It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Taranis is born the bae's + partners new UAV

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:30 PM
this was coverd on northwest tonight a bbc regional news program ,

not seen any threds on it yet so feel free to correct me

makes me think now were going the way of the UAV will we still have people flying aircarft in the future,

no risks of dead crewmen + extreem g-force, hundereds in 5 to 50 mile mile tracks patroling the skies,the news said they will be ableto pick up life forms from miles away,so u wouldnt evan know they were there!

i see these thing taking over, u will have those with UAV v manned fighters perhaps, and surely a computer will lock on and destroy the less capable human controled aircraft,

but i only see this hapening till anti gravity is developed then the pilots return!

as this is prob the sub forum with the most trust worthy posters id value everyone elses opinions on this (feel free to include none BAE UAV's)

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ashwhy]

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:32 PM
Unfortunately if you are dealing with anything that flies there is always a limit to g-forces. At the speeds that these things fly at, the 100G turn that everyone is so exited about will literally fold the aircraft in half...even at a third of those Gs.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:42 PM
I think the one thing that will ensure human dominance is instinct. Computers can always have faster reflexes, and reaction times. They can do more g's and all of this stuff. But theyre only as good as theyre programed to be. They cant really learn. Once they can then it will be a problem, but until then theyre stuck with what they have unless we upgrade them.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:49 PM
Found it and was not connected...sorry to delete this but its not what your talikng about.

Cheers, DK.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:05 AM
I have read that the Taranis will be the same size as BAE Hawk, and thus one of the largest UCAV's so far flown. Does this suggest more than a mere tachnology demonstrator perhaps? Might BAE be about to repeat the trick they pulled with the Herti 'demonstrator' and offer it for full production shortly after it flies? This, if it happened, might actually put BAE ahead of the game in terms of operational UCAV's.

Alternatively, am I reading too much into this?

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:07 AM
I wonder if the technology is now moving so fast that the UK should dump the F35 and just go straight for the UAVs.

That would be an interesting move!


posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:36 AM

Originally posted by paraphi
I wonder if the technology is now moving so fast that the UK should dump the F35 and just go straight for the UAVs.

I doubt this would ever happen. They went through a lot of trouble to get access to all that they needed with the F-35, and suddenly they pullout of a multi-billion pound project...? its very unlikely. Besides, I think this technology still needs to be proven. It still has some way to go yet before a country suddenly decides to ditch its pilots in favor of a computer program.

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:53 AM
started a thread a week or so ago but but it didnt go anywhere.

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:38 AM
i also see QinetiQ are involved,dont know that much about them apart from they do satalites,but it seem they have their fingers in quite a few pies

im sure the MOD would love to save a bob or too by with drawing from the JSF ,but it would be too emmbarasing and its involvement is too deep now,

god help us when computers do think for them selfs,I recently saw a horizon program a bbc documentry saying how we are 30 or so years off acording to boyles law till computers supass the human brain,real terminator stuff!

didnt realise what the UNIbomber was about till i watched this,1 guy said in 100years if AI turns out to be manefolent he maybe considerd a hero!

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:38 AM
I cannot find it any where,
but im going to add this because it rang a bell in my head.

There was a thread about the first wave of UCAV's from BaE, and a poster stated they had seen them way before the first announcements were made. Then one got released. I cannot find it, but its that 'size of a BaE Hawk' line thats ringing bells in my head.

I am sure I saw that on ATS first that BaE Hawk line.

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:52 AM

Its a little heavily covered so as to not give alot away, but here is a released piccie of a taranis ucav.

And under the related links on the right is a cgi piece of taranis in flight.

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:15 AM

Originally posted by truttseeker
I think the one thing that will ensure human dominance is instinct. Computers can always have faster reflexes, and reaction times. They can do more g's and all of this stuff. But theyre only as good as theyre programed to be. They cant really learn. Once they can then it will be a problem, but until then theyre stuck with what they have unless we upgrade them.

Instinct doesn't beat numbers.

If two threats come at you in _perfect synch_ from 2:30 and 9:30 you have to be able to turn twice as fast as they EACH do, just to stay in the game.

The only thing which will save manned airpower from swarming systems is the laser and then only because the first generation systems will still be so large that 'might as well man up' doesn't make that big a difference.

Nor is the thought process inherent to air to air tactical maneuver all that sophisticated.

Around every airframe, friend or foe, is an envelope bubble which shrinks with aspect and speed and signature value for each weapons system likely to be employed against it.

Navigating to a point where his bubble overlaps your weapons system is simply a matter of if-then-else stacking vector math subprocesses until you find the the one which plays out soonest, with the highest threshold SSPK. If you at the same time run a /defensive/ equivalent you can further state how long (on an optimized performance path through the sky) before YOU are in a similar position to the threat weapons systems.

If X reaches threshold .7 before Y reaches threshold .55 SSPK, go for X. At which point you call the sort on X over IFDL and all the other shooters pick a different target UNLESS, one of them can get there before you do and then the target list morphs again.

Of course not every instance is offensive so if you or one of your robot squadron mates reaches a position where they hit a zero sum survivability before countershot on threat X altogether a quick call can cause other elements to engage on sub-optimal 'fire for (pscyhological) effect'. And with HOBS weapons especially, it becomes fairly simple to shoot the advantage threat off.

Indeed, I would put the creation of a synthetic replacement for all-round human vision as being 100 times more important than any element of AI integration within the airframe tactical mission processor.

In terms of performance, what will really aid the robotic weapons platform will be two things:

1. Dual Axis Maneuver.
Even if it's only 15 and 7G, it will so vastly speed the rate of engagement as to blow manned (postive only) single-axis platforms right out of the water as well as provide the ability to generate whacky apparent positioning versus 'intended' maneuver status. It will equally have a very large effect on missile proportional logic as you cannot lead as far on a target which can snap back against the turn (without banking).

2. Signature Value.
A typical A2A UCAV will likely weigh less than 3,000lbs and thus be able to get away with _very_ small wings and a fuselage designed to an absolute minimum of body height. Say 15-20ft long and 10ft in span with a 2-3ft frontal elevation. Absent conventional tails (which may fold up for landing or be replaced by SSDs or all moving tiperons) at more than a few hundred feet, there will be no possiblity for a human to hold visual contact and even augmented systems will have a hard time tracking the vehicle in any but planview.

With these and conventional RFLO as a given, we could design a system today (like a HiMAT/X-31 hybrid) which would so radically outperform any manned system as to be utterly untouchable by them in close in combat.

At which point, it comes down to using the UCAV the same way a hunter uses dogs to flush game. If the threat launches early enough to beat the UCAVs, it will face a scenario in which it will either be obvious as a discrete radar target separate from the main (friendly) raid packages. Or be utterly handicapped in it's emissions from targeting the drones at ranges where a dense missile volley might significantly attrite the dogs. Either one buying the threat aircraft a standoff face shot from BVR supporting leashholders.

If the threat waits to flush their QRA birds until the last moments, the drones will be in among the 'fighters' like wolves among the sheep and -at best- you will be trading 10 million dollar UCAVs for 30-40 million dollar F-16 or JAS-39 type 'dogfighter' threats.

For the drone, successful mission accomplishment simply means closing on a threat until optical systems recognize the sky-backdrop silouhette as discrete from only a few other platforms with similar span and heat sources (i.e. There may be 100 different trucks but only 3-4 medium fighters that 'could be an F-15', thus you can afford much more detailed models of each for point:point rejection).

At which point it either kills or bypasses said target.

Where MITL driven tactics -may- come into matters is in establishing dominant geometry position from before the merge using 'football playbook' type tactics ala so-

Wherein, again, once you have simplified the "Fire at one of us, BVR and we will dogpile you like maddened animals from outside your sensor cone. Try to blow through and we will convert on your large-signature and blow you away from visual range." elements of decision inherent to microsignatures and very high degrees of on-board maneuverability, the specifics of tactical intuit are limited in terms of what a conventional threat can do without compromising itself early or late.

As usual, the air power services /vastly/ overplay the 'accomplished warrior' degrees by which they dominate the threat as justification for investing yet more money in systems and synergies approaches by which they secretly crutch-up the severely limited abilities of flying monkey inhabited platforms.

In this case, they have actually created a great danger to our forces however in that small numbers of highly capable shooters cannot be everywhere at once and are themselves highly vulnerable to saturation tactics. By reestablishing the red baron air approach to fighter sweeps on the bleeding edge (or beyond) EA protection and radar coverage, you generate a system more likely to find rogue threats and to engage them decisively before they are _mixed in_ with other merged-plot radar tracks in a manner for which today's HOBS capable ISRM class makes nearly a coin toss for survivability.

Will we get there? No. But only because even fighter pilots are smart enough to realize that the _very instant_ you sacrifice the top of the glamour missions to robotic supplementation, you make ALL the other missions (which are in some ways harder to do) equally subject to review.

And such would be the end of the Sky Knight conspiracy to waste funds on baby-onboard airpower that fails utterly to do its job.


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:55 AM
A short clip here from sky news with a few images of this UAV


would have liked to see mores footage of it personally but I suppose that will come in time.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:58 AM
hmmmm wonder what its specs are?

new topics

top topics


log in