54 Squadron have received their first P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

The aircraft, ZP801, has been formally handed over to the Royal Air Force. The aircraft will be based at RAF Lossiemouth.

This comes not long after the second Royal Air Force P-8 took to the air for the first time.

Rendering of a British P-8.

Speaking before the event, a Royal Air Force spokesperson said:

“The team from 54 Squadron have received ZP801, which will fly to Naval Air Station Jacksonville tomorrow to be formally handed over to the Royal Air Force.

It will then be maintained by engineers from Poseidon Line Squadron, enabling our pilots and weapons systems operators on CXX Squadron to continue their training prior to the long voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the UK in February!”

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.

NOTE: The ‘MAD’ boom is not fitted to US or UK variants.

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).

A P-8 in British livery, courtesy of the MoD.

The UK is buying 9 of the aircraft in total, however, evidence submitted to the Defence Select Committee argues that seven additional P-8 Poseidon aircraft should be acquired, bringing the total fleet to 16 aircraft. 

“SDSR 15 proposed that nine P-8 Poseidon MPA be acquired. At the time, the P-8 was the only MPA on the market capable of meeting the UK’s needs in a reasonable timescale.  Given the urgency of filling this acknowledged gap in the Defence Programme, the Government was undoubtedly justified in selecting that aircraft without going out to competition. However, capable though the P-8 may be, the number of aircraft planned is undoubtedly inadequate to fulfil even the highest priority tasks likely to be assigned to the force in tension and hostilities.”

The second British P-8 takes flight.

The Royal Air Force say that the P-8A Maritime Patrol Aircraft will be known as the Poseidon MRA Mk.1 in UK service.

133
Leave a Reply

avatar
19 Comment threads
114 Thread replies
47 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
47 Comment authors
James MGunbusterNothThe Woman From DelmonteAirborne Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Peter Shaw
Guest
Peter Shaw

This is excellent news; albeit we should purchase at least 16 and perhaps up to 20 if possible. These are critical assets for the UK. It is good they are based upon tried and trusted technology as well with a supply chain in place to support maintenance and repair.

Peter Crisp
Guest
Peter Crisp

While we only have 9 can they also control the new Predator B’s we have on order? This would give them more eyes in the sky even if it isn’t quite as good as more Poseidon’s.

Herodotus
Guest

The gap isn’t closed yet….when all 9 are operational then we will be some towards that objective. But unless we order more airframes, or a UAV alternative, then the gap will only be partially covered!

Herodotus
Guest

Nice shade of grey by the way. George, what happened to the ‘edit’ function….really quite useful for correcting typos and bloopers!

Spyinthesky
Guest
Spyinthesky

Glad you asked that, it’s something that I was wondering too. It was much praised previously for allowing us through exciting to get around the vagaries of our tablets and phones capacity (or occasionally our brain) to re write our contributions when necessary to clarify or rectify.

Spyinthesky
Guest
Spyinthesky

Good example despite my checking ‘editing’ has become exciting.

Herodotus
Guest

I still make ‘cockups’ when using my laptop. Usually missing out words!!!

Trevor
Guest
Trevor

Norway have a huge coastline and have 5. An independent Scotland of course could not afford or manage any, let alone 5.

Andy P
Guest
Andy P

Who mentioned Scotland ????

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Trevor

Andy P
Guest
Andy P

LOL/laughing emoji thingy.

Aye, its almost like he wishes the debate was heading down a whole other rabbit hole……

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Sadly it could be an interesting subject but the Rabbit hole beckons!

An independent Scotland would probably go down a similar line to Scotland and procure something like the Airbus C-235 or C-295 MPA.

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Edit has gone, I meant similar line to Ireland

Julian1
Guest
Julian1

54sqn? Did I miss something, 201 and 120 are the allocated sqn numbers for MPA ops

Good news though and impressive how quickly the aircraft is delivered after first flying

Herodotus
Guest

Hmmm…maybe Boeing are keen to get their 737s rolling. They have a yard full of Max’s undelivered….sooooo expensive!

pompeyblokeinoxford
Guest
pompeyblokeinoxford

Well done, Typo spotted. 54 Sqn is the ISTR OCU at RAF Waddington

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Is it a typo though?

Maybe 54 are involved in the trials before it’s released to the front line squadrons.

They are the OCU after all.

Alex
Guest
Alex

Why no MAD boom?

Helions
Guest
Helions

The MAD boom requires a low altitude flight profile like that of the P3 to be effective. The P8 uses a much higher altitude search profile and with the new sensors it doesn’t require the MAD. Or so is the official explanation…

Cheers!

Lefty
Guest
Lefty

I think the Indian version includes it

Frank62
Guest
Frank62

Thanks Helions. I’d wondered why that was too.

Helions
Guest
Helions

Cheers!

whlgrubber
Guest
whlgrubber

What height are they releasing sonobuoys? 250ft? any higher and the buoyfield will be compromised. That height is when MAD could be useful. I still hav’nt found out the type of SB processor yet, is it UK or USA?

Helions
Guest
Helions

You might find the info here. This is dated but comprehensive. States that there are probs with the system…

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/navy/2012p8aposeidon.pdf

Cheers!

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

The info-graphic above indicates a MAD boom or is this just a sales brochure of what can be fitted? I know the Indian P8s are fitted with the MAD boom. But will a MAD boom detect the magnetic disturbance made by a titanium hulled sub such as the Sierra 3s?

PapaGolf
Guest
PapaGolf

My interpretation was that the MAD boom is less effective and UK/US P8s have other systems which are more effective. This tech has not been passed to the Indian P8s so they have the boom.

Herodotus
Guest

Do they calibrate MAD detectors by overflying the House of Commons…tune for maximum smoke!

Robert blay
Guest
Robert blay

Fantastic news, and with a modern airframe, availability will be well beyond what a larger Nimrod force could have produced.

julian1
Guest
julian1

“modern”, don’t you mean constantly updated?

Robert blay
Guest
Robert blay

Modern meaning it’s brand new built aircraft.

Lee1
Guest
Lee1

Which is a good job now that they are finding cracks in the NGs…

James M
Guest
James M

As long as they’re maintained properly it shouldn’t be an issue. It’s amazing how many things like that civil aircraft fly around with, but as long as you’re aware and conduct proper maintenance regularly it should be fine.

Plus, if there’s any issues, it’s likely to affect the USN fleet long before it affects ours.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Very good news indeed – now for a follow on order of a further 9 please

JohnN
Guest
JohnN

Congrats to the RAF on their first Poseidon, I see that it won’t be on UK soil until February next year.

Here in Oz the RAAF recently took delivery of its 11th Poseidon, the last on order (the 12th) is due here by end of January next year. Just got to wait and see, if and when, the three options are taken up to make a potential fleet total of 15 airframes.

I do wonder if the UK would ever look at following the USN and RAAF model by operating both Poseidon and Triton?

Will
Guest
Will

I doubt it, looks to me more like we are going to stick with our Protector Bs (our new version of the Predator drone) for a while at least.

Spyinthesky
Guest
Spyinthesky

Triton would be nice but you can see why it is a much greater need for the US and particularly Australia for geographical factors so Our mix is probably a better fit (eventually). One question I would ask is this, the article states this was the most capable aircraft available at the time of the order and timeframe considerations. So if we were to add further aircraft beyond the proposed number, is there something potentially a better fit that has subsequently become available? Even though it’s unlikely a split would be desirable considering factors already stated, supply chain being perhaps… Read more »

Paul T
Guest
Paul T

Spyinthesky – The Kawasaki P1 would be the obvious alternative,the MOD were considering it at the time but for whatever reasons decided to go for the P8.

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Also, France and Germany have finally agreed that they need to replace their Atlantics finally sooner rather than later. So Airbus have been making noises of what they could give them. I don’t think it would be wildly different in capabilities though as they were proposing to use their 318/320 airframe. I wouldn’t expect to see anything this side of 2025 though!

Lordtemplar
Guest
Lordtemplar

Germany hasn’t used Atlantic in years and replaced them with P3 Orion in 2005
France has just started completly overhauling the Atlantic 2 fleet so they will be in use well beyond 2025

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Yes, but he German P3s are second hand from Holland and only slightly better than the Atlantics they replaced. Dassault have said the Atlantic 2 is a stop gap and can’t be further upgraded, which is probably a sales tactic. The Franco-German defence ministers met for a Defence and Security Council in Toulouse on 16 October. Apart from agreeing on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) aimed at developing a New Generation Fighter (NGF) demonstrator that would fly in 2026. They also agreed on developing the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) to replace Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks. The final… Read more »

Lordtemplar
Guest
Lordtemplar

I do not know what are your sources. But Atlantic 2 can be upgraded since France just received it’s first 2 updated Atlantic 2 a week ago. 18 will be upgraded in total and last delivery scheduled for 2024
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/florence-parly-the-french-minister-of-the-armed-forces-welcomes-the-delivery-of-the-first-two-upgraded-atlantic-2-maritime-patrol-aircraft
I think you may be confusing of talks between France and Germany about AWACS, ie there is talk about using the 330 MRTT to be an AWCAS as well as a tanker. I have not seen any anouncements about a Franco-German ASW project. If there is it is probably for 2040s

Lordtemplar
Guest
Lordtemplar

*2030s , made a typo ooops

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

I got my information from Janes Defence and Security. They did a report on the joint French-German defence meeting in Toulouse last month. They specifically said the two countries require an air-platform to replace the ageing Atlantic and the German P3s, they called this requirement the Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS). This was different to the airborne early warning and C3 requirement. Which may be tied together with NATO’s E3 Sentry replacement requirement. However, the latest from NATO is that they like the capabilities and performance of the E7 Wedgetail, so Airbus won’t be happy with that. I know on… Read more »

JohnN
Guest
JohnN

Yes I was aware the RAF is going to be operating the Predator B (the RAAF is also going to be a Reaper/Predator operator too, they just haven’t decided which model and final numbers as yet).

Anyway, the RAAF is doing pretty well, 12-15 Poseidon, 6-7 Triton and 12-16 Reaper/Predator.

Trevor
Guest
Trevor

All well and good. Australia is a continental sized country, with a long coastline and surrounded by a large area of sea. In contrast, it has just 30,000 personnel in its army and just 59 tanks.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

And no SSN, a detterent, and countless other enablers.

But for what they have prioritised in the ISTAR air domain impressive.

Sean Crowley
Guest
Sean Crowley

We were forced to take the Tanks to match a US MEU, we never really wanted them , same with Boxer and if your an English transfer irrespective be it from SAS or Sniper we will put you where all easily lost plodding poms go , Armour or Chopper . We have been and always will be infantry orientated , it is poor man in our Army who goes to war sitting down being a glorified chauffeur. As far as SSN’s we are literally as i write this negotiating the last six Attack class as SSN’s plus also a ramp… Read more »

Trevor
Guest
Trevor

I’m not sure what you are particularly driving at. Australia does ok with its armed forces, best wishes to it, and I’m sure its army is pretty good. It has a number of P8s and submarines and it needs them for its geography. I’m guessing that it’s priority would be it’s navy and airforce, relative to it’s army. Frankly this is what our (the UKs) priority should be.

Dwill
Guest
Dwill

9 aircraft was never enough-these aircraft assuming remained flight worthy /serviceable 24×7 they would barely cover our coastal waters, our other ‘international commitments’ ie our Naval Fleet operating worldwide be it on excersise and or operationally-there will NOT be enough available aircraft to meet any of these commitments, as for the support we once offered /gave to our Commonwealth Country’s, let alone the excellent work our previous Nimrod Fleet did in the Bahamas identifying and leading in the Royal Navy to stop search and capture not just the illegal drugs, and the drug runners but also the identities and location… Read more »

Noth
Guest
Noth

You have to remember that in 2015 this was the best off the shelf, operational aircraft available. Going down the rabbit hole of Euro projects doesn’t get our urgent operational requirements anywhere, you just get a 15+ year delay in capability. Just look at the Typhoon and A400M developments, constant squabbles over workshare and which capabilities, orders reduced, etc. Till Europe can execute a program competently in a less than 10 year window, preferably 5, then we’ll be buying American. Too much money has been wasted in Euro projects that haven’t delivered on time!

Alan Reid
Guest
Alan Reid

Now this is what I call a real MPA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5YVVvj9fU
I like to keep the memory alive!

julian1
Guest
julian1

it does look pretty menacing. if only….

Herodotus
Guest

Gross failures all round…but sadly, par for the course for defence acquisition in this country. Look at that bomb bay…you could park several cars in there…not the prissy little handbag of the P9. More importantly, you could stuff at least six tomahawks in there!

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

The problem as I see it was MoD trying to penny pinch by updating existing Nimrod aircraft, which were built by hand in a lot of cases so the upgrades didnt fit, and it all ended up as a massive mess.

I wonder sometimes had they just built x number of Nimrod MR4s from scratch, would they be flying over our skies and seas right now?

BB85
Guest
BB85

Undoubtedly, even if they used an airbus airframe and BAe packed it with their own sensors it would have had a great chance winning European orders.

pompeyblokeonoxford
Guest
pompeyblokeonoxford

Not so much the MOD more likely the treasury. You are probably right about building the MR4 rom scratch.

Cam
Guest
Cam

Great looking aircraft, I so so miss them flying in circles around my house near kinloss. Are any still flying for airshows ect? Surely we could keep one flying with all the ex crews we have.

Alan Reid
Guest
Alan Reid

Hi Cam, I think the Waddington based R1s of 51 squadron were the last operational Nimrods – probably last flew in 2011.
There are no aircraft flying on the air-show circuit, although a few airframes are dotted around museums on static display.

Cam
Guest
Cam

Hi Alan. Ah right, yeah there are a few, the last nimrod at kinloss was saved but it lost its wings and rear fuselage so Not the same! The footage of all the nimrods being crushed will always haunt me!. I think We should have a Nimrod still flying in airshows but we then again I think we should have a Vulcan, victor, valiant also! We british have made some great airplanes and merging all our airplane builders into one or two company’s was a huge mistake! We then lost all the unique aircraft builds. And now we build hardly… Read more »

Cam
Guest
Cam

DAM, why can’t we edit!

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

That’s the issue of our defence companies beibg free market, private companies: those companies can merge and not much we can do about it.

Note: I am not advocating we nationalise our defence companies; private companies are more efficient and make better equipment because their stuff has to be competitive. Only way I would advocate nationalising out defence industry would be if we were in WW3 and under the real threat of invasion/destruction.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

I was so depressed after SDSR2010 my wife took me on holiday. I didn’t watch the Nimrods destruction. 13 years of Labour gradually dismantling the escort fleet and the RAFs Fast Jet Squadrons, the usual howls of protest in opposition, and then the Tories do the same. The only reason the axe had not been taken to the Army by Brown earlier was Iraq and Afghanistan. And even then the Future Army Structures review had already bitten into our mechanized and armoured forces. NO current government can be trusted on Defence. Capabilities and their finance should be criss party agreed… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Couldn’t agree more Daniele. I will go further – as we are in an election cycle 2 things need to happen (they wont – but should) All parties need to use a set of facts produced by independent bodies (constantly not a one off). these bodies should be agreed in advance. All parties spending plans should be set against a % of GDP and set out the source of taxation, that way we know what they plan to spend against GDP and how they plan to collect taxes to pay for it. For defence this would hopefully end up with… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

You’ve expanded on my ideas there better than I could Pac man, my knowledge of how that all works is poor.

Herodotus
Guest

If only it were as simple as that. Whilst Labour was responsible for defence reductions, they were also responsible for ordering QE and POW….the commissioning of the former being a cause celebre on this website. They also ordered 22 Chinooks….cut to 12 by the Tories!

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Not to mention the 36 Blackhawks that was part of the deal that ended up as Puma 2.

Trevor
Guest
Trevor

And ordering these carriers pushed our strategy towards maritime activity and finding a use for these carriers. It also ensured we had the B version of the F35 and not the A. It is not, as an e.g., the fault of politicians that the Mod or the army had got itself confused about Boxer and Ajax and it’s ideas (or not) about “striker” brigades… (and what on earth do we do with our MBTs). But I grow tired of commentators demanding an armed forces designed to take on China and Russia combined and single handed. We have allies. Politically and… Read more »

Herodotus
Guest

I fully agree Trevor! I like the idea of a carrier force, but not at the expense of a joined up defence strategy. We need to decide what kind of country we are and what our defence obligations should be. Our Empire fizzled out in the 1960s and Dean Acheson commented: ‘Britain has lost an Empire and not yet found a role’! I think that that comment is still prescient….unless you conclude that we are the USA’s subservient side-kick! An oh my gosh-golly Robin to their Batman. The sight of Blair brown-nosing Bush still makes me feel nauseous!

Trevor
Guest
Trevor

My main point is we have the carriers,now and it pushes us to a maritime strategy. If so we should follow it and not be trying to be all things to all everything. Now frankly this is probably the best and support only a minimum land based europe involvement… As it is we have some confusion about our army policy… I do not see how we can sensibly pursue this striker policy and still expect to support full on MBT units.. and (AND!) all our very important parachute, airborn, marine and SAS etc to their fullest. On top of which… Read more »

Airborne
Guest
Airborne

Do not get me started on the friggin strike Brigade chuff, never in the field of human conflict has so much capabilty been wasted, by so few!

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

They did order QE and POW, yes. Amongst endless cuts elsewhere. The Chinooks! That requires more detail. They were going to order those extra Chinooks on the back of closing RAF Cottesemore and cutting number 3 and 4 Squadron flying Harrier GR9s. I still remember the quite USELESS defence secretary Gareth Ainsworth justifying the Harrier cuts by saying the saving would go to ordering those 22 Chinooks. So that was nothing to be proud of. It came from a cut. And I think the Tories cut the order to 14, not 12. In itself a disgrace seeming as it was… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

And another thing, over 1 billion was added to the carriers cost by pushing the program to the right by the then Labour DS.

But all this sniping is pointless isn’t it, they are all crap!

Herodotus
Guest

I don’t disagree with your comments, however politicians do deserve credit when they get things right. We are inclined to be very negative when evaluating government decisions…rightly so in many cases. But, defence spending is a political football, and always will be as long as there are no votes in it. A cross-party ring-fenced agenda makes sense for this country’s defence, but no government is going to tie it’s hands by agreeing to one.
The interesting thing about the carrier programme was that it proved too expensive for Cameron to cancel. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere?

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

My thinking is along with Trevor.

Maritime and Air Strategy.

Yes, thank god with that idiot Osborne around.

The Woman From Delmonte
Guest
The Woman From Delmonte

QE and POW were the result of GOrdon Brown electioneering nothing to do with concern for the Navy all about votes . The order for 22 chinooks made only by cutting 3 Gr4 squadrons that’s the marxists for you !

Airborne
Guest
Airborne

Pretty much spot on as normal mate!

David
Guest
David

Great news yes – but can someone explain why all 9 will not be in service until 2027? That’s a ludicrous timescale!!

I also echo the sentiment that 16 should be acquired but that will never happen – more with less will continue unfortunately unless the RAF makes cuts somewhere else…..

Frank62
Guest
Frank62

Not granted enough money to enable a faster purchase rate. Treasury holds all departments of government on tight purse strings regardless of consequences. Much of the Forces new equipment hasn’t been actually granted the funds, but are hoped to be paid for by cutting other things. Madness.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

The real shame in that is that even with an election looming, there’s not a single party that will change that. – Conservatives will keep things as they are. Its them that have set it up with this snail’s pace buying rate. – Labour under Corbyn would slash the defence budget massively. – Lib Dems would only improve things at the cost of getting rid of our nuclear deterrent. We’d have a bigger air force and navy but that means little if someone can just nuke us. – SNP… well, we know they only want Scottish Independence and dont give… Read more »

Lee1
Guest
Lee1

I do not think the Lib dems would get rid of the nuclear deterrent. Remember that parties say all sorts of things when they are not in government. If they actually have to make those decisions they will be privy to all sorts of information that will point them towards the fact that the Nuclear deterrent is actually not necessarily a bad deal. Also I do not think they would get any support for it from others.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The Lib Dem’s don’t have a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. What they wanted was a review of the nuclear deterrent to see if the present option of 4 SSBN and SLBMs was the most appropriate before ordering the 4 new SSBNs. They wanted to explore such ideas as increasing the fleet of SSNs and giving them a nuclear option such as a single common missile compartment or nuclear warhead tipped cruise missiles.

Now they were not saying anything was correct or not, it was more about questioning what we really needed. It was never about unilateral nuclear disarmament.

JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

I hope the UK decides to arm them with SLAM-ER while the production line is open. I agree 16 P-8 would be good, but in the current climate, I doubt that more than 1 or 2 extra, would get past HM Treasury.

Andrew dyson
Guest
Andrew dyson

Do we need the extra 2 for the Falklands and gibraltar

JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

Well if nine is the bare minimum, I think it wise to have one or two spares, to cover for repairs/deep maintenance, etc. That way, you will have your nine available.

farouk
Guest
farouk

What timing, the Russians have just sent 10 Subs (8 nuclear powered) out to sea, with a large number heading towards the GIUK gap, and then the US, in which to send the message to the US, “Because we can” this is why the Russians tested a ballistic missile today from their latest sub. More here:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/10/russian-northern-fleet-massive-submarine-show

Gunbuster
Guest
Gunbuster

Its nice to see that the UK is finally getting back into the fixed wing ASW game. However being a glass half full / half empty kind of person who used to maintain lightweight torpedoes there is a big elephant in the room… Its all very nice having a shiny new aircraft with lots of wiz bang sensors and systems but its no good if you cannot kill a sub when needed. The P-8 is going to be armed with a Mk54 Torpedo. For those that don’t know that’s a US bastardised hybrid of the 1960’s vintage back end of… Read more »

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

Could we not go one up from that and integrate Spearfish onto the P8s?

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

According to Wiki, Spearfish is 7m long, so is to long for the P8’s bomb bay. It would need to be carried under the wings. Stingray still has the speed (45kn plus) and duration to catch subs.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

Fair enough. Are we likely to integrate Stingray with P8? That’s what annoys me about the MoD; not just the low numbers of assets we have (though that is a serious issue) that in light of low numbers we dont integrate what we have to be as flexible as possible. It’s like with anti-ship missiles. When we do procure one, say NSM, it needs to be integrated onto P8, Typhoon and F35 as well as all our frigates & destroyers – even if only in canisters for the latter 2. Make every combat plane capable of air to air, air… Read more »

Gunbuster
Guest
Gunbuster

Spearfish= heavyweight with wire/FO guidance
Sting Ray= Lightweight

The two are not comparable. even the propulsion systems are different. Spearfish carries its own fuel which is weight. Sting Ray has a sea water battery using the sea water as electrolyte which keeps the weight down.

Pete
Guest
Pete

Great incite. Trust those powers that be ate reafing and reflecting on this.

P

Pete
Guest
Pete

… That be are reading and…

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Brilliant, you’ve answered my question over which is theoretically better Stingray or Mk54. This was for the question of installing RUM-139C ASROC on the Type 26. The RUM-139C is fitted with the Mk54 torpedo, so could the Stingray be fitted instead?

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Quite possibly.

“In-service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, it has recently been selected by the Norwegian Armed Forces and is capable of integration into surface and air platform mission systems.”
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/sting-ray-mod-1-lightweight-torpedo

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

RAF?

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

It appears so.

Tested on both Merlin and Wildcat I believe, so it should be possible to fit the P-8’s.

https://www.fleetairarmoa.org/news/merlin-mk2s-test-their-stingray-torpedoes

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

You will find this article posted on Save The Royal Navy very interesting in regards to Poseidon/LRASM.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-puzzling-absence-of-uk-fixed-wing-maritime-strike-capability/

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Yep, read those, but what aircraft in current RAF inventory can launch Stingray. The Nimrod was cleared to use Stingray, but there isn’t anything else. I am hoping that it will be integrated on our P8s in the future.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Apart from what I have mentioned above?

Clearly, there is plenty of room for a Poseidon fit judging buy what the US currently holds on theirs, fingers crossed!

Gunbuster
Guest
Gunbuster

Sting Ray is/was flown on Nimrod, Lynx, Wildcat, Sea King and Merlin as well as fired from Shipboard tubes on Leander, T42, T22 and T23.
It is also very fast …far faster and longer running than the stated speeds in the open media etc and has a far greater performance than a MK 54.

Tim UK
Guest
Tim UK

These are real game changing strategic assets. Better off tripling the size of this fleet and dominating the atlantic and med than buying a few more frigates. These combined with stealthy ucav’s and the zephyr could dominate strategic choke points.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

That’s a fair point. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than extra frigates and means we dont necessarily need to have ships stationed here ready to shadow Russian ships encroaching on our waters. The P8 can easily be armed with Harpoons and I’m assuming we could integrate NSM or whichever other anti-ship missile we adopt. Would also give a shock to Russian sailors expecting our response to be from an OPV or mine hunter. Would free up the Type 23 (later Type 26) frigates for fleet protection the future Type 31s for lower end duties. Could be… Read more »

farouk
Guest
farouk

Steve wrote:
“That’s a fair point. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than extra frigates and means we dont necessarily need to have ships stationed here ready to shadow Russian ships encroaching on our waters. The P8 can easily be armed with Harpoons and I’m assuming we could integrate NSM “

Why aren’t you the Defence minister, because above you make much more sense, in one paragraph than the entire bunch of entitled so called political elites in power.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

Well, I’m pretty happy in my current job but if someone were to offer me the job of defence minister I’d definitely take it!

Cam
Guest
Cam

Is it just a coincidence that Russia’s new deadly heavyweight nuclear armed capable torpedo is called “Poseidon”

Rob
Guest
Rob

Nice to see we are giving our aircraft names again.

Rob
Guest
Rob

Also note that illustration has got UARSSI wrong it should be UARRSI – Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation

James M
Guest
James M

Speaking of UARRSI, it’s a shame we can’t actually refuel these. Or the E3, E7, Airseeker, Voyager, and C-17

Someone really dropped the ball when they ordered the Voyagers without booms, and I hope that mistake is rectified ASAP.

What’s the point having tankers if they can’t refuel half the fleet?

Airborne
Guest
Airborne

To be handed back on the 13th Dec depending who wins the election!

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Lol. Though I agree with the Corbyn defence concern I remember watching him on Forces TV talking of the new surveillance aircraft and more ships for the RN. So I’d expect Posiedon to be safe and the T31s.

As for defence as a whole, remains to be seen. I, like you, fear the worst. I hope I’m wrong.

James
Guest
James

I think that the fact Russia is capable of deploying 10 subs when the whole of nato Europe can only deploy a couple more than that,and at best 6 ssn should be a serious wake up call. Granted it’s probably a one time testing exercise but considering they have more subs than the entirety of nato Europe clearly makes the case for increased asw assets and mpa is the cheapest way to improve this. I’d rather triple the P8 fleet at the expense of a T26 or even some of our amphib capability

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

Totally agree, that in the run-up or during a conflict, the main threat to trade or heavy reinforcements across the Atlantic, involving say Russia, would be the submarine. But to manage the threat or defeat it you need a multi-layered approach. Starting with the SOSUS nets between the GIUK gaps, your own submarines, ASW frigates with ASW helicopters, and maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). Over reliance on one system means you lose flexibility, but also makes it easier for your enemy to develop tactics to counteract it. For all the benefits of the MPA, it has one major flaw and that… Read more »

James
Guest
James

Just so the owners of this website know, this site is compromised, constant security warnings Everytime I visit this site, and the script appears in mandarin before loading. Something is seriously wrong