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

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 776
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Dahedd wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 16:53 Mate of mine working on them at Lossie still insists they're ideally looking for at least 3 more.

🤷‍♂️
More are definitely needed to my mind - somewhere between 3 and 6 would seem about right.

Obviously i'm not saying we couldn't always do with even more than that, but I imagine between 3-6 is probably the limit of realism, if there's any chance at all.
These users liked the author ~UNiOnJaCk~ for the post (total 3):
Scimitar54RepulseDahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6402
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the existing number closes the capability gap left by the retirement of the Nimrod MR2 and the Cancellation of the MRA4. There is still a capacity gap though is one looks at what the Nimrod fleet was before it left service, that was needed to meet all its commitments.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
KiwiMuzz

Clive F
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

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

Post by Clive F »

Thought I read many moons ago that min number of Nimrods required was 12 but only 9 frames could be modified so that is how we ended with 9. I may be wrong.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 776
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

I’m personally not sure the requirement for 21 MPA ever went away as such. It was what we decided we were prepared to afford that changed things.

Now you can also argue that there is a large Sentinel shaped hole in our overall ISTAR picture too (again a requirement that seems not to have gone away - one cut simply because we aren’t prepared to afford it) and that if this is ever to be filled, a prime candidate for doing so is by using the P-8 fleet (maybe coupled with AAS or equivalent?).

Long story short, I think you can make the argument for a minimum of at least 21 aircraft if we are being honest about our actual capability requirements.
These users liked the author ~UNiOnJaCk~ for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54KiwiMuzz

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

I think your far far more likely to see more protector aircraft than more p8
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
KiwiMuzzJensy

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 3 times
New Zealand

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

Post by KiwiMuzz »

SW1 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 14:18 I think your far far more likely to see more protector aircraft than more p8
Here's a crazy idea - RAF gets nine of the Mariner version, so each P8 can go out with a "Loyal Wingman"...?
These users liked the author KiwiMuzz for the post (total 2):
RepulseDahedd

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

You would probably have the uav doing monitoring and surveillance orbits and only call a p8 out as and when req.

Need to invest in leonardo seaspray and sage pods as well as ultras sonobouy pods though.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
KiwiMuzz

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

I think UAS for sonobuoy pickets is a good idea, with the aim to drop fences of the low cost long life Ultra passive DIFAR buoys. They could police these for hours and if needed drop a multistatic triad on a suspect contact. The problem is that dropping weapons may be a step too far or the performance loss on the Protector in lugging a couple of Stingray around may preclude this. The other issue is that in a hot war where ASW is an issue, the opposition is going to hammer the uplink stations and the geostationary comms satellites needed to operate UAS in the ASW context. That is where the the lone wolf MPA comes into it's own, dropping sonobuoy lines and then prosecuting the attack autonomously of any external support.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 14:18 I think your far far more likely to see more protector aircraft than more p8
We rarely see an uplift in numbers for any platform. In its final years the MR.2 fleet was in a sorry state (much less the near decade long gap). We should probably be grateful for nine.

Protector is also a fairly 'exquisite capability' in capability and cost. Finding a cheaper way to deliver persistent surveillance might be a priority if we want more MPA mass.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 00:53
SW1 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 14:18 I think your far far more likely to see more protector aircraft than more p8
We rarely see an uplift in numbers for any platform. In its final years the MR.2 fleet was in a sorry state (much less the near decade long gap). We should probably be grateful for nine.

Protector is also a fairly 'exquisite capability' in capability and cost. Finding a cheaper way to deliver persistent surveillance might be a priority if we want more MPA mass.
I think there is a couple of fundamental differences with the end of the Cold War to now. The Russian threat is different in that there ssbns don’t need to break out into the North Atlantic anymore because there missile tech has moved on, so they sit under the ice and use the sea space in there own back yard under there air defence umbrella to operate, I doubt we will be sending ships or aircraft up there to find them. China doesn’t have the same options in the pacific as it’s not near sea ice.

There attack subs are now predominantly ssk, because theyve been easier & cheaper to build and maintain than there old ssn’s or any new ones, so that may change were and how we look for them.

We have selected an aircraft because it’s based on civil airliner to aid availablity (ignoring the fact most operators in Europe other than Ryan air are switching to Airbus). Any airline buying a new fleet of 9 such aircraft would looking at having 7 up 16hrs a day everyday but would have a crewing and support structure in place for such, the RAF won’t have. I know there not directly comparable but the point being they should have more aircraft available from a smaller total fleet..
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Jensy

Post Reply