BAE Systems is showing off a prototype stealthy, unmanned combat air-vehicle (UCAV) named “Taranis,” after the Celtic god of thunder. The drone test-bed is scheduled to begin flight tests some time next year. Details on range, speed, weapons load-out, actual low-observableness, etc. are a bit sketchy. Although, a BAE rep told reporters it took a million-man hours and cost $215 million (if my online currency conversion tool is working right) to build, so I guess that’s something.
– Greg Grant
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Short video clip from the BBC describing the importance of this UAV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lancashire/hi/people_…
What's with the Taranis and Neuron (French UCAV prototype) all looking like the first Western UCAV that was put out by Boeing years ago, the X-45?
Is it a case of copycat-itis or is it that it's the generally agreed on best shape for a UCAV?
Good MOrning Nick,
Yes it does have a familiar look to it doesn’t it Nick. It does appear to be the Anglo/French Taranis/Neuron UCAV that is scheduled to become operation in the 2018/2020 window.
My information says it is to be an autonomous. long range uninhibited intercontinental strike platform. Major (sub) contractors are RR/GE and QientiQ software.
Your question of why can’t Boeing do this in this time window is easy to answer. BAE is playing with it’s own money, you don’t get any return until you sell something.
Boeing submits a proposal to the DoD gets an R&D contract, gets paid development funds which are at costs plus 10% during the R@D phase. Sine that 10% is more then they could make on the product why would they want to build anything?
The poster children for this of course are the EFV and the F-35.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Boeing has continued development of the X-45C/N with the Phantom Ray. Also claiming intercontinental range is clearly a stretch on BAE's part.
Well going from Europe to Africa or Asia isn't very far. We think if intercontinental as North America to Eurasia, which is a much farther trip.
*Autonomous*!!!? What exactly does that mean? Autonomous like our current Predator or are we talking Skynet?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think it means you can leave the plane unattended. For instance, you set a point on a map and the plane will fly in circles above that point or it will chase a vehicle on its own. It may also mean that the camera can track an object without a person there to constantly move it. So it sounds like Skynet, but I'm sure Predators have this ability as well, or at least to some degree.
Neither the nEUROn nor the Taranis, nor any other major UCAS system I'm aware of looks anything like the X-45 (lifting fuselage with wings). I will be interested to see the rest of the design features on the Taranis. Right now we can't tell (by design I'm sure) if it is more like other planes with a sawtooth trailing edge (nEUROn, B-2, etc) or like a 'kite' (X-47A Pegasus) or perhaps even a 'cranked kite' (X-47B). Hopefully it is not like a 'Flying Dorito' (aka A-12).
I'll reserve comment on whether it is optimized for loitering or cruisiing until I know more about the planform, which would give us an idea which kind of experience they're most interested in.
The Brits understand that you can't just copy this kind of stuff and are investing in keeping their Tech cutting-edge. Well Done UK and BAE!
Well if earlier articles and artists renderings are to be believed (http://www.gizmag.com/go/6686/picture/30323/), we have an interesting variation on a sawtooth trailing edge. Sort of a 'Mothra' planform.
'BAE Hawk-sized as well – big for a UAV, but still smaller than the X-47B, with range and payload approriate to the size: think strike demonstrator. Cool.
I first saw it last night and I still think it looks like a cylon attack ship out of Battlestar Galacta and just as evil. I am sorry but I believe that weapons like this are more dangerous than nuclear weapons and should be banned, nukes are too horrible to use, while things are too easy to use, so any government would be more likely to indulge in gunboat diplomancy using these things and make the situation worse. I have no problem with Unmanned Vehicles being used to support front line troops, but not to replace them. Which is what the last Labour Government was planning to do, this thing is being developed to replace the Tornado GR4 and I think that morally that is a very dangerous thing to do.
In a total war scenario a UAV won’t put you in the stone age like a full nuclear exchange…
When I mean more they are more more dangerous is they may prove to be very tempting to some vainglorous politician (like Tony Bliar or Obama) to shoot first and not think about the consequences of their actions in dealing with a potential crises, but the thing that worries me is that the proliferation of the technology to make these devices to rogue states, especially as Iran has already developed an UCAV, what happens if both sides in a conflict, say the UK and Argentina start attacking each other's Country with these drones, what happens if Argentina starts attacking Civilian Targets, killing not Military Personnel but women and kids using WMD, like Chemical or Bio-Weapons.
Already a UN Official has reported the use of armed Drones by the CIA to kill militants to the UN Human Rights Committtee as a possible War Crime, see this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10…
Before you attack this report, think about it. and his concerns about the developement of a "Playstation" mentality of the personnel operating these infernal devices. At the moment, even the Taranis needs an operator to execute the launch of it's weapons, but how soon before they start to develop UCAV's that don't need an operator? Is it a step we should be taking?
The "Playstation" mentality exists today. Look at Apaches and their FLIR footage. The U.N.'s opinion on this issue is immaterial; we are fixing a problem that the non-NATO international community sees fit to ignore.
Earth to 'John': War is He**. Always has been, always will be.
Fretting over some imagined de-humanization of an all-too-human activity, after pondering only momentarily over things the taxpayers pay others to think about for them isn't productive. Rest easy, for as a long-retired UAV operator/systems analyst who is still working in the industry, I can state unequivocally that the operator knows it is HE that will be doing the righteous deed, whether he just has to push the start button to send the messenger on its way, or is staring at the target through a lens & manually commanding the attack. In the 'civilized' world, we are the most joyous souls of deadly Earthly purpose that you will ever meet at the church picnic. My favorite Gahan Wilson cartoon seems apropos: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2227353&…
I'm pretty much with you, except on the nuke thing. I don't think UAV's need to "replace" front line troops. Just trying to imagine a war of UAV's vis-a-vis UAV's, and other unmanned platfoms leads me to believe that such a conflict could lead to meaningful, concrete results; i.e., somebody wins, somebody loses. But on the other hand, if you're using UAV's in a CAS role, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to kill someone, at least have the decency to be there.
An error often made is to assume destruction is the goal of war. It is not, the goal is to convince your enemy that attaining his goals would be too costly (politics by other means). The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are weapons of indiscriminate annihilation, which tends to be extremely costly to the victor. There's a reason wars have become more precise and less bloody; this simply furthers that trend.
How does this "replace front line troops"? I think I can say, for certain, that tactical air is nice when you can get it, but usually you can't.
You can't defeat an enemy with air power. It comes down to guys with rifles and (especially) mortars.
John: you do realise that these UAVs/UCAVs still have a man in the loop. they arent flying randomly around bombing people like a sci-fi movie. these are controled by people and for a poor (conpared to usa defence budget) country they are a wise move… until you need to engauge in air combate, then your screwed but it britain so usa will protect you…
Whatever this plane was I just hope it will be one of our best mechanism that can defend the country in times of needs.
1 million man hours? Really? Give me a break. How much non-associated overhead did they dump into this project?
A huge amount… however it's been ongoing for a long time already, so it's not that large an amount.
The materials etc. have had to be developed, etc. as none of the materials had been used before.
Not only that, a huge amount of code-checking has to be done too to ensure that it can operate autonomously.
All of this is hear-say that I have heard from people.
This is a stealth vehicle from the ground-up, it's pretty good.
one million man hours is not that much and equates to rather a small team over 4 years
1 million man hours equates too a team of 135 Engineers working 8 hour days, 5 days a week for 4 years (30 days holidays a year)
Well at least it's good to see the British aviation industry has some life in it left.
Autonomous UCAVs for air superiority role is nothing more than fantasy today. Without A.I. these drones are not capable to perform air-to-air combat missions. Air-to-surface capabilities are also would be poor with these vehicles (without A.I.). World’s aviation in a near future will rely on human in cockpit.
All of these drones (Taranis, Boeing staff etc.) are nothing more than paper projects of far future concept today.
When the phrase 'autononomous' is used, it's generally talking about piloting, navigation and landing. Air to ground and even air to air with 'remote' input is perfectly possible – and has even been done, a drone armed with a stinger (I think) during the Iraqi no-fly-zone years.
It's no more autonomous than a predator/reaper/watchkeeper/herti/etc, but presumably a lot faster and better able to penetrate radars/defences without being picked up.
Remote control channels and GPS navigation can be easily jammed. This is a major problem which makes remote controlled combat drones nearly useless (but very exepnsive in same time) against enemy with some technological capabilities.
Fine in theory – but for a 'strategic' (i.e. essentially fast jet) rather than 'tactical' (i.e. paper aeroplane with a watch-battery powered motor) UAV, over what sort of region do you think you're going to be doing the jamming?
Especially if the UAV in question is stealthy, so you're not aware your airspace has been violated. Are you going to keep 100% jammer coverage of your entire country, up to 30-40,000 feet, for satelite comms and GPS, all the time?
If so, (a) you'll bankrupt yourself – that concept resembles nothing so much as the Soviet Union's absolutely-100%-totally-overlapping-integrated-border-SAM-network-that-never-really-worked, (b) thank you for reducing your own military's comms capability to something resembling the mid 60's and (c) thank you for showing me where all the jamming base-stations are. Now, where did I put those HARMs?
Even assuming you can slap a jamming signal on a stealth UAV as soon as you detect it, the most likely time to become aware of its location is when it fires. After which point, you can probably blind it to external comms, but it's almost certainly going to be capable of turning around and finding its way home under its own steam.
The most common claim is that satelite relays would be blown out of the sky, but an equally common counter-claim is the possibility of daisy-chaining UAVs together, one acting as a relay for the next, or else an AWACS or equivalent standing off as the control centre. Assuming the Taranis can top 30,000 feet in sustained flight (not unreasonable if it's jet-powered), then line-of-sight communications can be established and maintained from well over 700 km away – over 900 km if it's 40,000 feet (still not that unreasonable).
Anyone else, honest to god, feel a little weirded out or concerned about the future. I'm positive that if true AI doesn't already exist it will at least publicly in my life time. So… rise of the machines, anyone.
Fear not. Read Roger Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind”. Intelligence cannot be reduced to algorythms. Don’t buy the hype: ask anyone touting AI to define intelligence first.
Ummm, that would be 'algorithms'…
This is great, if only they could make a decent interface so that the drone pilots can actually see and react as well as the regular pilots can.
Ok i just have to say 1 thing. It can think it doesnt have AI it just autonomus like a predator, reaper, global hawk, etc… honestly the makers of these things just say things like autonomus to draw interest…
anyway britains first stealth aircraft is a drone? well the usa has RQ170, X47, F22, F35, and B2. so brits: you need to work harder
also i really dont think drones will replace pilots anytime soon in air to air combate atleast… because quick reaction time would be need from someone who isnt a world a way with a joystick… only way they could "replace" fighter jets is with dozens of "cheap" predators types armed with stinger like missle that simple use out numer a fighters missles then kill it… one of the only ways for a lower tech country like to beat a more advanced air power like the usa (think like their human waves in korea but with drones…)