Boeing P-8 Poseidon News, Production and Delivery Thread

VirginFlyer · Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:34 am

bikerthai wrote:
So does that means the US Navy will get more than the original 117 frames envisioned?

bt

From the Boeing press release linked above:

The contract brings the total number of U.S. Navy P-8A aircraft under contract to 128 and the RAAF total to 14.

V/F

bikerthai · Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:41 am

So it seems thay the P-8A program is a real success because the Navy is actually wanting more of these airplanes that are not forced upon them by Congress just to create more jobs.

And the planes are actually delivered on time and within budget.

bt

bajs11 · Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:59 am

They may will need more
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... s-suggest/

The new facility is being built at the PLAN’s massive Yulin naval complex east of Sanya, which already boasts berthing facilities for the entire range of PLAN vessels, including its aircraft carriers, conventional and nuclear-powered submarines.

Hopefully the RoC will also be allowed to buy a few.

BobLoblah · Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:52 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
So does that means the US Navy will get more than the original 117 frames envisioned?

bt

From the Boeing press release linked above:

The contract brings the total number of U.S. Navy P-8A aircraft under contract to 128 and the RAAF total to 14.

V/F

It's a little more complicated than that, and I don't fully understand it. Per the Boeing orders and deliveries website, the US Navy has ordered 131 P-8As to date, so 140 after this order. If you subtract out the first 5 frames that were for test and development, that still leaves us with 135 (after the new order). So I don't understand where the 128 number comes from. Does anyone else have insight?

Regardless, the US Navy will be getting more than the original 117 frames.

RobK · Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:22 am

There were only 2 frames for R&D.

bikerthai · Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:27 am

Got this from an old thread.

Drewski2112 wrote:
As of 31 March 2012:

United States Navy test frames:
YP001 - BuNo 167951 (cn 34394/2599). First flight 15 April 2009.
YP003 - BuNo 167953 (cn 34396/2814). First flight 05 June 2009
YP004 - BuNo 167954 (cn 34397/2931). First flight 29 September 2009.
YP006 - BuNo 167952 (cn 40594/3324). First flight 18 October 2010.
YP007 - BuNo 167955 (cn 40595/3426). First flight 22 January 2011.
YP008 - BuNo 167956 (cn 40596/3522). First flight 23 April 2011.

Test frames which will never fly:
YP002 - (cn 34395/2722) Static test frame.
YP005 - (cn 34398/3069) Fatigue test frame.
[Edited 2012-03-31 22:08:29]

So there are 6 flying test frames and two non-flying test frames.

Not sure if that would clear anything up though.

bt

RobK · Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:00 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Royal Norwegian Air force, Illustration photo only:

Reg is correct, although truncated. It's 169582, presumably keeping its original USN allocation which they all seem to get prior to their final one.

The first Korean P-8 is in the early 9100s. Also of interest is the first UK wedge tail in the early 9100s too, although not a P-8 of course, but this thread seems as good as any to mention it.

Mortyman · Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:34 pm

RENTON, Washington, April 12, 2021 – The first P-8A Poseidon fuselage for Norway arrived today at Boeing [NYSA: BA] facilities in Renton, Washington, from Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas, marking a major milestone in the production of the first of five Poseidons for the Royal Norwegian Air Force.

Norway is expected to receive its first P-8 later this year. In total, five P-8s will eventually replace Norway’s current fleet of six P-3 Orions and three DA-20 Jet Falcons and will provide advanced capabilities to maintain situational awareness in neighboring waters on and below the surface of the ocean.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-relea ... -117:20887

superbizzy73 · Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:19 am

Just curious (and not to derail the subject), but can the Wedgetail be based on a -800 as well as a -700?

bikerthai · Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:24 am

superbizzy73 wrote:
Just curious (and not to derail the subject), but can the Wedgetail be based on a -800 as well as a -700?

Yes but . . .

The -800 is longer, so there would be an enormous amount of flight rest to re-certify the aerodynamics.

The there may be some structructural changes as well as the underlying structure to which the dorsal is attached is slightly different with the relocation of the section 46/46 joint further aft. The longer mid section also will force you to re-locate some electronic components in the lower lobe.

bt

superbizzy73 · Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:21 pm

Yes but . . .

The -800 is longer, so there would be an enormous amount of flight rest to re-certify the aerodynamics.

The there may be some structructural changes as well as the underlying structure to which the dorsal is attached is slightly different with the relocation of the section 46/46 joint further aft. The longer mid section also will force you to re-locate some electronic components in the lower lobe.

bt[/quote]

Thank you for the answer. I guess with the advancement of electronics, the extra space a -800 fuselage would give wouldn’t really be necessary. Now I’m wondering if the P-8 can be “shrunk down” to a -700. Would that benefit any potential customers that are on the fence for buying a P-8? (This is all theoretical, by the way. I know developmental cost alone would probably negate it actually happening.)

bikerthai · Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm

The P-8 could not be shrunken because the extra length in the 46 section is needed for the bomb bay in order to fit the required ordinance.

The extra length also provide room for growth, which was part of the original spec requirement.

A -700 would reduce weight and extend the range. That was why Boeing pitched the -700 for the JSTARS recap.

bt

superbizzy73 · Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pm

All of that totally makes sense. There’s definitely a reason why they’re designed the way they are. (As a side note, a P-8 “Lite” based on the -700 would be pretty cool to see.)

744SPX · Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:10 pm

Underpowered and under-winged. The only reason for the change to a BS "fast and high" MPA profile was because Boeing was looking for the absolute cheapest way possible to build a maritime patrol aircraft. They took the only aircraft in its inventory that fit the general size requirement, put a square peg into a round hole and in the process somehow managed to rewrite the book on the MPA mission. Unbelievable. The P-1 should be the plane selling like hotcakes. It can go fast (faster than the P-8) and much slower and lower as well. Its better in every possible way. But like they say, money talks and bullshit walks.

bikerthai · Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:53 pm

744SPX wrote:
But like they say, money talks

Of course money talks. Congress would not foot the bill for 100 frames to go to Japan.

Heck what would the bill for 100 P-1 be given its production rate? And what will the product support bill be? And four engines instead of two? We all heard the arguments before.

The BS also tells me that at one time Boeing actually sent an unsolicited proposal to the Japanese gov to drop the P-1 and go with the P-8A even though they knew that the Japanese are stuck but they were hoping that the price difference was enough to overcome the Japanese nationalism and pride.

It could be just bravado, but half a dozen foreign arm forces seems to took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

bt

Oykie · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:32 pm

I’m curious is they at some point will use the 737-8MAX as the platform for the P8 Poseidon. It has more range. Same goes for the Wedgetail.

mxaxai · Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:59 pm

Oykie wrote:
I’m curious is they at some point will use the 737-8MAX as the platform for the P8 Poseidon. It has more range. Same goes for the Wedgetail.

Similar to the A330MRTT and -neo, I doubt that governments will be willing to fund the entire certification effort (and maintainance for two engine types) for a relatively minor boost in capability.

bikerthai · Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:07 pm

The P-8A is at the tail end of it's production run. No-one will foot the Engineering charges to convert over to the MAX.

Now if the US gov decide to buy say 21 Wedgetails, it may be cost effective to bring in the new MAX frame. However it may just be cheaper and faster to build more NG frames to support that effort

The new built NG frames will still be available until the P-8A production ends.

bt

bikerthai · Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:23 pm

Note the cost associated with making the Wedgetail or P-8A from a MAX frame involves more than just the Engineering design.

You will then need to carry along a duplicate set of maintenance manuals for product support. $$$$.

bt

Oykie · Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:29 pm

Thanks for the replied. How many frames is scheduled to be built?

bikerthai · Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 pm

Hard to say. Right now, with the latest Lot 12 contract, the are looking at about 3-4 years out, maybe add a year or two if they snare a couple more campaigns or top up order.

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:33 am

Anyone seen this ?!

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/mystery-us-navy-poseidon

I'm investigating further but clearly the USN are up to their old tricks again! The VPU-2 P3s all fly with fake BuNo numbers matching other "standard" USN P3s but have numerous external differences to prove that they are in fact completely different unknown frames. This P8 above is wearing a fake BuNo and must be one of the existing ones in disguise, for the simple reason that LN 8219 fuselage barrel was still at Wichita in early March this year - the frame which should have become 169564 but was skipped for reasons unknown.

bikerthai · Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:25 am

Not sure about the BuNo number, but 8919 is a rebuilt. The original 8219 frame had a mishap during transport to Renton. The fuselage was scrapped. Instead of re-firing the line number they kept it as 8219 and will deliver it later. Mean while frames with higher line numbers are currently being delivered.

Lucky for Boeing that they have been delivering frames ahead of contractual dates. So even with this mishap, they are able to deliver frames on time per contract.

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:30 am

bikerthai wrote:
Not sure about the BuNo number, but 8919 is a rebuilt. The original 8219 frame had a mishap during transport to Renton. The fuselage was scrapped. Instead of re-firing the line number they kept it as 8219 and will deliver it later. Mean while frames with higher line numbers are currently being delivered.

Lucky for Boeing that they have been delivering frames ahead of contractual dates. So even with this mishap, they are able to deliver frames on time per contract.

bt

What is your source for all this? Please provide supporting evidence. This is all at odds with what is already known for fact.

bikerthai · Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:11 am

Sorry, the only evidence I can point to is the line number of the Norwegian frame that just came in to Renton 8796 which is a much higher number than the frame in question. You can either take the information and see if it make sense or don't.

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:41 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Sorry, the only evidence I can point to is the line number of the Norwegian frame that just came in to Renton 8796 which is a much higher number than the frame in question. You can either take the information and see if it make sense or don't.

bt

Sorry you'll need to explain to me what point you're trying to make here. What relevance is the Norwegian P-8 and what is the significance of LN 8919 ? What is your source for 8219 damaged enroute to RNT and the barrel was scrapped, when the barrel was seen sitting in Spirit's yard just 2 months ago ? I am confused.

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:53 pm

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-special-projects-patrol-squadron-converting-to-p-8a-poseidon/

:scratchchin:

bikerthai · Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:48 pm

RobK wrote:
when the barrel was seen sitting in Spirit's yard just 2 months ago

8219 is YP112 in accordance to Boeing's Customer code. You can see first flight of these customer code on Flight Radar as BOE112 etc.

The 8219 frame you see in Wichita two months ago is the one that is being re-built.

You can surmise that something is wrong with the delivery of YP112 by seeing that YP111 and YP113 have already flown and have been delivered to the Navy.

My example of the Norwegian frame 8796 is to show that Boeing has already gone past 500 line numbers since 8219 was supposed to come through Renton. So why was it still in Wichita two months ago?

As for it being damaged, this I was told second hand. So in a court of law, it is but heresy.

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:12 pm

bikerthai wrote:
RobK wrote:
when the barrel was seen sitting in Spirit's yard just 2 months ago

8219 is YP112 in accordance to Boeing's Customer code. You can see first flight of these customer code on Flight Radar as BOE112 etc.

The 8219 frame you see in Wichita two months ago is the one that is being re-built.

You can surmise that something is wrong with the delivery of YP112 by seeing that YP111 and YP113 have already flown and have been delivered to the Navy.

My example of the Norwegian frame 8796 is to show that Boeing has already gone past 500 line numbers since 8219 was supposed to come through Renton. So why was it still in Wichita two months ago?

As for it being damaged, this I was told second hand. So in a court of law, it is but heresy.

bt

What is your source that 8219 is being rebuilt? If it was damaged enroute then it would become Boeing's problem to sort out at their end. I find it highly unlikely that they'd send the barrel back to Wichita as the train is not configured for that and also find it unlikely that the USN would accept a damaged rebuilt frame either. They didn't send the KLM barrel back to Wichita which was out of spec, they just got Spirit to make a new one. If you bought a new car and it was damaged to the extent that it had to go back to the manufacturing plant to be rebuilt, would you accept it? Of course you wouldn't. You would demand a new one.

None of your claims make any sense and with all due respect hiding behind "I was told this second hand [so can't provide a source]" doesn't wash. Until you can provide verifiable sources to back up your claims I think the above should be discarded.

bikerthai · Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:22 pm

When I say rebuilt, I meant from scratch. I thought when I said the original frame was scrapped this would have been assumed.

And yes this is Boeing's problem, no-one else.

You can disregard the info if you wish. It is not unprecedented here on anet :thumbsup:

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:01 pm

OK this is getting absurd. The barrel has never been seen at Renton so what happened with this alleged scrapped barrel and where did all this happen? The out of spec KLM barrel was seen outside the FAL factory several times. But no sightings of the P-8 barrel ? :scratchchin:

Regardless of what this alleged new/old 8219 barrel is, how do you explain the March 29 sighting of 169564 in flight at Oceana NAS when the "new" 8219 was still just a barrel at Spirit 2.5 weeks earlier on March 10 ?

bikerthai · Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:16 am

I can only assume thay the damage to the barrel was discovered along the way and the barrel was scrapped before entering the Renton production line.

As for 169564, I have no guess to what's going on there. I did not imply it has to do anything with YP112 other than trying to rule out that it was YP112.

bt

889091 · Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:54 pm

Did they actually test fire a AGM84 Harpoon from the hardpoint under the wing?

mxaxai · Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:21 pm

889091 wrote:
Did they actually test fire a AGM84 Harpoon from the hardpoint under the wing?

They would have had to demonstrate it for certification.

bikerthai · Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:13 pm

889091 wrote:
Did they actually test fire a AGM84 Harpoon from the hardpoint under the wing?

https://defense-update.com/20130624_p-8 ... ssile.html

I do not believe the harpoon will fit in the bomb bay.

They have been flying harpoons on missions.

bt

889091 · Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:32 pm

Thanks mxaxai and bt.

Which fire control system would they use? Also, would the weapons release button be the guarded thumb switch on the right hand side of the pilot's yoke in the picture below?

seahawks7757 · Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:28 pm

RobK wrote:
Anyone seen this ?!

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/mystery-us-navy-poseidon

I'm investigating further but clearly the USN are up to their old tricks again! The VPU-2 P3s all fly with fake BuNo numbers matching other "standard" USN P3s but have numerous external differences to prove that they are in fact completely different unknown frames. This P8 above is wearing a fake BuNo and must be one of the existing ones in disguise, for the simple reason that LN 8219 fuselage barrel was still at Wichita in early March this year - the frame which should have become 169564 but was skipped for reasons unknown.

Ha, I was just coming to share this. Lol

bikerthai · Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:27 am

How's this for some wild ass guess.

The frame in question will be one geared to accept the AAS radar that has recently been delivered. The two fairing at the front belly are aero cover for mounting lugs.

Or they could be some secret antenna.

bt

RobK · Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:02 am

bikerthai wrote:
How's this for some wild ass guess.

The frame in question will be one geared to accept the AAS radar that has recently been delivered. The two fairing at the front belly are aero cover for mounting lugs.

Or they could be some secret antenna.

bt

No.

It's ex 168854, 99% sure via 2 independent sources. There are some rumours circulating that 169341 has had the same treatment, It left Jax for Kadena via Bupers and Oceana before Hawaii and Japan, around the same time as "169564" left Jax for Bahrain.

bikerthai · Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:32 pm

RobK wrote:
It's ex 168854, 99% sure via 2 independent sources. There are some rumours circulating that 169341 has had the same treatment, It left Jax for Kadena via Bupers and Oceana before Hawaii and Japan, around the same time as "169564" left Jax for Bahrain.

Not disputing the BuNo. Just pointing out the statement from the article that these may be Special Project Squadron aircrafts. Since the AAS radar is a Special Project, I made the link.

But comparing the belly radone to the AAS radar, doesn't look like they would line up with the potential mounting lugs, so that theory is out.

bt

DBarty · Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:36 pm

The config on 168854 (169564) is a new config altogether, not seen before.
VP-45 are deploying for deployment 21.2, so far picked up as going to Isa, Bahrain (OBBS) & Kadena, Japan (RODN).
The Navy would not send a half-prepared frame on deployment. The config of “169564” was noted as far back as November 2020 & seen in that config (the tail was first logged last August at KNIP) so if it was going to be standard AAS fitted they would have found time to knock it up by now & not send it into theatre half cocked.
As for 169341 that’s standard AAS config and not the same as 854/546, it departed KNIP the same day as 854/546 routeing KNIP>KDAL>KNTD>PHNL>RODN, call signs were 854/564 PELICAN29 with 341 running on PELICAN22.
Regards VP-45 its not surprising they lead the way with attached VPU-2 frames, they were the first squadron to take on the attached VPU-2 frames at RODN and this will be their 3rd deployment with the dodgy boys tagging along, only new point is there going on tour with said dodgy boys (partly) to Bahrain.

RobK · Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:31 am

Is anyone aware of another train crash from Wichita which has apparently resulted in 3 more fuselages ending up in a river ?

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/mystery-p-8

I haven't heard anything about this until now. Any sources?

I'm only aware of the well-docunented derailment from 2014.

bikerthai · Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:23 am

Double post.

bikerthai · Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:24 am

RobK wrote:
Is anyone aware of another train crash from Wichita which has apparently resulted in 3 more fuselages ending up in a river ?

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/mystery-p-8

I haven't heard anything about this until now. Any sources?

I'm only aware of the well-docunented derailment from 2014.

The fuselage lost in the river were all commercial frames. And it is the same derailment as the one you noted.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 20in%20two.

It happened so long ago that it has nothing to do with the frame in question.

Sometimes the simplest answer may be the best.

Anyone considered that what ever happened to 8219 have caused Boeing to miss that delivery. Because of the miss, the BuNo gets out of sequence thus the confusion?

Again I have no idea what is going on with the BuNo number. But for the article to speculate this mystery with the derailment meant the author has not done enough homework.

bt

bikerthai · Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:29 am

By the way, if you look at the derailment photos, you will see the fuselages has the double overwing exists. The P-8A only have the single over wing exit and one large observation window in the forward fuselage instead if all those passenger windows. :sarcastic:

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:05 am

bikerthai wrote:
RobK wrote:
Is anyone aware of another train crash from Wichita which has apparently resulted in 3 more fuselages ending up in a river ?

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/mystery-p-8

I haven't heard anything about this until now. Any sources?

I'm only aware of the well-docunented derailment from 2014.

The fuselage lost in the river were all commercial frames. And it is the same derailment as the one you noted.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 20in%20two.

It happened so long ago that it has nothing to do with the frame in question.

Sometimes the simplest answer may be the best.

Anyone considered that what ever happened to 8219 have caused Boeing to miss that delivery. Because of the miss, the BuNo gets out of sequence thus the confusion?

Again I have no idea what is going on with the BuNo number. But for the article to speculate this mystery with the derailment meant the author has not done enough homework.

bt

You've once again just repeated what I've said. I'm well aware of the production and the previous derailment, Scramble is referring to another derailment which I haven't heard anything about. I am guessing here that the editors at Scramble are not dumb enough to be using a 7 year old story as the explanation for a 2020 built frame. If they are then we've really sunk to a new low in journalism.

bikerthai · Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:54 pm

Well, if they link to the photo of the original derailment as part of their analysis, then one would have to assume that it was the derailment that they were referring to. If not, then it is sloppy journalism.

Seems pretty clear that they meant what they wrote.

What we think now is that this frame with line number 8219 was maybe one of three that was seriously damaged while transported by a train. That train crashed while on its way to Renton, after which three 737 fuselages rolled down a slope into a river. The fuselage of 8219 was assumed to be scrapped but possibly now fake used on another fuselage with BuNo 169564.

And yes if there was another derailnent that would have involved another frame loss, you would have been able to find it on the internet. The Seattle Times would have been on top of that as well.

By the way, the 8219 frame loss was not due to a derailment. It was some transportation mishap that was not revealed to the public. If that article can find out the detail to happened to that frame, then they would have my congratulation.

bt

RobK · Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:55 pm

bikerthai wrote:
By the way, the 8219 frame loss was not due to a derailment. It was some transportation mishap that was not revealed to the public. If that article can find out the detail to happened to that frame, then they would have my congratulation.

bt

"It was some transportation mishap" - yes, the one which you have told us about, being the only source of and "can't tell you anything about it because it's come from an unnamed third party" ..........

Seems to be a lot of sloppy journalism about these days, citing unnamed sources.

bikerthai · Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:10 pm

RobK wrote:
Seems to be a lot of sloppy journalism about these days, citing unnamed sources.

a-neter can be sloppy. We are not journalists.

Bloggers can be sloppy, they are pseudo-journalists.

Trust but verify and believe at your own risk. :bigthumbsup:

bt

WoodysAeroimag · Tue May 04, 2021 1:27 pm

8642 66105 N631DS 169572 737-8FV United States Navy - rolled out of final assembly

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net