It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

MoD releases Taranis UAV information

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Flyinghaggis
reply to post by _Del_
 


The razzamataz is all very well, but why would we need these things, aren't they they are more likely to make wars easier and more likely to happen? Have we not had enough wars supported by the UK in which our military have been maimed and killed, and for what??
It is an interesting aircraft, but how does it rate compared to existing UAV's , like the ones Raytheon et al have been building and improving and have been in service with the US military since at circa 1998?
Am I wrong in concluding that BAe are in fact at least 15 years( maybe 25) behind Raytheon etc?
Is its real purpose to keep one BAe factory open after the Typhoon orders dry up, paid for by the UK taxpayer?






Its much more advanced than the current Drones (which RAF and BAE have been building and flying for the last 15 years)!

It has a whole new generation of autonomy, its stealth and has a rolls royce jet engine, has self protection suite.




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Whats the gforce limit on drones? How fast can these things turn? Imo in the future these things will be patrolling independantly of people ,using AI . Robocop on steroids



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


OMG one hell of a smooth craft!! proud its come from a British factory, who designed it?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ototheb85
 


British aerospace (Bae)

For a side note, the undisclosed location this was tested from is Woomera in Australia. I made a few references in the Area 51 forum about it being tested there about a year ago.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   

symptomoftheuniverse
Whats the gforce limit on drones? How fast can these things turn? Imo in the future these things will be patrolling independantly of people ,using AI . Robocop on steroids


Maybe once Zaph posts, I dont think this design is for pushing the G force limit, a flying wing is stealthy and fuel efficient, 12g turns (i think) are not in the conops just yet.

The next step is more autonomisity, there is the holy grail, next step, a weapons officer, not a pilot or nav, just an alarm its time to strike and you put a human in the loop. That wont change on assasination missions, but bombing fixed infrastruture, take the pilots out of the loop.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Eh?

Do none of you realise that this thing is going to be flying over Europe surveilling its citizens within about 5 years? Yes. Such a great feat of engineering. Another bloody weapon of mass destruction that's going to kill thousands of children in the middle east and watch every square inch of our continent.

FFS.

You might want to read this: silvarizla.wordpress.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SilvaRizla
 


No, it won't.

Also, the only real, operational, difference between Taranis (or more accurately whatever evolves from Taranis), and a manned strike aircraft like the Tornado, is that Taranis is smaller, cheaper and does not risk the life of a pilot. It is not, nor is it designed to be, fully autonomous.

The RAF has for a long time (since the days of FOAS at least) been looking towards developing not autonomous war drones such as are the stuff of sci-fi nightmares, but rather unmanned weapons-carrying 'slave' aircraft, such as a flight of three of this type of vehicle under the control of a back seater in an accompanying Typhoon which can remain out of harms way while the UAV enters the hot zone.

This means that, unlike launching a missile from beyond visual range, as happens now, which is going to blow up *something* regardless. If the target can be seen to be misidentified or no longer there, no munitions need to be dropped. The smaller stealthy nature of an unmanned vehicle like this increases the chance of reaching the objective unscathed but, if it is destroyed by defending forces, the Sqn leader hasn't got a letter to write.

The rest is pure hyperbolic scaremongering.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Flyinghaggis
reply to post by _Del_
 


The razzamataz is all very well, but why would we need these things, aren't they they are more likely to make wars easier and more likely to happen? Have we not had enough wars supported by the UK in which our military have been maimed and killed, and for what??


It has no bearing on how easy or likely a war is. That is going to be just as much a result of how justified/corrupt a nations leader is as it has ever been.



It is an interesting aircraft, but how does it rate compared to existing UAV's , like the ones Raytheon et al have been building and improving and have been in service with the US military since at circa 1998?
Am I wrong in concluding that BAe are in fact at least 15 years( maybe 25) behind Raytheon etc?


Yes, you are very wrong. BAE, working together with the MoD, QinetiQ and a Rolls Royce, has a long history of UAV work and many of the things they have achieved, were done by them for the first time anywhere in the world. The US has the advantage of a huge defence budget, but there were still enough things they wanted to learn from us that they were willing participants in Project Churchill.



Is its real purpose to keep one BAe factory open after the Typhoon orders dry up, paid for by the UK taxpayer?


That is the purpose of every new project by every manufacturer of anything. Defence is the UK 's biggest currency earner, therefore this project is a means of bringing money Into the country, helping to keep the tax bill down.







posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Found this video also which includes shots of it being carted off in the C-17



I notice from looking at higher res pictures that Taranis seems to already include an internal weapons bay, suggesting it could be developed I to an operational system itself.

Could talk of it merely being a technology demonstrator be a red herring? After all it is virtually a scaled up, fully stealthy development of the BAE Raven anyway, maybe that was the technology demonstrator?

BAE Raven




BAE Taranis




edit on 6-2-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

waynos
I notice from looking at higher res pictures that Taranis seems to already include an internal weapons bay, suggesting it could be developed I to an operational system itself.

Could talk of it merely being a technology demonstrator be a red herring? After all it is virtually a scaled up, fully stealthy development of the BAE Raven anyway, maybe that was the technology demonstrator?


I don't think so. Just a SWAG, but given the weight, size and engine selection I don't think it will have the payload/range to become an operational a/c. It'd be a light strike loadout given the single Adour. It's been flying since August and the longest flight was apparently 1 hour. I think it will have to get bigger to make it worthwhile for production. It would probably work alright in the European theatre if it was a fixed target, but I don't think it will have enough loiter or range for ops in the near east or pacific.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Very true, but this was my thinking, There was a project, more of a study really, within BAE, which remained unbuilt, to develop a supersonic variant of the Hawk 100 series in which the Adour was replaced by an EJ200. Whether this was anything to do with the current ( IMO doomed) effort to replace the USAF T-38 with the standard Hawk I have no idea.

I am guessing there is not so much physical difference between these engines as may be imagined given that 1978's Super Jaguar (also unbuilt) saw the Adours replaced by RB199's and the Typhoon, designed for EJ200's, first flew with RB199's.

Flawed reasoning perhaps, but its all I have



Therefore an engine swap in Taranis may be a reasonable way to create the very type of short range close support vehicle you described, for reduced risk over the battlefield.

Of course its probably all nonsense, but I think possible too. I know that EAP was created with a view to full production in modestly developed form should nothing emerge from the Eurofighter talks, I'm just thinking in parrallels.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I think it's possible. You'd need a larger intake (or perhaps they already designed it with an increased air-flow in mind, but it doesn't look like it). The RB.199 is quite a bit longer/fatter than the Adour -- like the better part of a meter in length. I'm just eyeballing it, but I don't know if I'm seeing the room in it (see that slender extended exhaust? Engine has to be in front of that, obviously). It's theoretically easy to fatten up that bulge and make it higher to accommodate the larger diameter engine, but I think you're going to expose more of the compressor face that way (and change the angles of your RCS spikes. I wonder if they're using an inlet blocker. I didn't pay much attention when watching the video, but I doubt we get a good peak.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Hmmm, EJ200 is only 6 in wider that the Adour, but is 40 inches longer. I am pretty sure that any operational type would have an engine based on this type so perhaps Taranis is too small after all? It's alright getting the engine in, but you still need fuel and weapons too.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Nice job by the Brits...👍

If we have to fight...It might as well be unmanned.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Hi, no_war fans !


Inspiration for a nation

WHAT ???????

What a bunch of sick psychopaths !!!!

Blue skies.


RAB

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Say hello to Taranis then say goodbye,

I have a feeling that Taranis will be used just like Replica to buy a seat at another table. Replica got us into JSF, so Taranis a joint UCAV program?

If the idea is to field around 2030 then the clocks ticking. I'd love Taranis to be scaled up a little and to run with it, a single platform to meet a lot of needs.

But if you look at team Taranis then joint development and future sales are the main thing to deal with not selling a few hundred to the UK to replace Typhoon and buddy up with F35 but thousands of units over the next 50years.

But nice idea a QE carrier with 12 F35, and 25 Taranis and a few helos lovely idea but I have my doubts.

Getting really bitter in my old age :-)

Rich



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

RAB
Say hello to Taranis then say goodbye,

I have a feeling that Taranis will be used just like Replica to buy a seat at another table. Replica got us into JSF, so Taranis a joint UCAV program?


It was an utter disgrace that we didn't carry on into a full development run and production of Replica. Think VLO Buccaneer.


If the idea is to field around 2030 then the clocks ticking.


No, if its a 2030 date Taranis MkII is going to be far earlier. Everything is in place, hence why a test bed got a bigger test bed. If its not in the air as an IOC of 2022 at the latest some ones screwed the pooch. Badly screwed the pooch.




I'd love Taranis to be scaled up a little and to run with it, a single platform to meet a lot of needs.


I feel this deep in my heart. A long winged loitering platform and a surgical strike variant with the current plan form.




But if you look at team Taranis then joint development and future sales are the main thing to deal with not selling a few hundred to the UK to replace Typhoon and buddy up with F35 but thousands of units over the next 50years.


Also, the F35 is leaving a very bad taste in many mouths across the board, and frankly, the technology in Taranis is ours and will forever remain ours to operate and utilise as we see fit. Creech et al will not be getting our lads and ladies for the duration!

As for sales over seas? i'm at a loss as to find a nation outside of the Aussies, Norwegians and Cloggies I'd want this technology being transferred to. Japan and South Korea would be salivating though!


But nice idea a QE carrier with 12 F35, and 25 Taranis and a few helos lovely idea but I have my doubts.

Getting really bitter in my old age :-)

Rich


Long range VLO Maritime Strike. Nicely


12 of these sat in readiness with say, Storm Shadow payloads on the Falklands would also be a nice little payday.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Jet drones are only good for short range combat I suspect these are intended for use on the aircraft carriers the strike fighters will probably just go strait to crop spraying or air shows / museums.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by brianporter
 


I would imagine it's range is more than sufficient. Most modern fighter aircraft have maximum ranges in excess of 1,500 miles, or combat ranges around the 500-750 mile mark and that is with the added weight of the pilot and all the support systems he/she requires.

Also, this is a precursor, not a final design. The operational aircraft that comes out of this project will most likely be larger and, I would imagine, have some A2A refuelling capability, so with that comes extra range. Then tack on the range of cruise missiles like Storm Shadow and you're golden.


RAB

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Well if we use the Hawk as the jumping off point we can guess high subsonic with a range of about 1400miles. Add shadow storm external glue on about another 200mile.

No need the fly fast if no one knows your coming to the party.

Rich




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join