardo (UK) Seaspray radar had already been integrated. Protector was reported as finally getting a military type UK airworthiness certification in May this year, which took 18 months after the first planes arrived in Britain. It was described by GA as part of a Herculean 11 year, half-billion dollar effort. Then as I recall, we decided we’d like it to work in a marine environment, and this was endorsed by the SDR. So no doubt there’ll be another long project to eventually decide to get the British centreline radar rather than the American one or one nobody had previously thought about, with the usual fanfare about jobs created or saved.
The Army Air Corps decided it wanted the same Seaspray radar on its Wildcats and displayed the mockup in DSEI 2021, the latest version of the same radar already operational on the RN Wildcats. Two years of “testing” later it was agreed to have a multi-year radar and TDL installation programme. When Army Air Corps Wildcats were reported exercising in Estonia in May last year as forward air support, a typical mission was descriped as getting a fix using laser targetting and relaying the position back using radio to ask for artillery support, which if granted would also be relayed to the guns by radio. Still no sign of a radar or TDL on the helicopter at that point then. As DSEI 2025 approaches, four years in, I’m curious, has anyone seen an operational Army Wildcat with a real radar yet?
We still have no published target dates as to when the radars will be fitted to RAF Protectors and the support of P-8s can start. I’m sure it will be “at pace”.
Standard.
It’s maddening.
We bought the MQ-9B because it could work alongside civilian European air standards (we even dragged the Belgians in on that one) — in other words, they were never solely for use in the Middle East out of Cyprus. So how did the RAF think they were going to be used in Europe? How nobody thought to endorse the maritime use case from day one, boggles the mind.
I’d love to know how those who tentitively brought that up in meetings got slapped down. “It’s cost justified as a Reaper replacement, so we couldn’t possibly alter the use case. Think of the paperwork!” “We’re already cut from 20 to 16 because of overbudget, do you want us to lose even more? We can always tack the radar on later.” “It’s already got a built in radar that’s almost as good as an IMaster. We can use that.” “One decade at a time, son.”
Yes. I got angry again. Note to self: stop using public forums to vent. Buy a stuffed cat and kick that instead.
I had thought TDL was now up and running on on all wildcat, but latest from questions in Parliament from 19 January 2024, Answered by James Cartlidge: “Defence is currently working with the Platform Design Organisation (Leonardo Helicopters Ltd) to develop a TDL delivery programme for Wildcat, as part of the formal Concept and Assessment Phase. Further delivery dates are subject to approvals, with the Full Business Case expected to be submitted later this year.” So I assume it’s only the RN ones that have it?
Considering that Link16 is offered on export AW159, and apparently the electronics for it are already on our ones too, I don’t understand how hard it can be to just say “make it so, install on ‘x’ airframes at a time so we maintain ‘y’ level of availability over the course of a ‘z’ month programme.
As far as Protector goes, I think those SeaGuardian concepts came in quite some ways through our procurement cycle. MOD is constantly slammed for making changes part-way through procurement that then delays entry and increases cost, I think it could be unfair to then blame them for not doing so in order to keep as close as possible to the budget and programme they were given. That said, it’s a no-brainer to me to fast-track the procurement of a “Maritime Patrol” package for these aircraft.
5 of our only 9 ASW aircraft, good job we are not an Island with bases over seas we might need more than just 9, Any way i am sure some focus group costing millions is talking about it.
Gordon Brown and his PFI fetish again.
On national security grounds scrap it and obtain boom refueling capability. This shows that it will be critical to maintain coverage with only 9 aircraft ( considering the same research shows one hasn’t flown in ages)
Probably also shows a need for more than 8 ASW frigates with TAS, and that SSKs could provide that persistent gatekeeper role in light of the dire SSN availability.
Given we didn’t have the facilities to support and maintain the SSNs, buying SSKs would simply result in more boats tied-up alongside awaiting maintenance. 🤦🏻♂️
The XL AUVs will need to be near SSK sized if they are going to offer that persistent coverage at distance. Cetus range will be classified but how much range and speed will a 12m , 9 tonne craft give. The chariot concept might turn out to be a large craft that will need substantial shore assets.
SSKs give part of the capability for 60% of the cost but in terms of the GIUK gap, having a crew and a commanders decisions on scene with 5 torpedo tubes is a good deterrent. Though with cooperation with Norway and others that mission might be covered with their SSKs
No more boom and bust.
Very very good !
Too subtle for most of us 😁
😜
There’s no problem with the PFI in and of itself- we just didn’t go for a boom on the aircraft. That made sense at the time, given the aircraft we were operating, but not now that we have P-8A, E-7, and now possibly F-35A.
I believe the contract does allow for changing some/all of the airframes to have boom refuelling capability- the A300-MT can have it. We just need to sign off on that option.
More like the tories defence cuts fetish, cancelling Nimrod MRA4 which could be refuelled. 9 brand new aircraft scrapped in 2011.
They weren’t brand new aircraft.
£800 million overspend, 9 years late, only resulted in 2 refurbished 1960s fuselages to production standard and 3 developmental ones.
Shocking waste of money.
We’ve been over the real reasons for that a number of times on here and NL.
No sense in rehashing it.
On numbers, balance please.
21 Nimrod MRA4 were reduced to 18, 16, 12, then down to 9 as a result of Labour cuts ( of which there were many from 97 to 2009 ) by the time the Tories scrapped it.
This has been gone over many times, it is not a case of one party make cuts but the others do not.
All are bad.
I’m more interested in who in the RAF or HMG decided converting Nimrod, each with different airframes, was a good idea, rather than just buying something OTS.
I think at the time, our shelves were already too full of *Shelved* projects.
Interesting fact that the Bull Dozers used to Bash the shit out of them cost 4 times as much as the aircraft !
I made that up but 🤦♂️
Hey Daniele, Ulya reckons you are a girl !
just sayin 😁
I reckon they’re searching for that elusive red tomato. You know, the one the Gerald R Ford couldn’t sink last week – the same one the POW couldn’t sink a while back.
It seems to have been around for ever. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent tomato?” said someone a long time ago.
Always obvious 9 ASW aircraft was never going to be enough to provide coverage of the thousands of miles of ocean around our little island. At least 2 properly sized and funded squadrons needed – 12-15 aircraft per squadron.