Discussion
Interesting press release about the Taranis drone
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
MartG said:
Interesting press release about the Taranis drone
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
It's as much for the USA as it is for us - drones are big business over there, as is BAE.http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
MartG said:
Interesting press release about the Taranis drone
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
It's much much worse than that, the follow on programme is to spend £120 million working with...... The French!!!! http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
Defence chiefs are reportedly not best pleased, they wanted to partner with the US.
Godalmighty83 said:
Will have to be a mighty impressive hook as well considering the carriers don't have an arrestor system. 
BAE proposed something along these lines:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UXV_Combatant
Actually if you designed a carrier specifically for a UAV it could be a lot smaller than a super carrier designed for manned aircraft. Provided you don't want supersonic performance you could have much lower stall speeds and harder acceleration/decelerations on take off/landings.
Simpo Two said:
This was on BBC news today. A fighter-size stealth drone with a remarkably familiar look.
It was suggested that such a thing was immoral on the grounds it was pilotless. So adding someone who could be killed makes it more moral?
There is a view that risk to your troops limits your aggressive tendencies. So a country who's troops aren't being put at risk in warfare is more likely to initiate warfare in the first place.It was suggested that such a thing was immoral on the grounds it was pilotless. So adding someone who could be killed makes it more moral?
Talksteer said:
MartG said:
Interesting press release about the Taranis drone
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
It's much much worse than that, the follow on programme is to spend £120 million working with...... The French!!!! http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taranis-stealth-dro...
Of course now that they've proven the design, the Government will cancel it and buy something American which they will then cancel later at a cost which would have bought several squadrons of the home grown item........ or maybe I'm being too cynical ?
Defence chiefs are reportedly not best pleased, they wanted to partner with the US.
ITAR makes working with the US a right PITA at all levels. However we have managed it on countless programmes in the past. Personally I would have liked to see us go this one alone... We certainly have the skills to do it "in-house", however as long as military procurement is measured in "how many nurses/teachers/JSA could be paid in a year" spending £1 billion on essentially the future of western military aviation is seen as silly.
Edited by jimbobsimmonds on Friday 7th February 22:58
jimbobsimmonds said:
The problems with working with the French is, simply, they are French and want to lead everything.
I'm not sure it's so much that they want to lead everything, as they want to have something that meets their needs without compromise.jimbobsimmonds said:
ITAR makes working with the US a right PITA at all levels. However we have managed it on countless programmes in the past.
Really? I can't think of a joint UK/US technology demonstration programme where we haven't been held at arms length by ITAR regulations. It'll be interesting to see how the revised legislation plays out, but my experience is that is it often used as a handy way for US companies to protect their IP.jimbobsimmonds said:
Personally I would have liked to see us go this one alone... We certainly have the skills to do it "in-house", however as long as military procurement is measured in "how many nurses/teachers/JSA could be paid in a year" spending £1 billion on essentially the future of western military aviation is seen as silly.
[footnote]
I doubt you could field a competent, operational front line aircraft for £1Bn....
[footnote]
I doubt you could field a competent, operational front line aircraft for £1Bn....
Mave said:
Simpo Two said:
It was suggested that such a thing was immoral on the grounds it was pilotless. So adding someone who could be killed makes it more moral?
There is a view that risk to your troops limits your aggressive tendencies. So a country who's troops aren't being put at risk in warfare is more likely to initiate warfare in the first place.Simpo Two said:
I see the idea. It leaves us with the choice of sending troops who could get killed, or sending robots who can't get killed, and neither is acceptable. Strange times.
Not so strange. Different stakeholders, different opinions. Send in robots and you become a goliath versus the guerilla's David. Get troops killed, and the electorate want you to bring them home...Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff