@@RJM1011 You're not the only one, but I blame the company not the UK government. The program was a disaster from start to finish. You can't expect the UK gov to fund a giant turd polishing exercise indefinitely.
Wanna know what’s crazy, this plane is built by the public and what I mean by that is I for example worked on the Rear wing and Front wing today while never being employed by the military. You can work on the plane too in Renton!
Procuring the US mk54 torpedoes for our aircraft is the most effective least riskiest option for the UK. Adapting Stingray would have involved unnecessary risk and cost. The UK defence budget isn't a bottomless pit of money, tough decisions have to be made.
We could always just pay the Americans to be our Armed Forces as well, which would be a lot cheaper than maintaining our own, if you think £ is the deciding factor in everything. Maybe we should become its 51st state as well, that'll be even more "cost-effective"?
@@Horizon344 We have limited financial resources in the defence budget, we cannot develop and produce every piece of equipment that our military forces need. We have to be careful how we spend our money, because we don't want another SA80, MRA4 or Ajax debacle. Or may you think it's worth throwing billions at UK manufactured equipment regardless of the cost and quality.
@@5taunch The sonar buoy helps with many things, including targeting. Also, the signal received by the buoy, from a submarin is compared with the system database and it is possible not just to make the submarine clasification, but even identification. But in this case, they wanted to collect data about the torpedo from aircraft to surface and underwater trajectory. Also, surely the torpedo has sensors to measure the impact angle and force on sea surface. P8 is in fact an Boeing 737 and its launch speed and altitude is different than previous MPAs used by UK.
@@1zanglang No i haven't which is why I say it may have been necessary but not a huge leap forward. Had it been a full on training mission with a hidden target etc etc then that would be more noteworthy
@@peterchapman4729 It was the first ever when RAF launched a torpedo from P8 Poseidon aircraft. It was a test run. What is so hard to understand? It is of common knowledge that when new equipment is introduced into service or use, it has to be tested. It is part of the operating procedure developement, BEFORE it is admited to operational use. The training you were talking about, follows these trials. Probably, the next run would be with an functional torpedo, but with exercise warhead, in order to test its functionality. Hope you get it. Regards.
@@1zanglang I quite agree and I understand perfectly that it is a necessary step to operational capability and I'm glad they posted this news. My only point was that step was somewhat over sold in terms of its significance.
Umm... You may have not been in the loop, so you are to be forgiven but... they actually did this back before World War II. Again, if you weren't there you may not have heard about it, but you may want to read a couple of books on the subject just to be sure.
Yeah, right. They had P8 Poseidon MPA in the WW2, isn't it... You may not been in the loop, so you're forgiven but for every new type of antisubmarine aircraft, there is a first ever weapon, torpedo or missile, or sonar buoy launch event. And every time the procedure is significantly different from previous type of aircraft or weapons. So your sarcasm has the value of a small hole into the ocean waters...
@@1zanglang It's just the way it was presented it made it sound like the whole darn concept was new to them. Of course it wasn't, but back in the pioneering days they would drop torpedoes from anything that flew to see what worked, without making quite this sort of fuss lol.
@@denniseldridge2936 The fuss is about the platform. The excessively praised P8 Poseidon. Many nations have P3 Orion quad turboprop MPAs. The military industrial complex wants to sell as many as possible "militarized" old Boeing 737s worldwide, to replace the old P3s, so it is strongly advertized, not only by maker but also by first clients which bought it. Surely, they do this for a good discount on their purchase.
"Pleasure", utilizing ordnance being designed to kill was the wrong word to use, unless you're a psychopath. Where are these RAF officers being educated that they talk like this without any sense of judgement? Also overly-reliant on American made kit again from the weapon to the plane, rather than developing our own industrial capacity.
You’re looking a bit too far into it mate, it was a pleasure because its a new bit of kit and he’s the first in the whole raf to do it, wasn’t even an armed torpedo you can calm down
I take it you mean the MRA4. The aircraft that didn't work, that wasnt safe to fly, would have cost an unknown amount of time and money to fix and would have cost a fortune in support costs to maintain a fleet of just 9 bespoke aircraft.
The one MRA4 that flew but was never fully kitted was 'better'? Hmmmm ..... And the earlier versions were flying coffins well past their safe serviceable lives. This wasn't 'politics' it was a hard nosed and right decision to close the money pit and scrap the £9 Bn pile of crap
I agree and had BAE been allowed to be build new airframes rather than regurgitate the old ones. Never mind it's gone.... Still we have Stingray which is superior to the MK45. If only we had a something that could actually fire it.
@@captainbuggernut9565 Stingray mod1 whilst still effective, will be replaced in the future. The BAE Future Lightweight Torpedo hopefully, which promises to be a lot lighter and far more capable.
@@MontytheHorse ...for a secret psychopath perhaps!! I fully realize what serving in the military encompasses but to express actual "pleasure" in discharging a weapon is totally weird. It's normal to develop proficiency in the skill for work's sake but "pleasure" is an odd word there. Stay on your meds, Monty.
As the UK lacks any long range bombers and as we have seen this week with Covid Joe's Afgan shit show the USA will let the UK down. Can these aircraft carry any other types of guided bombs or missiles ?? Thank you for the video thumbs up and shared. :)
Covid Joe? Remind me, who was in charge for most of America’s response to Covid? Whose administration signed the Doha Accords and released lots of Taliban fighters?
I have no doubt that Boeing, the Pentagon and the RAF have properly risk assessed this aircraft for Maritime Patrol. However, part of me says that if I was going to patrol hundreds of miles offshore at low altitude in a naturally hostile North Atlantic environment, I would much rather have at least one more engine along with me for the ride.....🛬
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
Looks like he had the red arrows as a wingman.
Yes it does ??
Well played guys 👍keep up the great work that you are doing much love ❤️✌️
So next time that 50 a day wreck of a Carrier from Russia comes down the channel belching fumes and rust we can sink it in one! :-) easy peasy!
If it doesn't sink of it's own accord you mean lol
The smoke that rust bucket kicks out can literally be seen over the horizon. Constantly looks like the ships on fire.
Those gosh darn Russkies
Good one.. We are going to get P8 to replace the P3.. thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿
Please don't show this to Michael O'Leary, I don't want to be dropped out the floor on my next holiday.
Long live the nimrod
Yes sad I and thousands of GOOD UK workers were laid off. I was nearly made homeless yet again thanks to the UK Gov. :(
@@RJM1011 MRA4 program was a farce. It should have provided the RAF with a very capable aircraft, but the way the program was executed was a joke.
@@tjp353 Yes I know I was laid off by cunts and was nearly made homeless ! :(
@@RJM1011 You're not the only one, but I blame the company not the UK government. The program was a disaster from start to finish. You can't expect the UK gov to fund a giant turd polishing exercise indefinitely.
Your video might have explained why the RAF required the assistance of "international partners" to drop an item of luggage from a converted airliner.
So we dropped a torpedo from an aircraft we know can drop a torpedo. Cutting edge stuff RAF.
Good to see the RAF get this advanced ASW capability back. Will need these to hunt Russian subs
Naaaah m8
Hopefully the RNZAF will be getting the P-8 Poseidon in the near future to replace our ancient P-3K Orions.
How many Poseidon aircrafts has the U.K's Royal Air Force?
9
This would be good (and possibly the real reason) to drop UUVs.
Compro 4 unidades para a força aéria brasileira
Please torpedo the next Russian submarine in our waters! Then simply say "sorry didn't know you were in our waters". I would 😉
You would be dead from a nuclear missile. You can’t attack subs because of their origin. My son is from Russia and I love that fact.
Let's get back Hong Kong. Liberate the people in Hong Kong.
Should be a Naval asset
Love the 783 as a chasis for the poseiden project however I think a A322 would of been a more fitting choice.
Why?
The p8 is an existing and mature design now.
You can’t really use an Airbus if you’re Boeing
Wanna know what’s crazy, this plane is built by the public and what I mean by that is I for example worked on the Rear wing and Front wing today while never being employed by the military. You can work on the plane too in Renton!
Why does the U.K not produce its own aircraft anymore? What a waste of talent and ability.
Procuring the US mk54 torpedoes for our aircraft is the most effective least riskiest option for the UK. Adapting Stingray would have involved unnecessary risk and cost. The UK defence budget isn't a bottomless pit of money, tough decisions have to be made.
We could always just pay the Americans to be our Armed Forces as well, which would be a lot cheaper than maintaining our own, if you think £ is the deciding factor in everything. Maybe we should become its 51st state as well, that'll be even more "cost-effective"?
Many smaller countries manage to integrate their own weapons…
@@Horizon344 We have limited financial resources in the defence budget, we cannot develop and produce every piece of equipment that our military forces need. We have to be careful how we spend our money, because we don't want another SA80, MRA4 or Ajax debacle. Or may you think it's worth throwing billions at UK manufactured equipment regardless of the cost and quality.
@@TT-hd3zi which other country that has purchased the P8and has decided not to purchase the mk54 torpedoes as well.
@@michaelsalt4565 Why can Sweden make its own fighter aircraft but England can't?
And there was a sonobuoy as well. To monitor the torpedo I guess and mark the entry point.
I think the sonar bouy helps with targeting
@@5taunch The sonar buoy helps with many things, including targeting. Also, the signal received by the buoy, from a submarin is compared with the system database and it is possible not just to make the submarine clasification, but even identification. But in this case, they wanted to collect data about the torpedo from aircraft to surface and underwater trajectory. Also, surely the torpedo has sensors to measure the impact angle and force on sea surface. P8 is in fact an Boeing 737 and its launch speed and altitude is different than previous MPAs used by UK.
@@1zanglang Shooting from the hip I see . .
The P8 is the best maritime patrol aircraft by far. The US really knowns how to design weapons. Crazy to think the P8 is getting the LRASM.
Inexcusable not an Airbus A321!
Huh? Are you mad at Airbus since they don’t offer a maritime variant?
They could target communist war ships in the South China Sea.
Junk.
Hmmm so you flew to a pre arranged spot and dropped a dummy torpedo. This may have been necessary but hardly a milestone.
What do you know... Have you ever stepped into an MPA or touched a torpedo? I doubt.
@@1zanglang No i haven't which is why I say it may have been necessary but not a huge leap forward. Had it been a full on training mission with a hidden target etc etc then that would be more noteworthy
@@peterchapman4729 It was the first ever when RAF launched a torpedo from P8 Poseidon aircraft. It was a test run. What is so hard to understand? It is of common knowledge that when new equipment is introduced into service or use, it has to be tested. It is part of the operating procedure developement, BEFORE it is admited to operational use. The training you were talking about, follows these trials. Probably, the next run would be with an functional torpedo, but with exercise warhead, in order to test its functionality. Hope you get it. Regards.
@@1zanglang I quite agree and I understand perfectly that it is a necessary step to operational capability and I'm glad they posted this news. My only point was that step was somewhat over sold in terms of its significance.
Umm... You may have not been in the loop, so you are to be forgiven but... they actually did this back before World War II. Again, if you weren't there you may not have heard about it, but you may want to read a couple of books on the subject just to be sure.
Yeah, right. They had P8 Poseidon MPA in the WW2, isn't it... You may not been in the loop, so you're forgiven but for every new type of antisubmarine aircraft, there is a first ever weapon, torpedo or missile, or sonar buoy launch event. And every time the procedure is significantly different from previous type of aircraft or weapons. So your sarcasm has the value of a small hole into the ocean waters...
@@1zanglang It's just the way it was presented it made it sound like the whole darn concept was new to them. Of course it wasn't, but back in the pioneering days they would drop torpedoes from anything that flew to see what worked, without making quite this sort of fuss lol.
@@denniseldridge2936 The fuss is about the platform. The excessively praised P8 Poseidon. Many nations have P3 Orion quad turboprop MPAs. The military industrial complex wants to sell as many as possible "militarized" old Boeing 737s worldwide, to replace the old P3s, so it is strongly advertized, not only by maker but also by first clients which bought it. Surely, they do this for a good discount on their purchase.
Wow, so heroic, so yummy, bomb dropping turds............
Cry more.
@@EthanfromEngland- Svck more cox :P
get your play doh out and go to your safe space
"Pleasure", utilizing ordnance being designed to kill was the wrong word to use, unless you're a psychopath. Where are these RAF officers being educated that they talk like this without any sense of judgement? Also overly-reliant on American made kit again from the weapon to the plane, rather than developing our own industrial capacity.
How much should the UK spend on defence? Currently the plan is 2.3% of GDP. So which other budgets you would cut funding to pay for defence.
You’re looking a bit too far into it mate, it was a pleasure because its a new bit of kit and he’s the first in the whole raf to do it, wasn’t even an armed torpedo you can calm down
The human race is one big collective psychopath
@@noodles169
Well I am part of the human race and I can assure you that I am not a psychopath. Are you?
Nimrod was better ! Politics.
I take it you mean the MRA4. The aircraft that didn't work, that wasnt safe to fly, would have cost an unknown amount of time and money to fix and would have cost a fortune in support costs to maintain a fleet of just 9 bespoke aircraft.
if you could find 2 that was the same dimensions maybe we could still be flying around in a 50 year old aircraft hunting subs
The one MRA4 that flew but was never fully kitted was 'better'?
Hmmmm .....
And the earlier versions were flying coffins well past their safe serviceable lives.
This wasn't 'politics' it was a hard nosed and right decision to close the money pit and scrap the £9 Bn pile of crap
I agree and had BAE been allowed to be build new airframes rather than regurgitate the old ones. Never mind it's gone.... Still we have Stingray which is superior to the MK45. If only we had a something that could actually fire it.
@@captainbuggernut9565 Stingray mod1 whilst still effective, will be replaced in the future. The BAE Future Lightweight Torpedo hopefully, which promises to be a lot lighter and far more capable.
You had the "pleasure" of dropping a torpedo from a warplane?? Odd way to describe firing a weapon.
Why? Sounds normal to take pleasure in a job well done.
@@MontytheHorse ...for a secret psychopath perhaps!!
I fully realize what serving in the military encompasses but to express actual "pleasure" in discharging a weapon is totally weird. It's normal to develop proficiency in the skill for work's sake but "pleasure" is an odd word there.
Stay on your meds, Monty.
@@puirYorick Do you have any idea of just how tiresome you are?
@@haitolawrence5986 You're welcome.
As the UK lacks any long range bombers and as we have seen this week with Covid Joe's Afgan shit show the USA will let the UK down. Can these aircraft carry any other types of guided bombs or missiles ?? Thank you for the video thumbs up and shared. :)
No this is an ASW / ASUW asset, you have Typhoon for bombing stuff.
@@FirstDagger Yes but the Typhoon is only short range !
@@RJM1011 Typhoons have the range of a refueling aircraft plus a few hundred miles.
Joe who? Joey Afghan?
Covid Joe? Remind me, who was in charge for most of America’s response to Covid? Whose administration signed the Doha Accords and released lots of Taliban fighters?
I have no doubt that Boeing, the Pentagon and the RAF have properly risk assessed this aircraft for Maritime Patrol. However, part of me says that if I was going to patrol hundreds of miles offshore at low altitude in a naturally hostile North Atlantic environment, I would much rather have at least one more engine along with me for the ride.....🛬