UK's final P-8 Poseidon delivered

[Slater]

Presumably all arrived on schedule?

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/uk-receives-final-poseidon-mma

[Sierra Mike Sierra]

I guess so - that's why Germany also orderd 5 of them as an "interim solution" until the planned Maritime Airborne Warfare System that shall materialize in a joint endeavor with France becomes available in the unforseeable future...

[spruecutter96]

3 hours ago, Slater said:

Presumably all arrived on schedule?

That would be an absolute first in the history of military-procurement... also a first if they were delivered for the originally-agreed budget.

 

Chris. 

[canberraman]

9 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

That would be an absolute first in the history of military-procurement... also a first if they were delivered for the originally-agreed budget.

 

Chris. 

Not sure that that is necessarily true.  The P-8 is an in service and successful aircraft with the USN, for which as an overseas customer we are buying off the shelf.  The problems usually set in when we change the spec, look for add ons, or replace some of the US kit with home produced bits.  In this case the P-8 is virtually identical  to the US Navy platform and the price quoted by the manufacturer should have been a fixed cost.  

 

Mark

[junglierating]

Right then time to buy some extras I reckon or....we could jump on the European project just for stamps 🤔

[Lord Riot]

Are nine enough?

[junglierating]

1 hour ago, Lord Riot said:

Are nine enough?

Ah I thought it was five..my bad...9 meh depends doesnt it ....I'm sure a round dozen would be nice to have but could the money be better spent elsewhere? 

[John B (Sc)]

I like the way the modern RAF manages to make three 'Squadrons' out of nine aircraft.  Is it only me that thinks this is a slightly absurd way to operate.  Admittedly 54 Squadron, as the OCU, will mostly be operating the simulator(s) etc., and presumably 'borrowing' an aircraft when required.

 

Rather more admin and bumff than operational capability, and  a great way to ensure more senior officers can justify their expensive existence.

 

And no 54 - once a great  ground attack and fighter squadron.   Hmm. At least 201 and 120 have long maritime histories.

[Agent K]

39 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said:

I like the way the modern RAF manages to make three 'Squadrons' out of nine aircraft.  Is it only me that thinks this is a slightly absurd way to operate.  Admittedly 54 Squadron, as the OCU, will mostly be operating the simulator(s) etc., and presumably 'borrowing' an aircraft when required.

 

Rather more admin and bumff than operational capability, and  a great way to ensure more senior officers can justify their expensive existence.

 

And no 54 - once a great  ground attack and fighter squadron.   Hmm. At least 201 and 120 have long maritime histories.

 

To me, at least, it seems sensible, as you say they will all take aircraft from the pool of 9 as required, and for which there should be a reasonable amount of synthetic training.

 

Irrespective of whether it's 1, 2 or 3 squadrons, or 1 squadron and 3 flights (they will rarely ever deploy all 9 at the same time) there will still pretty much be the same amount of personnel required, and of the same rank, as nowadays as you will know the ranks don't indicate the position being held. Looking at the cost of the aircraft and infrastructure set up, I'd suggest it would be approx $2 Billion so compared to your proposition, which I don't believe holds, the costs of an extra S/L or two vs. F/L's in a single squadron set up would be negligible.

 

I've often thought, that to provide more flexibility and keep more squadrons alive there should be more squadrons of fewer aircraft as again, deployments are rarely full squadrons anyway, so instead of a 15 aircraft or whatever Typhoon Squadron, , create three 4 or 5 aircraft squadrons? My thoughts and happy to be convinced otherwise.....

 

Agreed that 54 does seem out of place in the maritime/ISTAR environment.. but it's still alive I guess.

 

 

[Roland Pulfrew]

3 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

Are nine enough?

No. 

 

1 hour ago, John B (Sc) said:

I like the way the modern RAF manages to make three 'Squadrons' out of nine aircraft.  Is it only me that thinks this is a slightly absurd way to operate.  Admittedly 54 Squadron, as the OCU, will mostly be operating the simulator(s) etc., and presumably 'borrowing' an aircraft when required.

 

Rather more admin and bumff than operational capability, and  a great way to ensure more senior officers can justify their expensive existence.

 

And no 54 - once a great  ground attack and fighter squadron.   Hmm. At least 201 and 120 have long maritime histories.

However, in this case, it’s not about the number of aircraft, it’s about the size (number of personnel) of the Sqns concerned, the size and location(s) of the task and the future sustainability of the Force.

 

Firstly, 54 Sqn is not the P-8 OCU, but the ISTAR Force OCU. It provides personnel to all ISTAR types in service and, at present, the P-8 element is but one flight of 54.  I don’t know how the plans have changed over time, but there was (and probably still is) a big enough task for a dedicated OCU for the P-8, just as there was going to be for just 9 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. 
 

Next you have the number of crews per squadron and the number of people per crew. This is not some small once great ground attack Sqn with 20 aircrew - 20 aircrew on the P8 is 2 1/4 crews (by the way 54 has been the ISTAR OCU for over 15 years (over an 1/8 of its operational history) - roles change, at least the number plate still exists), so a significantly larger management, training and coordination burden.

 

Finally, if you want people to become experts in a role and provide the future leaders and trainers of a particular type/force, you need to offer (some of) them opportunity. The opportunity to move to the OCU, to get promoted within the Force and maybe one day become the ISTAR Force Commander, and you can’t do that from a single sqn, the opportunities just don’t exist.

[Blacktjet]

1 hour ago, Agent K said:

so instead of a 15 aircraft or whatever Typhoon Squadron, , create three 4 or 5 aircraft squadrons? My thoughts and happy to be convinced otherwise.....

 

 

Serviceability! Each 3/4 a/c squadron would constantly be trying to borrow airframes from other squadrons or declaring to be nonoperational. Added to that, from a cynical point of view, I suspect government would ask why so many airframes were required if squadrons could manage with 3/4 and cut the numbers. 

[John B (Sc)]

Thanks Roland Pulfrew, some useful information there.  I was aware that roles change, wasn't aware that 54 had been the 'ISTAR' OCU for so long.  In such a small service now, I do worry about the diminished opportunities and options for personal development compared to the (relatively) recent past..  In that regard, I wonder whether a change from the long established two year tour system might be helpful. Is it rather too short in the modern world? 

 

Agent K, on costs; really, that argument has been (mis-) used by the MoD for so long it has whiskers.  As a taxpayer I have seen some of the cost excesses, embarrasments  and silly cream-offs etc. Suffice it to say it is clear there are more efficient ways.    Be efficient with the small amounts and it aids efficiency with the large ones . 

The aircraft will all be pooled anyway, for servicing so any separate squadron identity is for 'esprit de corps' competitiveness or whatever you want to call it.   I can't help feel it's a little pathetic with such a small force.  Impressive/depressing how few Poseidons have replaced so many Nimrods - yes I know there were not many MR4As being built; the same argument held there. The oceans are still very large and nine aircraft must mean a large reduction in our intended coverages.

 

Ah well, enough of the real world angst.

I wonder how long before  we get a mainline manufacturer 1/72nd Poseidon, 1/144  mainline injection kit should be straightforward and soon, but I bet we have to wait a while for the larger scale. 

[Lord Riot]

As a long time enthusiast, some may say obsessive of RAF aircraft I actually find it deeply depressing that so many famous old squadrons will almost certainly have disappeared forever.
 

Will we ever see the tiger or phoenix on an RAF jet again? All the history and memories and sacrifices the people made serving on those squadrons, now just a standard hanging somewhere. I know we can’t keep them all, but there is still the Russian threat,  (eg Ukraine situation) terrorists in hot dusty places, and unrest around the world, surely we could do with a few more aircraft and squadrons.

 

It’s sad really how the decimation of such a great Air Force mirrors one of my other great loves, wildlife, and the 50% loss of wild bird numbers since I was born.

 

 

[XV107]

Although 54 is currently serving as the OCU, I believe that the debate as to whether there'll be a third Poseidon-only unit with an OCU function hasn't quite concluded yet.

I suspect that the answer will be '120, 201 and 54' when the question is 'which RAF Squadrons operate the P-8?', but suggestions that 42 Sqn might make a reappearance were certainly being bounced around about 12 months ago and haven't entirely gone away (although my source for that is probably a bit out of date now).

 

In early 2020, 22 Squadron's numberplate was still being spoken of as a possible OCU 'plate (think Beauforts and Ken Campbell VC, plus the maritime aspect of its SAR role), but the opportunity to bring it back earlier was taken with its allocation to the JHC OEU.

[There had been a debate over the right numberplate for the JHC OEU, but the leading contender as an alternative to 22 - 225 - didn't have a squadron standard, and the decision to remove the 'R' suffix from OCUs/OEUs meant that the rule about current squadrons needing to have a standard kicked in]

 

53 minutes ago, Lord Riot said:

Will we ever see the tiger or phoenix on an RAF jet again? All the history and memories and sacrifices the people made serving on those squadrons, now just a standard hanging somewhere. I know we can’t keep them all, but there is still the Russian threat,  (eg Ukraine situation) terrorists in hot dusty places, and unrest around the world, surely we could do with a few more aircraft and squadrons.

 

A previous OC 56(R) did ponder trying to get the Lightning F3 scheme painted on the tail of a Sentinel to mark the squadron's anniversary, but concluded that the chances of him getting permission ranged from 'Not on your nelly' to 'Er... nice idea, but, no'.

74 isn't that far off reappearing, in reality - since 19, 20, 23, 25 and 92 were the fighter numberplates ahead of it and are all now in use (12 & 20 non-flying and air traffic/airspace management related; 23 space operations; 25 Hawk and 92 - Air Warfare Centre tactics unit - I think that 5, 43 and 111 are the only ones with greater seniority and an air combat role association.

 

 

[Slater]

Has the door closed firmly on any future UK P-8 purchases?       

[Agent K]

16 hours ago, Blacktjet said:

Serviceability! Each 3/4 a/c squadron would constantly be trying to borrow airframes from other squadrons or declaring to be nonoperational. Added to that, from a cynical point of view, I suspect government would ask why so many airframes were required if squadrons could manage with 3/4 and cut the numbers. 

 

Yeh you're not wrong! as somebody working in aviation management and a close family member as a manager in Typhoon production, I see we've a good number of Christmas trees out there.....

[Roland Pulfrew]

On 1/12/2022 at 5:04 PM, John B (Sc) said:

Thanks Roland Pulfrew, some useful information there.  I was aware that roles change, wasn't aware that 54 had been the 'ISTAR' OCU for so long.  In such a small service now, I do worry about the diminished opportunities and options for personal development compared to the (relatively) recent past..  In that regard, I wonder whether a change from the long established two year tour system might be helpful. Is it rather too short in the modern world? …..

 

…..I can't help feel it's a little pathetic with such a small force.  Impressive/depressing how few Poseidons have replaced so many Nimrods - yes I know there were not many MR4As being built; the same argument held there. The oceans are still very large and nine aircraft must mean a large reduction in our intended coverages.

John, completely agree on the tour length thing, and I understand that command tours have gone back up from 24 to 30 months. Problem is, if you increase the length any further, you reduce the number of slots available for the career minded to demonstrate their abilities. 
 

On numbers of P-8s, when you consider that there was supposed to be 21 Nimrod MRA4 replacing 35 Nimrod MR2 and the operational task hasn’t really changed, then …….

[junglierating]

11 hours ago, Roland Pulfrew said:

John, completely agree on the tour length thing, and I understand that command tours have gone back up from 24 to 30 months. Problem is, if you increase the length any further, you reduce the number of slots available for the career minded to demonstrate their abilities. 
 

On numbers of P-8s, when you consider that there was supposed to be 21 Nimrod MRA4 replacing 35 Nimrod MR2 and the operational task hasn’t really changed, then 

And then there is long range SAR.....for those in peril on the sea etc.

Edited January 19, 2022 by junglierating

[Lord Riot]

I guess ‘enough’ is the number that would enable to the RAF to meet its commitments while allowing for maintenance and tech issues, etc.

 

Perhaps during an increase in Russian sub activity in the North Atlantic, whilst there’s also a long range SAR task south of the Scillies and an ongoing commitment to a NATO exercise in the Med, while yet another perhaps is visiting the US for an exercise. 
 

Of course I completely understand where you’re coming from regarding bean counters, unfortunately. It’s those who really annoy and frustrate me. They seem to tie our services hands behind their backs. They cope because they’re so good, but it must be increasingly difficult and frustrating. 

[junglierating]

Point of note ....bean counters are just doing their job on behalf of the duely elected Parliament....so ultimately children its in the hands of the electorate (you) 

Obviously defence was of some interest to the public during the last elections just not in the top ten areas of interest...just sayin