Images show the first British P-8 Poseidon painted and on the flight line undergoing pre-flight preparations for its first flight.

Recently we reported that aircrew have commenced the flying phase of training to fly the Poseidon MRA Mk1 (P-8A), the UK’s new maritime patrol aircraft.

The RAF say in a release that Pilots, Weapons System Officers and Weapons Systems Operators have entered the simulator and flying phase of their six-month course.

The personnel, from CXX Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth, are being trained by a mix of US Navy and RAF P-8A ‘seedcorn’ one-way exchange instructors on a course which covers a substantial range of topics.

The Poseidon is based on the Boeing 737-800NG aircraft, the supply chain for which is already supported by UK industry, providing several hundred direct UK jobs. UK manufacturers also provide specialist sub-systems for the P-8A, for example Marshalls (auxiliary fuel tanks), Martin Baker (crew seats), GE (Weapon Pylons) and GKN Aerospace (windshields).

In January, Boeing was awarded an almost $2.5 billion contract to produce 19 P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft for the US Navy, Norway and the United Kingdom.

Ten of the aircraft were for the US Navy, four for the UK and five for Norway.

The UK intends to procure 9 of the aircraft in total and had already ordered five. This purchase brought the total UK order of P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft up to 9.

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
48 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brom
Brom
1 year ago

Fantastic kit but we need more of them

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
1 year ago
Reply to  Brom

Seems fine if the US only ordered one more than us (or was that only their initial order?)

Andrew
Andrew
1 year ago

Wikipedia or a google search will answer your question quicker than it took you to type it……

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew

I think the USN will have over 30 Levi.

Topboy
Topboy
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew

Quality answer

Andrew
Andrew
1 year ago
Reply to  Brom

Only got a couple of years to order more before the production line starts winding up.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew

Janes, 24 June, is reporting that India is to order another 10 P-8i, so hopefully that will keep the production line open a little bit longer.

TwinTiger
TwinTiger
1 year ago
Reply to  Brom

It would be more efficient to have a few MQ-4C Tritons patrolling and then focus the Poseidon operations on any contact made, or for specific observation (eg tracking a submarine)

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  TwinTiger

I agree, like Australia we should get a few maritime surveillance drones. However, they will only be useful for surface contacts and not sub-surface, unless they can drop sonar buoys and have a MAD tail. One of the reasons Australia went for the Triton is that it has a massive flight duration, thus enabling it to keep track of shipping near their coastlines.
For us, a drone would do a similar job over the North Atlantic and North sea, probably too crowded for the southern approaches and channel areas.

TwinTiger
TwinTiger
1 year ago

… and no refuelling probe. Standard boom receptacle refuelling.

Paul
Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  TwinTiger

Seems strange as I thought the USN favour probe and drogue, with USAF preferring the boom system.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul

The USN has never fitted its MPA with refueling probes before. The only reason that they are adding a boom receptacle is to aid transiting the P-8A globally to forward deployment bases a task that is better served by USAF/ANG tankers and that Boeing had already developed a standardised boom receptacle for late generation 737 and the USN didn’t have to stump up significant development or integration costs.

Paul
Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

A good answer, thanks. Yet another aircraft the RAF can’t refuel themselves…

TwinTiger
TwinTiger
1 year ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

Add the E-7 Wedgetail to that list also.

HF
HF
1 year ago

Shame this essential capability was needlessly absent for so many years:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/761vw15.htm

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

I agree with you HF – but based on some previous posts, you won’t find much support on this forum.

Will
Will
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

Absolutely right.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

That report, which I have read many times, is utterly damning of HMG.

HF
HF
1 year ago

I still find it difficult to believe any government could be so irresponsible.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

After the events of the last decade, I don’t.

Simon
Simon
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

Table 1 (section 2.1.2) is utterly misleading. Merlin’s mission time is on-station, whereas Nimrod’s isn’t.

Apparently it can’t see ships either… and can’t do overseas patrol.

They’ve deliberately split T23 from Merlin to make it look worse that it really is/was.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

Does the P8 have the Nimrods ability to shut down engines to conserve while in circuit
or its low level ability?

Herodotus
1 year ago

P-8A…twin engine aircraft…don’t think that they would want to do that?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Yeah good point. Nimrod was 4.

Herodotus
1 year ago

Nimrod…based on the Comet, had an interesting advantage not shared by more modern jets. Its four engines were buried in the wing roots close to the fuselage. This meant that two engines could be shut down without experiencing the asymmetric effects that other aircraft were subject to. This made the aircraft unique, and with the RR/BMW engines it would have had a phenomenal range and loiter capability. Pity one didn’t fly up Cameron’s arse and save us from the years of shit that his stupid decisions have created!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Herodotus

So that’s why. Ta. As is evidenced I know B all about engines and aerodynamics.

Trevor
Trevor
1 year ago
Reply to  Herodotus

What a pity the aircraft could not be built properly and produced massive time and cost overruns and still was not fit when cancelled… oh and costs cut because Brown ordered a raft of projects that left a black hole and were massively over budget.

The Nimrod should not have been ordered in the first place. And we are all still here, the Russians have not dropped the Bomb, we are still in NATO, you can still go to the supermarket and get your milk.

The real danger facing Britain is not counting up planes, it’s Jeremy Corbyn.

Herodotus
1 year ago
Reply to  Trevor

I’ve alerted Jezzer…expect a knock on your door soon!!!

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
1 year ago

They throttle the engine back rather then shut it down on the P-8A. To be honest with a modern engine like the CFM56 it isn’t as big a deal as with the Nimrod and four relatively thirsty RR Speys.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

Thanks.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
1 year ago

With delivery of the _P-8A the UK will have eventually finished the over 30 year process to replace the Nimrod MR2.

I do wonder how things would have gone if the USN had not cancelled the Lockheed P-7A in 1990 the type that the RAF had been planning to replace Nimrod with.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

Oh. Thanks for that I was not aware of that aircraft.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
1 year ago

Yes the Lockheed P-7A is basically an enlarged and enhanced P-3 with new wings, engines and avionics. It won the Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA) contest against a Boeing 757 variant and a version the McDonnell MD-90. Ironically the updated P-7A looked very similar to the Societ IL-38 MPA. It was selected in 1988 with the UK agreeing to adopt it as well, two years later costs had ballooned and schedules pushed back leading to the US Defence Acquisition Board (DAB) cancelling it and the P-3C recieving an interim update instead. The cancellation of the P-7A directly led the… Read more »

Cam
Cam
1 year ago

It looks good, but a nice big Union Jack on the side would look better.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Cam

I only recall one of the white painted VC10s of the original 13 ordered having a Union Jack, by the door I think. And the BAE 146s.

Cam
Cam
1 year ago

Yeah and it looks dam good doesn’t it Daniele m8. Union jacks on all large british military hardware I say, And I like how some of the Merlins and Wildcats have big Union jacks on the side

Lusty
Lusty
1 year ago

At least one of the Voyagers (the one used for shuttling the PM and other dignitaries) has a Union Flag next to each of its doors. As Cam mentions below, some Merlins (particularly the pre-HC4 conversion), Wildcat and also Chinook have all used similar.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Lusty

Thanks Lads.

George Amery
George Amery
1 year ago

Hi folks hope are all well.
About time, this area of our excellent military was rather lacking in maritime protection. If I recall didn’t we have to call upon NATO allies to fill the gap during a search for Russian submarine activity a couple of years back? You experts can correct me on this.
Nonetheless, this is great news and one more advance in a positive for our military capabilities.
Cheers.
George

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  George Amery

Yes George, it was reported at the time but details were scant obviously.
I recall the NATO MPA were deployed to Lossi.

George Amery
George Amery
1 year ago

Many thanks Daniele.

Helions
Helions
1 year ago

Fancy Shmancy sports car… Bring BACK the Shackleton! A REAL MAN’s aircraft!

That is all…

Cheers!

Helions
Helions
1 year ago
Reply to  Helions

What the U.S. Navy REALLY needs…

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/pb4y/

(Sorry – this a particularly boring Sunday morning)

😀

Cam
Cam
1 year ago
Reply to  Helions

Lol Shackletons are great I love the look of them… shame we break up all our great aircraft.

Russ
Russ
1 year ago

Great a picture of backward tec – least capable option in terms of electronics, way less advanced than either the Scandinavian or Israeli offers and an expensive to run airframe. Seems like a rushed decision not the right one.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
1 year ago
Reply to  Russ

What???
The P-8 carries the slightly modernised Nimrod MRA.4 mission system.
If you think the Swedes or Israelis have any clue about deepwater ASW you’re absolutely bonkers..
This is the state of the art bar none.

Andrew R
Andrew R
1 year ago
Reply to  Russ

Got a source for that at all?

Marc
Marc
1 year ago

In other news the QE is moored in Plymouth Sound,Yay!near Devonport you know the other Naval Base.