Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Poseidon - Not too long to wait?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Poseidon - Not too long to wait?

Old 7th Aug 2019, 09:02
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
Sorry if already mentioned, but it sounds like the P-8's radar could be quite handy for overland tracking, if say you find your MPA operating over some sandbox for example, never happen would it?

Like a mini- JSTARS. "It is said the sensor is so sensitive that it can even pick up a formation of people moving over open terrain," Tyler Rogoway in 2014 wrote about the APS-149. "Also, the speed of the system's double-sided [electronically-scanned] array allows for multi-mode operations at one time with near-360-degree coverage, meaning that scanning, mapping, tracking and classifying targets can all happen near simultaneously, resulting in massive amounts of data for multiple platforms and decision makers around the theater and beyond to exploit"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-targets-51537
The standard radar for the P-8A is the APY-10 which has been derived from the long family of airborne maritime radars fitted to the P-3. The APS-149 is an externally fitted sensor in a "canoe" beneath the aircraft and is not fitted on a day to day basis.

Not Long Here is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2019, 15:50
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,043
RAF targets April 2020 for maritime patrol resumption

A very speedy introduction into service for Poseidon plus news on the E-7. Article on Flight Global.

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is on track to restore its lapsed maritime patrol aircraft capability within the next nine months, according to Air Commodore Rich Barrow, senior responsible owner for the service’s Boeing P-8 and E-7 acquisitions.

Speaking at the Royal International Air Tattoo on 19 July, one week after the RAF's first P-8A Poseidon airframe had made its flight debut, Barrow said: "From 1 April next year we are going to have UK maritime patrol capability operating from UK soil for the first time in a number of years."

The UK's first two P-8A Poseidon MRA1 crews have already completed training at the US Navy's (USN's) NAS Jacksonville site in Florida, while other members of its personnel have retained maritime patrol experience via Project Seedcorn placements with the USN and other nations over the past decade.

The UK's first aircraft is now having its mission system equipment installed at Boeing's Tukwila site in Washington, having been transferred from the manufacturer's nearby Renton final assembly facility. After supporting initial training at Jacksonville from later this year, the asset will be flown to RAF Kinloss early in 2020, ahead of being moved to its home base at RAF Lossiemouth, following the completion of runway resurfacing work.

"When we get those aircraft we are going to be using them as soon as we possibly can," Barrow says. Missions will include providing protection for the Royal Navy's continuous at-sea deterrent force of Vanguard-class nuclear attack submarines.

The RAF has lacked a dedicated maritime patrol aircraft capability since 2010, when the last of its BAE Systems Nimrod MR2s were retired.

Meanwhile, the service is also making early preparations for its future use of the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control system aircraft from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. Its 8 Sqn will transition onto the 737-based type from the Boeing E-3D Sentry, with initial operational capability planned for the second half of 2023.

Describing the five-aircraft deal – confirmed earlier this year – as a "really pacey programme", Barrow notes: "We couldn’t hang around – it's not a capability gap you can afford to take."

Barrow says the UK's plan is to "stay in lock-step" with lead Wedgetail operator the Royal Australian Air Force with regard to future updates to the E-7 system. "It's a lot smarter if we work together with them and effectively co-fund stuff going forward," he says.

"The capabilities that we will be able to build onto that platform going forward, and the capabilities that its [Northrop Grumman Mesa active electronically scanned array] radar has inherently in it are absolutely huge," Barrow says.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2019, 23:29
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09 View Post
Opportunities on the ground for rejoiners as well per AOC 1 Gp:
https://twitter.com/AOC_1_Group/stat...78123028242433
On top of everything else Boeing...[I ain't going]
A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

weemonkey is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2019, 04:31
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad View Post
Barrow says the UK's plan is to "stay in lock-step" with lead Wedgetail operator the Royal Australian Air Force with regard to future updates to the E-7 system. "It's a lot smarter if we work together with them and effectively co-fund stuff going forward," he says.

Oh god please dont, our RAAF does an OK job of not screwing up procurement to badly. Last thing we need is the RAF whiteanting in their ear with their track record of screwups.
rattman is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2019, 14:59
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by Not Long Here View Post
The standard radar for the P-8A is the APY-10 which has been derived from the long family of airborne maritime radars fitted to the P-3. The APS-149 is an externally fitted sensor in a "canoe" beneath the aircraft and is not fitted on a day to day basis.
Thank you for the clarification Not Long here. Sounds like the APS-149 would be a handy extra to have.

sandiego89 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2019, 16:53
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,267
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
Thank you for the clarification Not Long here. Sounds like the APS-149 would be a handy extra to have.
Has been rumoured as a possible Sentinel replacement
Davef68 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2019, 13:02
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 58



"
  1. the manual trim wheels were reduced in size from Classic to NG, making them harder to turn (less mechanical advantage)
  2. the trimmable horizontal stabiliser size was increased from Classic to NG, but the elevators were not proportionally increased, reducing the relative authority of the elevators; and
  3. the information about the 'bunt and wind the trim wheel' trim recovery technique disappeared from documentation and training syllabi for the NG

The Classics were properly certificated as safe, by the standards of the day"


from


MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures


the questions no one dares consider is just what is the lineage of the Poseidon and what changes have been made to produce it considering the ongoing cf the 737 is turning into..
weemonkey is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 03:19
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
What are you on about? Why are you insistent on comparing the P-8 to the MAX? A little research shows that the trim system is completely different.

I’m failing to see your point. It doesn’t have MCAS. Not even close.

The aircraft has a 737-800 body with -900-like wings. The stabiliser trim system is commensurate with the CG and trimming requirements.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 14:33
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by betty swallox View Post
What are you on about? Why are you insistent on comparing the P-8 to the MAX? A little research shows that the trim system is completely different.

I’m failing to see your point. It doesn’t have MCAS. Not even close.

The aircraft has a 737-800 body with -900-like wings.

The stabiliser trim system is commensurate with the CG and trimming requirements.
Boeing have tried this to the extent of falsifying the certification for the latest series.

Below is a link to the STATS for 737 series.

The differences are clear. Especially the size of the horiz stab compared to the elevator.

What is less so is when the series outgrew the capacity of the manual trim to regain control even using the "yo-yo/unload" technique.

I find it interesting [but not surprising] that there is no information available for the military versions what with their structural changes and various augmentations.

Oh, and I believe mcas is used on the frankentanker, albeit with dual aoa inputs.

So who knows what else Boeing have incorporated. Or not.


Boeing 737 Detailed Technical Data
weemonkey is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 08:32
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Surely because the P-8's are all new builds from scratch at the factory, won't Boeing be fitting them all with the 'Latest and greatest tech' ?

Last edited by The...Bird; 25th Aug 2019 at 13:36.
The...Bird is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 18:30
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Mate, are you suggesting that the P-8A may have MCAS fitted but the USN (and consequently the RAF) have not been informed? Apologies if that’s not the case, but that’s how I read the intimation in your post.

Duncan
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 21:50
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by The...Bird View Post
Surely because the P-8's are all new builds from scratch at the factory, won't Boeing be fitting them all with the 'Latest and greatest tech' ?
Configuration management should preclude that.
2805662 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 22:02
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,494
Lesson 1 at Test Pilot School ;"Do not believe what a manufacture tells you about their product.. You have to prove it.."
or as `Uncle Roger ` would say `Too much time with Rollo Freelunch`.......
sycamore is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 14:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Somewhere new.....
Posts: 239
P8's don't have MCAS. MCAS was fitted to compensate the larger engine fitment position on the 737MAX which was developed to compete with that A320Neo.

P8 = 738.
Stiff Under Carriage is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 16:24
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
Originally Posted by Stiff Under Carriage View Post
P8's don't have MCAS. MCAS was fitted to compensate the larger engine fitment position on the 737MAX which was developed to compete with that A320Neo.

P8 = 738.
Forget MCAS: the point being made is that the MAX accidents exposed issues with the manual trim system, which is similar on both NG (ie P8) and MAX. The R&N thread is well into hamster-wheel territory now, but in the dim and distant past I recall seeing it mentioned that EASA had specific questions over the reduction in diameter of the manual trim wheel from Classic to NG, and the consequent effect on the strength required to operate manual trim under mis-trimmed conditions. It's also fair to say there are questions over the FAA's processes and the 'grandfathering' of airworthiness through the successive generations.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the final reports into the MAX acidents, but despite all that I doubt it will affect P8 much - if only because the NG has not been subject to airworthiness action yet, and even if it were to be in future, the so-called "roller coaster" recovery from a mis-trimmed condition could be added back to the flight manual of a MPA without controversy (maybe not true for an airliner!)

Last edited by Easy Street; 26th Aug 2019 at 17:22.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 00:17
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 844
RAF Rejoiners Event For P-8A

"Our next Rejoiners Event is Wednesday 9th October 2019 at @RAFLossiemouth! We are seeking ex-military personnel for P8 Poseidon mission crew opportunities. See the advert below for details. #NoOrdinaryJob #RAFRejoiners "

RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 09:20
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 629
Is there an age limit? (Oxenos, aged 76 3/4, but with lots of maritime and 737 hours)

Last edited by oxenos; 26th Sep 2019 at 14:07.
oxenos is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 12:54
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,132
Reds at Boeing

Caught this on Instagram Reds posing in front of our first P-8



chopper2004 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 17:06
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 49
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by oxenos View Post
Is there an age limit? (Oxenos, aged 76 3/4, but with lots of maritime and 737 hours)
57 apparently.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/m...eidon_crew.pdf
MATELO is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 18:16
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 629
57 apparently.
What a shame.
Why would a bunch of people who generally fly in formation take an interest in a grey maritime aircraft? Is there a plan afoot to recreate the Grey Ladies (now, sadly, a closed thread)?
If it meant increasing the order to 24, I would be all in favour. Of course that lot would have to bin the gaudy flying suits and wear proper grey ones. With D'Artagnon boots
oxenos is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.