The latest P-8 Poseidon, seven of nine, is due to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in Scotland after being named (the name isn’t Annika Hansen).

The aircraft was recently named ‘William Barker VC’. According to the Royal Air Force here:

“The UK’s seventh Poseidon MRA Mk1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft will be known as ‘William Barker VC’ in honour of the Canadian pilot awarded a Victoria Cross whilst serving with 201 Squadron in the First World War. 

In October 1918, Major Barker was flying a Sopwith Snipe overhead the Western Front when he became embroiled in a dogfight with 15 enemy aircraft.  Despite being wounded three times in the legs and having his left elbow blown away, he managed to control his biplane and disable three enemy aircraft before making a forced landing.”

Seven of the nine aircraft have also now been named.

  1. ZP801 “Pride of Moray”
  2. ZP802 “City of Elgin”
  3. ZP803 “Terence Bulloch DSO*DFC”
  4. ZP804 “Spirit of Reykjavik”
  5. ZP805 “Fulmar”
  6. ZP806 “Guernsey’s Reply”
  7. ZP807 “William Barker VC”

201 Squadron operates the Poseidon in the anti-submarine warfare role from RAF Lossiemouth on the Moray Firth in Scotland.  The RAF Poseidon fleet, which will total nine aircraft, is already providing maritime patrol capabilities working side-by-side with the Royal Navy and other Allies to secure the seas around the UK and abroad.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

62 COMMENTS

  2. I see what you did there, although she still goes by “Seven” in the new Picard series. Anyway enough of shaming myself.

    Great news that the capability is building up. I’m also a fan of how these are being named. Perhaps we could roll that out across other platforms.

        • We could! And it is. “Lusty Friday” soon!

          While we’re at it, let’s raise from the dead old lost regiments by giving sub units or CS CSS Regiments some names rather than just numbers?

          They like rebranding and publicity, well the options would be endless with our history militarily.

          • Hi Daniele,
            Long time ,no blog…
            Here’s another name Captain. Johhnie Walker R.N.,C.B. D.S.O. and three bars. Two claims to fame.(1) as commander of HMS Stork and HMS Starling he was THE U Boat killer of WW11.(2) He was my Dad’s boss right through the war. A good name for a sub hunter I think.

          • Evening lads, enjoyed reading your comments.

            One could also say that it’s good to see No.1 squadron Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) still going strong! From Sopwith Pup to the Poseidon!

            A deffo yes to Johnnie Walker for airframe number 8!

            Apart from Barker, I hope they honour another pilot from the squadron’s history and name airframe number 9, “Warneford, V.C”. The first airman to bring down a German airship.

          • If you can permit me to be a touch flippant…. Johnnie Walker… being a well known whisky too… might need to check if it’s.. Johnny Walker…. with the catchphrase…. Still Going Strong… coukd be apt.

          • Could do!

            On that notion, one (or two?) thing(s) I’d like to see is the return of HMS Hornet and HMS Rooke.

            HMS Hornet was the Coastal Forces base in Gosport.
            HMS Rooke was the name given to HMNB Gibraltar.

            Now, the former of those two is tricky, given the assets have long since closed. Perhaps it’s the perfect name to give to a new building or complex within the existing base. Whilst they have shrunk since their height, Gibraltar’s facilities could be commissioned with ease I would assume, particularly as it’s still referred to as ‘HMNB’ in contemporary texts from both the UK Gov and Gibraltar Gov. With the basing of a River there and increased investment, I’m surprised it hasn’t already happened, if only for political means.

            Oh, and if the facilities in the Falklands could receive a cheeky little ‘HMS Woodward’ rebrand, I’d be very happy!

            Three cheers for Lusty Friday!

          • That’s interesting. On my file I keep I still have the naval facilities as HMS Rooke. I assumed it was still current not expired.

            HMS Hornet, that passed me by wasn’t aware of that. Was that close to Fort Blockhouse or the old SETT?

            I suppose Woodward does sound better than Mere Harbour.

          • I’m pretty sure it’s not current though I’m happy to be corrected by someone if it’s still used. If not, I’d damn well raise the case for it!

            Hornet was located close to Blockhouse, yes. The building and facilities are now Hornet sailing club.

          • I was curious so checked my data base.

            I actually have Rooke as being the RN Accommodation & Admin Centre within HMNB, rather than the HMNB itself.

          • Like you, happy to be corrected but you know I always defer to you on RN matters.😀

          • Yes, that sounds about right from memory.

            However, with the shrinking/consolidation of facilities there and the bases in the UK following a similar convention (Drake, Nelson), it would be nice to see it used for what’s currently there (boat sheds, warehousing, admin, storage).

            Onto planes, sure. I’d support naming A400M/C17/Voyager and other larger aircraft.

        • Yes that’s true. I was aware of that but had forgotten it. Why not name a Warrior “Johnson Beharry” as an example. After what he did to G Brown he will ALWAYS be a hero to me!

  4. Will be assimilating Russian submarines soon, then.
    At the rate of knots Boeing is going with these P-9 deliveries, seems a bit odd how long the E-7s are going to take. I guess its more to do with mission equipment complexity being fitted

    • P-8 are in production so to speak, was as E-7s aren’t so its more of a bepsoke manufacturing process or conversion so takes longer.

    • That’s like comparing apples and oranges.

      Boeing has now produced more than 120 P-8A from one single US production line, it should be working very efficiently by now, and it is.

      On the other hand, E-7A production has been spread across four nations, the UK will be the fifth location.

      The first two Wedgetail for the RAAF were built in the US, the next four here in Oz, for a total of six.

      Same for South Korea (4) and Turkey (4), the first for each was made in the US, then the last three in county. And now three in the UK.

      It’s pretty fair to say that E-7A have been ‘hand built’, rather than P-8A ‘production line’ built.

      Cheers,

        • New or a second hand airframe shouldn’t make any difference.

          Wedgetail is the result of a ‘conversion’, take a commercial B737-700 airframe, strip it down, modify, add all the new components.

          Here’s a video of the first RAAF E-7A during its airframe manufacture and conversion:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpMk9R2vSSM

          Poseidon on the other hand is not a conversion, yes the airframe is based on a B737-800, but it is purpose built from start to finish, in-line production.

  6. Good news but we still need more 🙁 All these merry few can do is provide snapshots of an area, Nuc boats can be 1 side of this during they patrol as not 24;/7 even if P-8 goes back to same area next day Nuc boat gone past and disappearing further away, without enough t-26 to have perm patrol line above or below SOSUS line have no way of keeping tabs on them.

    • For a OOA deployer coming down from the North, you usually find NATO assets get involved from the start, so it doesn’t just fall to the UK to police the areas.

      • I know it’s a team game but Norway only have 6 P-3 being replaced by 5 P-8, i don’t how many US p-8’s are at Keflavik but still North Cape down to SLOC’s is a big chunk of water for 14(13) aircraft to cover, even if they fly a lot with 3 or 4 crews per airframe?
        We have (or will) only have 8 ASW frigates and Norway has 4 and only 15? subs between us and that’s IF everything is operational.
        I just feel the amount of work being expected will lead to hi fatigue rates on the ships/aircraft leading to longer servicing requirements meaning more workload etc – downward spiral 🙁

        • Its not as bad as it sounds, the Danes, Germans and Dutch also get involved, as does the USN contributing both ships and SSN’s.

          It goes without saying that the ‘peace dividend’ saw the draw down of NATO ASW assets to an all time low – a capability only just beginning to be reversed.

          We appear to be setting a lot of faith in drones too, hopefully that faith will not be misplaced, as numbers of ASW assets across the board are far too low with all NATO members, barring the USA.

          • Feel the Danes/Germans will be stretched covering Baltic with their 5 p-8’s and 8 ASW capable ships, the dutch don’t really have ASW capability. But i was forgetting the might French Navy will be there too!

          • There is not much to cover in the Baltic these days,most of what the Russians have is surface units and aircraft, with the odd Kilo class SSK.

            At its height there were only really SSK’s prowling around in there, as realistically its to confined and shallow for SSN ops. That can all be covered by surface assets, and most of the sea is well within range of ASW helicopters, leaving the ASW units to go further afield – ie Atlantic when needed.

          • Hopefully it will be good, i know there are fewer subs but they are quieter which means same size area with less targets but smaller detection areas

          • There subs are quieter but our sonars are more sensitive. We’ve got the edge on them. Their resistance is futile.

        • With you Steve. Germany has just ordered 5 P8s. Are there any plans for a possible another 3 or so for the RAF? Could be money well spent and the delivery time seems to be very efficient along with the maximising pooled logistics, spares, weaponry.

    • I’m still hoping we’ll add the maritime pod planned to be used on the Sea Guardian UAVs for our Protector fleet. Maybe base half of them up at Lossie or Kinloss to cut transit time to the GIUK gap, augmenting P8 operations.

    • Hi Graham – we’ve had some good-natured stramashes on this forum about the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4.
      Nimrod MRA4 was a bespoke solution to the RAF’s needs and in terms of operational performance would have out-classed the Poseidon.
      After a costly and protracted development: to the incredulity of the armed forces, the industry, and the project teams – the MoD cancelled the aircraft when it was finally working, and entering service. To cover up the incoherence of the decision, it was spun that the wings didn’t fit, and the aircraft was a death-trap – all nonsense. It can be argued the MRA4 was simply cancelled because of a short-term expediency in 2010 to deliver savings of £50M per annum from the RAF’s budget.
      In the interests of balance, however, it has been stated on this forum that a bespoke solution brings with it a heavy cost burden – with upgrades to the MRA4 having to be developed and funded by the sole operator (the RAF). But with NATO nations having now effectively standardised on Poseidon – the operational cost-burden of running a small MPA fleet is shared with allies.
      To sum-up: It could be argued Poseidon is a good peace-time MPA, but if you had to go to war you might prefer to have done so in the Nimrod MRA4.

      • Thanks Alan. I am sure that many who worked on MRA4 were devastated and astonished that it had been cancelled, when the capability was excellent, at least 3 aircraft had been mostly or completely built and a key training course for the RAF personnel was days away from starting.

        The Treasury had originally fought BAE’s proposal to build new airframes and forced the rework of existing airframes – a poor judgement call – which lead to the ‘wings don’t fit’ episode, which added cost.

        It meant the end of the British-designed & built military aircraft industry, as we had stopped making Harrier. Embarrassing that France and Sweden can design and build military combat jets in nationally-owned sites – and we can’t.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here