Military Review

British Air Force replenished with fourth P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft

30
British Air Force replenished with fourth P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft

The Royal Air Force has added the fourth new generation P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The plane flew from the United States and landed at Lossiemouth Air Base in Scotland on November 3, the Air Force said.


Thus, the British Air Force already has four aircraft, which received the British designation Poseidon MRA1 out of nine ordered under a contract concluded in 2016. All aircraft are supplied under the Foreign Military Sales program. The total cost of developing and delivering aircraft for the British Air Force, including training, infrastructure and maintenance, is estimated at £ 3,7 billion.

The first Poseidon arrived in the UK on February 4, 2020, the second on March 13, 2020, and the third on October 14, 2020. Delivery of the remaining five aircraft is expected in 2021. The aircraft will be part of the 120th and 201st Air Squadrons of the British Air Force.

On April 1, 2020, the British Air Force announced the achievement of the Poseidon MRA1 initial readiness for combat use. The aircraft should reach full readiness for combat use in 2024.

The Poseidon MRA1 is to be part of the UK's nuclear deterrent, along with two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The main task is tracking and tracking Russian nuclear submarines.

P-8A Poseidon - a new generation patrol anti-submarine aircraft, created on the basis of the Boeing 737-800 passenger airliner. The aircraft is equipped with an AN / APS-137D (V) 5 airborne radar station and the AN / APY-10 radio intelligence system. In the internal compartment of the armament there are sonar buoys designed to detect submarines at great depths, free-falling and depth bombs, as well as Mark 54 torpedoes. Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (designed to protect the aircraft themselves) can also be mounted on the outer pylons of the aircraft and anti-ship missiles Harpoon.
Photos used:
Lossiemouth
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. credo
    credo 5 November 2020 15: 28 New
    0
    This is an example of a sober approach to their expenses and income - they bought modern aircraft from the United States, and they sell products of the last century with outdated characteristics to Ukraine and its like.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 5 November 2020 15: 42 New
      +5
      Quote: credo
      This is an example of a sober approach to their expenses and income - they bought modern aircraft from the United States, and they sell products of the last century with outdated characteristics to Ukraine and its like.

      This is also an example of the expansion of the sales market .. Here it is constantly narrowing in our country and the "patriots" shout why do we need Ukraine, why do we need Belarus, and Armenia and Azerbaijan do not need nafig .. And meanwhile, this is a sales market, if we are in market relations we live and play by their rules ..
      1. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z 5 November 2020 15: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Svarog
        This is also an example of expanding the sales market.

        Even more will monitor the adjacent seas and oceans.
        This is both protection, since military equipment, and data exchange.
      2. credo
        credo 5 November 2020 15: 50 New
        -8
        Quote: Svarog
        Quote: credo
        This is an example of a sober approach to their expenses and income - they bought modern aircraft from the United States, and they sell products of the last century with outdated characteristics to Ukraine and its like.

        This is also an example of the expansion of the sales market .. Here it is constantly narrowing in our country and the "patriots" shout why do we need Ukraine, why do we need Belarus, and Armenia and Azerbaijan do not need nafig .. And meanwhile, this is a sales market, if we are in market relations we live and play by their rules ..

        Probably you are not aware, but Russia is one of the three leaders in exporting products there only in Ukraine. The same is true for Belarus. So your information is wrong. In Russia, too, they perfectly understand and are looking for simpletons like Ukraine, which by its actions destroys its economy and sits down on everything imported.
        1. Svarog
          Svarog 5 November 2020 15: 56 New
          11
          Quote: credo
          Probably you are not aware, but Russia is one of the three leaders in exporting products there only in Ukraine.

          Look at the dynamics ..
          In 2019, the trade turnover between Russia and Ukraine amounted to 11 453 973 533 US dollars, decreasing by 23,56% (3 529 977 796 US dollars) compared with 2018.

          Russian exports to Ukraine in 2019 amounted to USD 6, a decrease of 619% (USD 364) compared to 337.

          Russian imports from Ukraine in 2019 amounted to USD 4, a decrease of 834% (USD 609) compared to 196.
          So your information is erroneous. In Russia, too, they perfectly understand and look for simpletons like Ukraine

          If you look at the figures that I cited above and the dynamics, you will understand that they do not understand anything THERE ... and they do not undertake ... Ukraine is increasingly torn away from Russia, both economically, politically and militarily ... Ukraine was profiled .. to put it mildly .. And meanwhile, it is 40 million people.
          1. credo
            credo 5 November 2020 16: 07 New
            -8
            Quote: Svarog
            Quote: credo
            Probably you are not aware, but Russia is one of the three leaders in exporting products there only in Ukraine.

            Look at the dynamics ..
            In 2019, the trade turnover between Russia and Ukraine amounted to 11 453 973 533 US dollars, decreasing by 23,56% (3 529 977 796 US dollars) compared with 2018.

            Russian exports to Ukraine in 2019 amounted to USD 6, a decrease of 619% (USD 364) compared to 337.

            Russian imports from Ukraine in 2019 amounted to USD 4, a decrease of 834% (USD 609) compared to 196.
            So your information is erroneous. In Russia, too, they perfectly understand and look for simpletons like Ukraine

            If you look at the figures that I cited above and the dynamics, you will understand that they do not understand anything THERE ... and they do not undertake ... Ukraine is increasingly torn away from Russia, both economically, politically and militarily ... Ukraine was profiled .. to put it mildly .. And meanwhile, it is 40 million people.

            Let's start with the fact that the union republics, together with the Warsaw Pact countries, blinked back at the end of the 90s of the last century, and so far no one has clearly been able to formulate an answer about how this could have been avoided. Everything revolves around assumptions and "deep" inferences that are not supported by real practice.
            There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped - the sanctions of the US and the EU in 2014 deprived some of the freeloaders of Russian money, and Russia began to quietly raise some industries, which were left to the so-called. "partners.
            As for the dynamics of trade turnover between Russia and Ukraine, a lot depends on the adequacy of the Ukrainian politicum, and he has problems with this, and this is why our trade is jumping up and down.
            1. Svarog
              Svarog 5 November 2020 16: 30 New
              +5
              Quote: credo
              at the end of the 90s of the last century and until now, no one has clearly been able to formulate an answer about how this could have been avoided

              You naively argue .. How to avoid, those who were falling apart knew perfectly well .. but they did not destroy the USSR for that ..
              And it was easy to avoid this, it was necessary to share with the newly formed "elite" And to form pro-Russian parties .. Only now Yeltsin discussed and reported every action of his with Clinton, and Clinton clearly did not want the USSR 2: 0 .. And Yeltsin's follower is doing the same indistinct policy ... in relation to post-Soviet countries ... And he cannot lead another, his dependence on the West is prohibitive, but they could not give birth in 30 years ...
              There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped - the sanctions of the US and the EU in 2014 deprived some of the freeloaders of Russian money, and Russia began to quietly raise some industries, which were left to the so-called. "partners.

              What specific industries have we got up from their knees .. can you tell? Engines if only they began to make at the Yaroslavl plant ... only I don't know if they have already done it or not, I remember that year they could not yet .. The industry is too loud ..
              As for the dynamics of trade turnover between Russia and Ukraine, then a lot depends on the adequacy of the Ukrainian politics,

              You offer the "patient" to solve his problems himself .. Patients need to be treated, and sometimes forcibly .. But who will only allow ..
            2. maktub
              maktub 5 November 2020 16: 30 New
              +2
              The main trade between Ukraine and Russia falls on the LPR, the rest of Ukraine trades with Russia through mainly Belarus and offshore pads.
              Putin only recently lifted the sanctions on three "packaging" enterprises unilaterally. Import substitution probably does not work for "packaging" materials laughing
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 November 2020 15: 57 New
      -2
      Quote: credo
      This is an example of a sober approach to their expenses and income - they bought modern aircraft from the United States, and they sell products of the last century with outdated characteristics to Ukraine and its like.

      He-he-he ... the purchase of Poseidons by Britain is just an example of miser pays twice.
      For before this purchase, the limes launched a program to create their PLO aircraft (21 machines, then reduced to 12, then to 9), completely made two machines - and to save the budget, they closed the program due to the absence of the need for PLO aircraft (no goals).
      £ 3,6 billion for an excavator.

      And a year and a half after the destruction of their PLO aircraft, the British began to run around the world in search of someone who would sell them such aircraft (the "Russian threat" has returned). Even the Japanese were considered as suppliers - but in the end the United States was chosen.

      Although, taking into account the refusal of the British (due to the same notorious economy) from catapults on their AB and the rise in prices for the only possibility of the F-35B - here it would rather be worth saying that sucker always pays. smile
  2. Tsoy
    Tsoy 5 November 2020 15: 50 New
    +1
    By the end of 21, 4 more cars will be received. Plus an option for 6 more aircraft.

    For the life of me I can’t remember where I read that the British bought only aircraft without weapons. We wanted to integrate our own, but the business stalled. So now these are reconnaissance aircraft without the possibility of striking. Maybe, of course, I dreamed about it, or old age makes itself felt, but I'm sure that I read such information somewhere. Probably wrong.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 15: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: Choi
      the British bought only aircraft without weapons.


      They usually do that. They save. The logic is that if there are prospects for an armed conflict to quickly buy more weapons from the United States, but for now they keep the peacetime staff and buy more equipment. They also have ships that are not equipped with weapons.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 5 November 2020 16: 04 New
        -1
        They usually do that. They save. The logic is, e


        Well, I don’t know ... Maybe this is the logic. They live on the island. Blitzkrieg need not be afraid.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 16: 09 New
          +1
          Yeah, and sea communications cannot be blocked. And conflicts do not start quickly.
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 5 November 2020 16: 09 New
      -3
      Quote: Choi
      For the life of me I can’t remember where I read that the British bought only aircraft without weapons. We wanted to integrate our own, but the business stalled.

      What, "great" British scientists "did not pull to create their own?
      1. LifeIsGood
        LifeIsGood 5 November 2020 16: 23 New
        0
        It is more likely that the American Lobby in Britain works much more successfully and efficiently than the British one in America. laughing
  3. Bez 310
    Bez 310 5 November 2020 16: 40 New
    +6
    What wonderful anti-submarine aircraft!
    And they are discussing some kind of trade ...
  4. Bez 310
    Bez 310 5 November 2020 16: 40 New
    +2
    What wonderful anti-submarine aircraft!
    And some are discussing some kind of trade ...
  5. ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 5 November 2020 17: 23 New
    +1
    Good planes, but why did they wind up their program? Brita is increasingly addicted to the import of weapons
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 November 2020 17: 44 New
      0
      Quote: ZEMCH
      Good planes, but why did they wind up their program?

      Women with reduced social responsibility, sir! smile

      The British regularly get absolutely enchanting shoals with savings in the fleet. Save money on payments - got the Invergordon mutiny. They saved on the first "Queen" - no money, no aircraft carrier, no coastal aviation. We saved on the catapult on the second "Queens" - we got a rise in the price of the F-35B.
      Moreover, the passion for economy of politicians interrupts even the instinct of self-preservation. One of the British prime ministers (EMNIP, David Cameron) seriously advocated the refusal to build a second "Queen" - despite the fact that elections were on the way, and the cancellation of the construction threw a total of tens of thousands of people onto the street, and just in those areas which were important to the ruling party. Party members had to enlighten the prime minister, who also noted that refusing to build PoW would cost the treasury nearly £ 700 million more than completing it.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 5 November 2020 17: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        refusing to build a PoW will cost the treasury nearly £ 700 million more than completing it.

        Capitalism however wink
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 November 2020 17: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: ZEMCH
          Capitalism however

          Nah - that's the wisdom of their Lords of the Admiralty. They, mindful of the refusal to build the first "Queen" (CVA-01), agreed to absolutely horse fines for breaking the contract for the construction of the second "Queen". In general, they did everything possible to complete the construction of new ABs, it would be cheaper than to abandon them. smile
          1. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 5 November 2020 17: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Nah - that's the wisdom of their Lords of the Admiralty.

            good
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 5 November 2020 18: 00 New
        +2
        The Britons spend on the army in proportion to the state of the economy.
        There is no megalomania or imperial breakdowns.
        The economy has been downright lame in recent decades,
        and the military budget is being cut mercilessly.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 November 2020 18: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Britons spend on the army in proportion to the state of the economy.
          There is no megalomania or imperial breakdowns.
          The economy has been downright lame in recent decades,
          and the military budget is being cut mercilessly.

          The fact of the matter is that the imperial manners remained - but there is no money. As a result, they try to build a Rolls-Royce from Mini Cooper and Dacia parts. smile
          Imperial triviality cuts theoretically good ships in the bud (the same catapult would solve many problems of the "queens" - but "no work on adapting the ships to the use of the catapult after the decision to base the SCVVP on them was not carried outAnd at the same time, the military is wasting £ 3,6 billion.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 5 November 2020 18: 30 New
            +1
            "The fact of the matter is that the imperial manners remained" ///
            ----
            What does the imperial manners have to do with it? smile Britain is an island.
            What should they, tank armies form? Only the fleet and aviation.
            And small special forces.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 5 November 2020 18: 35 New
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              What does the imperial manners have to do with it? smile Britain is an island.
              What should they, tank armies form? Only the fleet and aviation.
              And small special forces.

              The fact that they are trying to build a fleet "as before", having no money for full-fledged ships - and instead of them, they are getting ineffective ersatz. They built an AB with a displacement of a full-fledged striker (more than that of Forrestal) - but with only two squadrons of SCVVP and without a full-fledged AWACS.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 5 November 2020 20: 13 New
                +1
                "the displacement of a full-fledged striker (more than that of the Forrestal) - but with only two squadrons of SCVVP and without a full-fledged AWACS" ///
                -----
                Now such aircraft carriers are a global trend.
                Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain ...
                Previously, the market did not have a normal vertical structure, they did not build
                and small aircraft carriers. The F-35B is on stream - and the demand has fallen.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 6 November 2020 10: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Now such aircraft carriers are a global trend.
                  Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain ...

                  AV of small and medium displacement with SCVVP - yes, I agree, this is a global trend for countries that cannot afford a full-fledged CATOBAR.
                  But why make an AB for basing an SCVVP of 65 tons of displacement? One and a half times more than that of the nuclear-powered Charles with a full-fledged air group? belay
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 6 November 2020 12: 12 New
                    +2
                    Americans have technical overlays. When the first of the British was built,
                    the electric catapult was not yet debugged on Ford, there were problems with it.
                    It's the same with the F-35S. He received initial readiness with great
                    being late.
                    Well, in the Parliament of England and said: "why buy something that is not yet?"
                    "Let's finish building the jump and take the F-35B, which the Marines are already using."
                    "And we will leave a place for the catapult, a reserve for the future."
                    So they did.
  6. ximkim
    ximkim 6 November 2020 11: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Svarog
    Quote: credo
    This is an example of a sober approach to their expenses and income - they bought modern aircraft from the United States, and they sell products of the last century with outdated characteristics to Ukraine and its like.

    This is also an example of the expansion of the sales market .. Here it is constantly narrowing in our country and the "patriots" shout why do we need Ukraine, why do we need Belarus, and Armenia and Azerbaijan do not need nafig .. And meanwhile, this is a sales market, if we are in market relations we live and play by their rules ..

    Weapons are a means of destruction and a very good investment. The USA makes weapons for war and sells them on their own terms. Russia makes weapons for war and friends. Weapons are weapons, but the gift is very expensive.