The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
P8 numbers are only one facet of BAMS when discussing the narrative of replacing the entire capability provided by the P3’s.It is disappointing to read of the shortfall in U.S. requirements for Poseidons. In terms of the Pacific, l wonder what the shortfall would be? It is becoming apparent that U.S allies may need to look much more realistically at what future defence requirements actually means for them. I am sure there are those in the military and intelligence communities doing the sums and raising the red flags. Are the decision makers listening? Can Australia play a greater role in the Pacific, militarily, than it already does? I am sure Australia's current fleet of Poseidons may already be stretched and may not be able to help plug the gaps left by the U.S. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me would be able to enlighten about Australia's tasking of it's Poseidon's? Is there a possibility of having 3-4 Australian Poseidon's semi - permanently assigned to and operating out of a U.S. Pacific base where there is a shortfall? Or does Australia have the capacity to purchase, crew and support extra Poseidons if the need is indeed there?
The proposed 117 P8 platforms are complimented by G550 Gulfstreams, RQ4 Global Hawks and 68x MQ4C Tritons.
Further apart from Australia and Britain, Tritons have also been proposed for India and Germany.
Given that a P8 can cover nearly double the area covered by a P3 I would opine that the aforementioned “shortfall” does not exist.