Boeing P-8A Poseidon (MRA Mk.1) (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Luke jones »

If they did use the Protectors in a network would that mean they would just use whatever sensors they have, or would they have Anti Submarine weapons integrated?? Maybe its too far down the track for any decisions to have been made of course.
It would certainly increase coverage which would be a great thing.


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

I think a more basic approach would be more likely. Money makes the world go round and in this case using the Protectors for Maritime Recce is probably as far as things will go.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Luke jones »

Dahedd wrote:Something like this hopefully

http://defense-update.com/20171114_mq9_asw.html
Thanks

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Only nine of these doesn't seem like enough, how many should the UK be purchasing if the money was available?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Only nine of these doesn't seem like enough, how many should the UK be purchasing if the money was available?
Go look at the original Nimrod MRA4 requirement.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Only nine of these doesn't seem like enough, how many should the UK be purchasing if the money was available?
Go look at the original Nimrod MRA4 requirement.
Thanks Ron, I had already done that and the Nimrod MRA4 was originally supposed to number over 20.

Are the two aircraft comparable?

Does an increase in capability with the P8 make up for the low numbers?

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Well the MRA4 was so great that by 2008 only 9 were needed........

I imagine it is no coincidence that is the same number of P-8s being received. Don't know how long the P-8 production run will be, but it makes the path to increasing numbers easier than it would have been with the Nimrod.

Welcome back kipper fleet.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Only nine of these doesn't seem like enough, how many should the UK be purchasing if the money was available?
Go look at the original Nimrod MRA4 requirement.
Thanks Ron, I had already done that and the Nimrod MRA4 was originally supposed to number over 20.

Are the two aircraft comparable?

Does an increase in capability with the P8 make up for the low numbers?
In my opinion, Poseidon offers less than the MRA4 for the UK.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Luke jones »

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Only nine of these doesn't seem like enough, how many should the UK be purchasing if the money was available?
Go look at the original Nimrod MRA4 requirement.
Thanks Ron, I had already done that and the Nimrod MRA4 was originally supposed to number over 20.

Are the two aircraft comparable?

Does an increase in capability with the P8 make up for the low numbers?
In my opinion, Poseidon offers less than the MRA4 for the UK.
How so Ron???
Isnt P5 the dogs Bo##ocks?
Nimrod was canned a few year ago now what attributes did it have that P8 doesnt/wont?

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

I believe Nimrod MRA4 had an appreciably greater endurance, a greater weapons load (with UK weapons compatibility as standard) and more or less the same sensor fit when compared to the P-8.

However, the decision maker who thought a globally unique fleet of only 9 aircraft, based on (extremely extensive) modifications of elderly, hand-built airframes was a sound economic and sustainable decision should have been taken outside and shot, no matter how capable the end result may have been.

It’s a real pity one wasn’t preserved to park alongside the stuffed and mounted TSR2s though.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Little J »

Also, it had a MAD sensor as standard and the airframe was better at low level flying - at least on the original Nimrod, seem to remember someone on here saying that the MRA.4 wasn't flying as BAE expected.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

So if both aircraft were pretty similar we should be purchasing around 20 as originally intended with the Nimrod programme or would 12 to 15 be ample for the UK's needs?

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

If the project had stayed at 20+ airframes it might have stood a chance. If they had been new-build airframes there may have even been export opportunities, although the market for expensive, high-end MRAs is a small and crowded one.

I get the feeling every flaw that was encountered in testing with the development aircraft has been played up to justify the politically embarrassing cancellation and every success has been quietly forgotten about. However, I maintain that once the order number started to be cut, first to 18, then 12 and finally to only 9, the whole project was dead on it’s feet and it was only political inertia and fear of the embarrassment cancellation would bring that kept it staggering forwards.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by jimthelad »

They could only assemble a maximum of 14. The wing box alignment was an absolute bitch. Of the original 4 airframes sent for the prototype s only 1 was usable and a further 3 had to be pulled off the line.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

Yes, that decision to recycle old MR2 airframes really was a false economy. New build would have been much better, but at that point BAE would have to do a full redesign for modern construction materials and techniques. If you’re having to redesign a DeHavilland Comet why not design an all new aircraft or base the design off a current airliner... And suddenly we arrive back at a Boeing P-8 or Airbus derived equivalent.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Simon82 wrote:I get the feeling every flaw that was encountered in testing with the development aircraft has been played up to justify the politically embarrassing cancellation and every success has been quietly forgotten about. However, I maintain that once the order number started to be cut, first to 18, then 12 and finally to only 9, the whole project was dead on it’s feet and it was only political inertia and fear of the embarrassment cancellation would bring that kept it staggering forwards.
I just don’t think it ever would have been signed off as safe to fly. We were in the immediate aftermath of the Haddon-Cave report and I would argue the mood on airworthiness was very risk adverse. Trying to retrospectively apply the raft of new safety requirements and regulations would have kept the project tied in knots for years. I fear that XV230 still loomed large on its successor and its origins became the killer blow.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by RichardIC »

Simon82 wrote:However, I maintain that once the order number started to be cut, first to 18, then 12 and finally to only 9, the whole project was dead on it’s feet and it was only political inertia and fear of the embarrassment cancellation would bring that kept it staggering forwards.
It was even worse than that. The nine includes two development aircraft that weren’t expected to be brought up to full service standard and become operational.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

RichardIC wrote:
It was even worse than that. The nine includes two development aircraft that weren’t expected to be brought up to full service standard and become operational.
I had a recollection that the development aircraft were to be discarded once development was completed, but I convinced myself last night that ending up at only 7 operational aircraft was a ridiculous, so I incorrectly assumed the development airframes must have been in addition to the service standard airframes. Thank you for the correction.

Just imagine trying to keep that fleet of 7 globally unique aircraft operational over the next 25 or so years, especially if there were any losses!

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Simon82 wrote:Yes, that decision to recycle old MR2 airframes really was a false economy. New build would have been much better, but at that point BAE would have to do a full redesign for modern construction materials and techniques. If you’re having to redesign a DeHavilland Comet why not design an all new aircraft or base the design off a current airliner... And suddenly we arrive back at a Boeing P-8 or Airbus derived equivalent.
Bae wanted to build an Airbus based solution. Not only to get advantage of a new technology airframe but to open up a bunch of export opportunities.

The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.

There's not too many really dumb decisions made in UK defence that doesn't have MoD and/or Treasury fingerprints all over them.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote: Bae wanted to build an Airbus based solution. Not only to get advantage of a new technology airframe but to open up a bunch of export opportunities.

The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.

There's not too many really dumb decisions made in UK defence that doesn't have MoD and/or Treasury fingerprints all over them.
[/quote]

Then we are very lucky to have diligent defence companies such as BAe which always put the needs of the country and military first and are always right.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote: Bae wanted to build an Airbus based solution. Not only to get advantage of a new technology airframe but to open up a bunch of export opportunities.

The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.

There's not too many really dumb decisions made in UK defence that doesn't have MoD and/or Treasury fingerprints all over them.
Then we are very lucky to have diligent defence companies such as BAe which always put the needs of the country and military first and are always right.
Indeed, the UK is very fortunate to have Bae with its rich heritage and its huge contribution to the UK's economy.

Every country on earth would take it over in heartbeat. Of course the UK's government, the MoD and Treasury in particular, run it down at every opportunity. That's the British way. Pathetic.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Ron5 wrote: The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.
Wrong, the MoD and RAF actually wanted the P7. When that was cancelled they were forced into a 'Rod update by the treasury.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote: Indeed, the UK is very fortunate to have Bae with its rich heritage and its huge contribution to the UK's economy.

Every country on earth would take it over in heartbeat. Of course the UK's government, the MoD and Treasury in particular, run it down at every opportunity. That's the British way. Pathetic.
Having had the misfortune of being involved in two procurements with them I wouldn’t trust that company if they told me the sky was blue. I’ll exclude one of their departments from that, they offered me a job so must really know what they are doing........

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by jimthelad »

DS is right. The RAF was to be the lead customer of the P7. When it was cancelled by the USN BAe thn offered 2 designs: a coalition effort based on the A319 and the Nimrod 2000 as the sole bidder. Other bids were the Be200, P3 upgrade, Atlantique 2+, and the A235. BAe was far from philanthropic and during the development nothing short of criminal. They knew from the RAF engineers embedded that the wing boxes would not fit the new CAM wings.

Post Reply