UK Defence Forum

As I understand it when people have been talking about Taranis capabilities and what it brings to the table, they are talking about the Taranis concept rather than the current prototype airframe (which will presumably be one of a series of different prototypes).

alot of interesting bits on that twitter feed.

Predator is the sensible choice IMO. Now do we think the current 10 will also be brought up to the protector standard, scrapped, or stripped for parts? According the gabbys blog the original intention was for 30 systems so it would make sense to keep all of them.

I think it would now be extremely sensible to go down the MPA route with reaper, however with only 20 I imagine they would be fighting for availability for each role. In such a scenario 30 would seem a suitable number, 10 available for MPA, 10 available for ISTAR and 10 in reserve and of course you could chop and change the set up as the situation demands.

Now we hit the naming jungle:

Protector will be networked with Apache E (Guardian) , and at times controlled from one.

The Protector will get re-roled to maritime duty, and guess what it will be called then:
"At a conference at the Royal Navy’s Culdrose base in Cornwall in September, Jonny King, director of General Atomics UK, introduced the concept of a Guardian – the maritime variant of the Reaper – deploying sonobuoys from under-wing pods. Other technology developments that the company is advancing include extended-range wings and external fuel tanks"

Why can't we just do what the French do and call it Reaper-M? Makes much more sense.

Let's face it CAMM-M is ten times better sounding than "Sea Ceptor"...

Well all this seems to have been discussed at a very high level, including the PM and I think that it is good news after all the defence cuts we have had recently. Only hope some P8 will be on order as well to fill the MPA requirement.

Taranis 2. Taranis is a good name, why limit it only to the prototype demonstrator?
Anyway, it begins with a T, like Typhoon and Tornado.

Tiny Toy wrote:As I understand it when people have been talking about Taranis capabilities and what it brings to the table, they are talking about the Taranis concept rather than the current prototype airframe (which will presumably be one of a series of different prototypes).

Probably because you agree to sign the Official Secrets Act when you sign your employment contract, you'd have to be an absolute moron to discuss details of Taranis online.

Defiance wrote:

Tiny Toy wrote:As I understand it when people have been talking about Taranis capabilities and what it brings to the table, they are talking about the Taranis concept rather than the current prototype airframe (which will presumably be one of a series of different prototypes).

Probably because you agree to sign the Official Secrets Act when you sign your employment contract, you'd have to be an absolute moron to discuss details of Taranis online.

Oh dear, you really have baited the hook there,

jonas wrote:Oh dear, you really have baited the hook there,

..

Defiance wrote:Probably because you agree to sign the Official Secrets Act when you sign your employment contract, you'd have to be an absolute moron to discuss details of Taranis online.

You're missing the point, it was a response to Gabriele's previous post.

You said in your understanding, people talk about what the UCAV program will output as opposed to the prototype.

I read Gabs post about FCAS, all I was doing is confirming your own understanding and pointing out why that's the case - the OSA.

Oh, so people talks about a future UCAV that does not exist yet, which does not have a shape yet, the requirements for which are still being defined, and mix it up with Taranis because even though that's an early demonstrator it somehow has the mythical "secret" bits they can't talk about but is totally, really going to work out as an actual UCAV.
Or maybe does not have them but totally proves the concept and can be built up with them out of the blue.

LOL.

No. Sorry, but no. There is no way that makes sense, and OSA has nothing to do with. Of course they are not saying anything in detail about what they are testing and trying to accomplish. Nonetheless, call things for what they are: Taranis is a technology demonstrator, a one-off which is going to feed into what the british side brings to the FCAS table. FCAS which might see a first prototype built by 2023. Maybe. Which might lead to an operational system later still. Perhaps.

Gabriele wrote:Of course they are not saying anything in detail about what they are testing and trying to accomplish.

and why is that if. .

Gabriele wrote:OSA has nothing to do with.

?

Because that's what I was talking about, about how don't publish that stuff due to the OSA.

Gab is right Taranis is a technology demonstrator , but my argument is IF Taranis is proving a success and accomplishing its targets set for the project , what's stopping the UK Government deciding to take this concept to the next step ? .
Truth is We know very little in reality about taranis so it's impossible to say how it's doing , but from what I've seen the design seems sound, it's stealthy , it can take off , it can climb , it can manoeuvre, it can land , speed is unknown , operational flight ceiling is unknown , it's range is unknown , what's inside is unknown , what it is truly capable of is unknown , unless your one of the chosen few we just don't know , but because we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle doesn't mean we should assume anything ,

But in my opinion considering what they have done up to now shows real promise , from initially concept design to a flying test demenstrator at a cost of around £350m for the full project up to now is a success in its own right , when considering other projects ,

These are just my thoughts on what I'd like to see , firstly taranis not being shelved but taken to step 2 (son of taranis ) if evaluation/tests show real promise , the new taranis to be developed as a strike/combat asset to accompany f-35b or typhoons in a strike package , maybe used as a spearhead in operations were advanced air defence systems are operational , operational by the mid 2020s instead of waiting till 2030s timeframe for the joint French-uk project , the UK are one of the world leaders in this field , it would be a shame if we didn't make the most of what we are good at .

The operational descendant of Taranis is supposed to emerge in the 2030s, nobody has suggested 2020s.

Tiny Toy wrote:The operational descendant of Taranis is supposed to emerge in the 2030s, nobody has suggested 2020s.

True nobody as !! Except me I guess but I did say it was my own thoughts on what I'd like to see if the project shows protential , and tbh I don't think 10 years from now to take it to step 2 is being over optimistic if the resources and money was there to push it along . To have this capability , would give us a more affordable way to keep our air strike asset numbers up ,

Talking of Taranis

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-417533/?

So we will get the news (what to expect in 15 years' time) coinciding with the SDSR's release:

"A team of six companies are some 12 months into a two-year feasibility study to assess the requirements for a future combat aircraft.

“The first year is nearly complete and we are assessing data collected by the six partners to downselect to one [aircraft] design, and that downselect will be made in the next month"
- from the above Taranis link

house of commons paper on uk drones.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 24&cad=rja

Nothing new and juicy in there though....

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So we will get the news (what to expect in 15 years' time) coinciding with the SDSR's release:

Yep, although its never been said it will be unmanned.

[on FCAS]...
The MOD has said the options for this force mix include an Unmanned
Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) along with an additional buy of Lightning
II, a Typhoon extension programme or a new-build manned aircraft.77
This programme will inform the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security
Review.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A team of six companies are some 12 months into a two-year feasibility study to assess the requirements for a future combat aircraft.

And that would be FCAS, with the six companies being:

BAE & Dassault for the air vehicle
Rolls Royce & Snecma for the novel engine
Selex ES & Thales for the sensors

Nothing new.

The SDSR is very unlikely to contain much new information other than continuing support for the bi-national programme, ahead of the next joint deciision point sometime in 2016.
The 2016 military law of France contains the FCAS commitment (as well as the launch of the Storm Shadow mid-life upgrade, which might or might not make the news sometime soon on the british side of the Channel, too, depending on whether the MOD is still involved or if it is distancing itself from the project).

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and that downselect will be made in the next month"

Err. this was the new bit... and today's date + 1 mth = about the release of the SDSR (Oct was initilally advertised)

The rest was provided as context for the reader. Good to know, though, the six companies. Also that it (FCAS) is not dealing in absolutes:
"options for this force mix include an Unmanned
Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) along with an additional buy of Lightning
II, a Typhoon extension programme or a new-build manned aircraft"
- msg = to a good job in the 2 yrs and downselect to the right design as otherwise... the mix could be just between the last three - the very last unlikely to be a European option

Today =2015, in a year's time (after the one remaining) = 2016
- Typhoon line (without major export orders) closing in 2018
=> decisions, decisions (called for!) in 2017, but that part seems to be the hard bit

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and that downselect will be made in the next month"

Err. this was the new bit... and today's date + 1 mth = about the release of the SDSR (Oct was initilally advertised)

The rest was provided as context for the reader. Good to know, though, the six companies. Also that it (FCAS) is not dealing in absolutes:
"options for this force mix include an Unmanned
Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) along with an additional buy of Lightning
II, a Typhoon extension programme or a new-build manned aircraft"
- msg = to a good job in the 2 yrs and downselect to the right design as otherwise... the mix could be just between the last three - the very last unlikely to be a European option

Today =2015, in a year's time (after the one remaining) = 2016
- Typhoon line (without major export orders) closing in 2018
=> decisions, decisions (called for!) in 2017, but that part seems to be the hard bit

Typhoon just got a "major export order".

Ron5 wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and that downselect will be made in the next month"

Err. this was the new bit... and today's date + 1 mth = about the release of the SDSR (Oct was initilally advertised)

The rest was provided as context for the reader. Good to know, though, the six companies. Also that it (FCAS) is not dealing in absolutes:
"options for this force mix include an Unmanned
Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) along with an additional buy of Lightning
II, a Typhoon extension programme or a new-build manned aircraft"
- msg = to a good job in the 2 yrs and downselect to the right design as otherwise... the mix could be just between the last three - the very last unlikely to be a European option

Today =2015, in a year's time (after the one remaining) = 2016
- Typhoon line (without major export orders) closing in 2018
=> decisions, decisions (called for!) in 2017, but that part seems to be the hard bit

Typhoon just got a "major export order".

That's what happens when you cut and paste old shite.

Ron5 wrote:Typhoon just got a "major export order".

Kuwait will extend the manufacturing line of front fuselage assemblies, but the UK assembly line will still be closing on the original timeframe.