The latest P-8 Poseidon to be built for Britain, the eighth of nine, has now landed at the aircraft’s new home in Scotland.

The RAF describe the P-8 as “a multi-role maritime patrol aircraft, equipped with sensors and weapons systems for anti-submarine warfare, as well as surveillance and search and rescue missions.”

Aircraft number eight was spotted landing in the UK this morning.

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”

The names of the last two have yet to be revealed.

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.

The Poseidon’s comprehensive mission system features an APY-10 radar with modes for high-resolution mapping, an acoustic sensor system, including passive and multi-static sonobuoys, electro-optical/IR turret and electronic support measures (ESM).  This equipment delivers comprehensive search and tracking capability, while the aircraft’s weapons system includes torpedoes for engaging sub-surface targets.

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

64 COMMENTS

  3. I’d say this this is one MOD procurement venture that’s been a success. Just goes to prove when done properly equipment can be ordered successfully. Everything is on time and to schedule which is fantastic news.

    We should be happy we are getting 9 as the cost is not cheap at £3 Billion over 10 yrs. Those advocating double digit buys should consider the figure quoted for just 9 , how many more precious billions if we had 18 ? . Nah We will do alright with what we’ve got and with around 2000 jobs being sustained in the U.K. from this it’s a job well done👍🏻

    I would also wager we will have the best crews and most skilled of any of the P8 operators.
    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

    • The reason the procurement was successful was because it was a US Foreign Military Sales Program managed by the US, not the MOD.
      The US Navy has been flying P-8s operationally for ten years. Why would you think that UK crews would be superior? Totally unnecessary, gratuitous braggadocio.

      • I’m a patriot I promote Great Britain that’s why I say positive things about our amazing armed forces. Just to add to my retort I remember reading (I’m sure some of our more learned contributors will have detail) during P8 training in the states it was an RAF seedcorn crew that came out on top with the yanks trailing on the points table. This is just a fact of life we produce probably the best trained personnel no need to get upset not everyone’s a winner.

        While we are at it US procurement like every other nation on earths isn’t infallible the KC-46 programme hasn’t exactly been a shining success.

        The point I was making was not every foreign military sales gig the MOD have entered into has been a rip roaring success the 1995 8 Mk3 chinook debacle is one example . The MOD could easily have ballsed the P8 programme up the same way had they started adding all U.K. bespoke modifications they didn’t and we have everything on schedule and working.

        so my being positive has provoked a totally unnecessary , gratuitous shitehoose response from yersel son.👍🏻😃

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

        • You do realize we let the Brits win on purpose. Two reasons, we feel bad about throwing you out of the Country a few hundred years ago. Secondly we want you to keep buying our military equipment. 😂😂

          • Aye that must be it😂👍🏻

            🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

          • Ah I was under the impression we didn’t get thrown, just decided to leave as the neighbourhood was getting a bit rowdy!!!!!

          • Aye one tries and on occasion comes oot with more than gobshite bloviating baw bawin. So cheers my man to you and the boy Robbie Blay for the wee note of support 👍🏻

            here’s to the RAF P8 success 👏🏻
            🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

          • Thanks Artist – agree with those sentiments.

            And as a reward for your positive mindset, I recommend we name the eighth P-8, “The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken!” 😀

          • Ha ha appreciated however I’d settle for that ice cream van with big antenna outside my crib that stops me posting links on here being removed 👍🏻😉

            But no matter they can’t stop me Rollin 👋🏻😎

            🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

        • I seem to recollect the RAF always came out extremely well in the annual Fincastle Trophy competitions between the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ. Fincastle started as an ASW ‘depth charge bombing’ competition then morphed into ASW and MPA ISTAR in recent years. Not sure where Fincastle is these days. But yes, RAF crews always were – and continue to be – amongst the best MPA crews in NATO.

    • Id be happy with 1.5-2 billion for 3 or 4 more. If that is possible??. A large part of original budget for 9 aircraft was spare parts, servicing and support contract, training and then huge ammounts of infrastructure changes on the defence establishment ground bases to provide facilities to operate these expensive aircraft.

    • 9 aircraft is a small number – we once were going to buy 27 Nimrod MRA4s (later reduced to that magic number of 9) – so how many do we really need for ‘Global Britain’?
      Still, I agree that it seems to have been a good procurement – MOTS with minimal UK special add-ons, if any.

      • Global Britain doesn’t mean larger Armed Force’s. We already are a global player in many ways other than just defence.

      • I don’t disagree with your point on the numbers I’m just being realistic about the cash flow situation man ,trying to be positive 👍🏻 Positivity it seems draws out the haters ……….. they see me rollin they hatin patrolling and trying to catch me ridin dirty 😎

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

        • Try catch me riding dirty lol. 9 will just have to do just now. Looking at other numbers of things bought 9 feels like a lot as shocking as that sounds.
          When compared to allies it’s an ok number. Hopefully it’s enough to get the job done

          • No.

            Ideally we need more than 9, but if that happens what gives elsewhere deemed not as vital?

            As for Australia, look at the size of the area they need to cover.

    • I’m guessing some of that £3billion included setting up the infrastructure, such the hangar, sqd buildings, improving the runways, aircraft hardstandings and more. So I’m guessing another 9 would be much less than £3 billion.

      • Now I ain’t the man in the mirror but as much as I’d guess your right in your assessment I suppose the more planes then it stands to reason more infrastructure is required ala more cost so on and so forth all I know is the MOD are Simply Red and money has to be spent wisely.

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

  4. I really hope the Anti-ship version of FC/ASW can have an air-launched capability, integrate it on Typhoon, Posideon to replace Storm Shadow in land-attack role and reinstate the air-launched anti-ship mission, if they have long range, then stealth won’t be needed so could maybe be carried externally on F-35.

  6. Just another 12 to go and we’ll get to the original Nimrod MRA.4 requirement…

    If we’d actually gotten MRA.4 on time….we’d have had to start looking for a replacement in the next couple of years, it had a 25 year lifespan and was due to enter service in 2003….

    • another 3 would seem to be sensible at least, our 9 will be worked ‘extremely’ hard.

      I’m sure Boeing will be watching the RAF’s fleet condition with great interest as they notch up the hours and work in some of the harshest conditions any of the global P8 fleet will work in.

      • I wish responders would engage their brains before posting comments asking for “more”, more to do what? The UK is a relatively small nation geographically it’s not Australia, modern systems vastly outperform legacy systems in both range and abilities and we also have drones to perform many low level functions, is it too much to ask for intelligent comments?

        • Indeed. The Sea Guardian mods for Protector are the force multipliers for the P8s, or will be if/when we order them. I’d be very surprised if we ordered more P8s.

        • If we were only protecting the shores around the UK, but we also have Bermuda, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Ascension, Falklands, South Georgia, Tristan, St Helena, Pitcairn. Granted most of the time, they do not need assets like these, but in theory, if the s**t hits the fan, the RAF/RN, would have to respond.

        • Look at a map of the British Isles, then add our zone of economic interest and our NATO Atlantic responsibilities, all of a sudden you are looking at a very large area indeed…

          We dropped the original number to 9 from 21 required, partly because it was based on Russian threat at post Cold War low levels and partly because of the enormous screw up that the MR4A became as it staggered on before finally being put out of its misery.

          In 2021, the Russian threat is rising, as is the potential for future conflict with China, all this should lead to a sensible P8 fleet size of 16 to 18.

          It of course won’t, but three additional aircraft, plus the potential for additional Protectors filling some of the roll would be a huge help in making ends meet.

        • The thing is the P8 can and will be used for more than maritime and ASW patrols. The RAF will be itching to show off the capability. It won’t match the ability of the Rivet Joint or the Sentinel. But its ELINT gear is top notch and with a ground mapping pod (Advanced Airborne Sensor), it could do a passable job the Sentinel does. However, to do these extra roles, requires removing it from its priority tasking of keeping safe the continuous at sea deterrent and maritime patrols. With an extra 3 aircraft, would allow more flexibility with additional tasking. irrespective of using Sea Guardian etc.

          • But it is cheaper to have more of the same type with commonality for spares, training and sustainment?

            So the cost of +3 frames is not +£1Bn

          • Absolutely. No doubt Sea Guardian pods will come along to undertake some of the more humdrum maritime surveillance work but with or without this our 9 Poseidon’s are still going to be worked hard and stretched thin – even more so if we start going down the route of plug and play mods for ISTAR ops to make up for losing Sentinel.

        • It is difficult to determine the optimum number. It is important to balance your point the small UK area against the requirement to project global power, to aid our allies, The current carrier deployment to the Far East by way of an an example.

          I’m no expert in what constitutes the ideal number of P8s. I did note the original declining forecast of the Nimrod MR4 replacements by the MOD, from a original 24 to the current 9 P8S. All guided by cost cutting, not by evaluation of operational requirements.

          This against a resurgent and belligerent China. OneP8 cannot be in two places at once

          • I do appreciate your point. However, it is kind of irritating that basically you are suggesting that the MOD employees are all stupid based on a potential purchase request of 20 years ago. Call me old fashioned but in my profession you are expected to engage your brain in a logical fashion before you open your mouth. Lets look at some of the factors at play which any professional analyst would take into account;
            a) Current tasking
            b) Expected change in taskings
            c) Capability improvements like for like
            d) Capability overlaps with over platforms
            e) NATO/allied work share
            f) Cost implications of optimum package
            e) Alternative package comparisons
            Now taking into account no dramatic changes in a, b & e and dramatic technological changes in c & d. I would be very surprised if a detailed analysis did not indicate for fewer airframes and inclusion od drones in the work share. After all I understand that in the last period of accounting half of the RAF’s operational strikes were performed by drones. I see to reason to doubt that this will not increase to around 75% when dealing with non-peer forces and purely surveillance operations.
            Guys, give up on the “more more more” narrative and the “we did it to save money” brainless repetitive chant. The future is not the same as the past and the UK has one of the biggest defence budgets on the planet. If you think the MOD has a bad procurement record, you should look at everybody else!
            Sorry a bit more than I intended…

          • Quite alright -thank you for the reply. I’d suggest your a, b, e analysis is a littlie flawed, clearly the requirement is increasing? The China issue was certainly not front and Centre as it is now . I see a gap regarding the drones approach. There do not appear to be enough assets to expand their tasking along with existing legacy duties.

            I’m in no way implying the MOD employees are stupid. It is clear to me though that given the long tail of cuts, the primary driver is funding (or a lack of it). I genuinely believe the MOD do the very best they can with what they have.

            From my limited (and very dated) Air Force Ops experience- one aircraft cannot be in two places as once.

            The question stands , is 9 the optimum number?

          • Happy to converse & learn. No forces experience just risk/project management at group level as a consultant. So this is just my humble opinion.
            Back in the day, there were fewer options providing less granularity. Now because of advances in communication, processing power and optionality, there is a vastly superior choice and specificity.
            Where once you had just aircraft and occasional high orbit satellites, now you have Hi & Low Orbit satellites, Hi & Low drones, various under water listening devices and aircraft.
            What has changed most over the past 20/30 years is the processing power to link all these together and to choose the most appropriate asset to investigate and act.
            Again, I would suggest that even if the number of tastings had doubled I would be shocked if you needed the same number of old school assets i.e. airplanes to investigate/act.
            I would also add that we are not alone and assets are now networked/in communication to a degree not possible 20 years ago.
            So whilst I appreciate that it is fashionable in this day and age to bemoan to few and too little spent, actual analysis suggests otherwise….

          • All good and interesting insights -thank you. I for my sin now work in data science! We can both agree that we need nowhere near the same number of assets circa 1990 end of the cold war to d a through job.

            It is encouraging the current government reversed the trend of defense cuts with the first real increase in expenditure since 1990 that is say % of gdp.

          • Remember that hostile submarines have not stood still either. Your air/networked asset may have improved, but so has the opposition.

  7. The good news is it shares more than 98% parts commonality with the 737NG. You can buy parts on the open market and its very easy to maintain anywhere. P8’s operating costs are lower than sentinel due to parts cost alone. A brake job lasts about 400 landings, costs about $9000 on the 737. On the Sentinel/Global it’s $70,000.

    Tires, flaps, seals, pumps, engines.. This will be an even bigger deal as these airplane age.

  8. The project team probably spent years determining that the absolute minimum number of P-8As required to meet the UK’s needs was 15, the bean counters then said “You can have 10, or 9 with torpedo’s, or 8 with torpedo’s and missiles”.

    • A good point Richard.

      I did note the original declining forecast of the Nimrod MR4 replacements by the MOD, from a original 24 to the current 9 P8S. All guided by cost cutting, not by evaluation of operational requirements.

      This against a resurgent and belligerent China. One P8 cannot be in two places at once

      • Yes, the MoD went for the 9 with sonobuoys and US Mk.54 torpedoes. But unlike other buyers such as India and Australia, the UK hasn’t purchased any Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. With all the add on’s, that would have cost roughly an extra £100M for just a dozen missiles.

        • We seem to be only peer force that’s gunna be unable to sink ships. No surface missles on ships or p8 or f35 hhhmmm csn say what want about not wasting cash but no other navy large or small would do this.

  9. Any ex Nimrod drivers/crew out there? Id be really interested in hearing your comments around the P8 numbers. Thanks in advance.

  10. Another 6 UK mil serials have been allocated for possible future P8 purchases.

    Discussed this with our Lusty on here on a P8 thread a few weeks back.

    So here’s hoping.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here