'Top secret' BAE stealth drone success

Lancashire Telegraph: The intimidating outline of the Taranis stealth drone The intimidating outline of the Taranis stealth drone

A TOP-SECRET stealth drone has carried out its first successful test flights, it has been announced.

Taranis, named after the Celtic god of thunder, was yesterday billed by military chiefs as the most technologically advanced aircraft ever built in the UK.

The BAE project, which has so far cost £185 million – funded jointly by the Ministry of Defence and UK industry, will be able to launch precision strikes in hostile territory while remaining undetected.

But bosses said that although the aircraft could fly itself autonomously, it would not be used in that way - and would not be able to set its own missions.

Taranis was first unveiled in July 2010, but has remained classified until now.

Ground testing of the Taranis demonstrator began at BAE’s Warton base, and in April last year taxi trials were carried out on the runway. The aircraft and its ground station were then shipped to a test-range in a so-far undisclosed location outside the UK, before the first flight took place in August. At a briefing in London, the MoD and BAE Systems announced that the aircraft -– described as a ‘combat vehicle demonstrator’, designed to prove that the technology it is using works – said it had surpassed all expectations.

Nigel Whitehead, group managing director of BAE Systems, said in the maiden 15-minute flight, Taranis carried out a perfect take-off, rotation, ‘climb-out’ and landing, piloted remotely by former RAF pilot Bob Fraser.

Mr Whitehead said a number of flights, lasting up to one hour each, and at a variety of altitudes and speeds, were carried out last year – but could not confirm exactly how many.

Britain already uses drones, mainly for intelligence gathering, although some are armed, but Taranis – which could eventually be built and used in the 2030s – would be the first specifically-designed unmanned combat aircraft designed to fly in contested airspace.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Birtrumthegreat says...

So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.
So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs. Birtrumthegreat

8:28am Fri 7 Feb 14

2 for 5p ridesagain says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.
Exactly spot on.
All Defence spending is in this country is another way of distributing the nations wealth to the controlling and ruling classes.
This country is the 3rd largest spender on Defence and yet we have next to nothing in military hardware competed to other countrys we have less than India.
Read your 1984 by George Orwell
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.[/p][/quote]Exactly spot on. All Defence spending is in this country is another way of distributing the nations wealth to the controlling and ruling classes. This country is the 3rd largest spender on Defence and yet we have next to nothing in military hardware competed to other countrys we have less than India. Read your 1984 by George Orwell 2 for 5p ridesagain

9:30am Fri 7 Feb 14

ste220 says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.
is the rafale anywhere near as advanced as typhoon? no. just because they have a similar sillouhette doesnt make them comparable.
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.[/p][/quote]is the rafale anywhere near as advanced as typhoon? no. just because they have a similar sillouhette doesnt make them comparable. ste220

9:31am Fri 7 Feb 14

rover95 says...

I wouldn't believe everything you read. These things amongst others are more than likely in operation already and flying over our heads everyday.
I wouldn't believe everything you read. These things amongst others are more than likely in operation already and flying over our heads everyday. rover95

10:28am Fri 7 Feb 14

Birtrumthegreat says...

ste220 wrote:
Birtrumthegreat wrote:
So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.
is the rafale anywhere near as advanced as typhoon? no. just because they have a similar sillouhette doesnt make them comparable.
The Rafale does a reasonable job at a fraction of the cost. It can also operate from aircraft carriers too. Sadly the Typhoon may be advanced, but it is a cold war relic trying to find a new role. It has cost the UK taxpayer £17.6 billion and cost £35,000 for every hour they spend in the air. That's a lot of money that the NHS could do with.
[quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: So it's going to take 16 years to get this thing servicable, another triumph for BAE Systems. The Typhoon Eurofighter took nine years from first test flight, to entering service, whilst the lazy Frogs managed to get their Rafale in service within five years. I'm sure by the time one of these drones is ready, the Americans will have more advanced ones in action, that we could have purchased at a fraction of the development costs.[/p][/quote]is the rafale anywhere near as advanced as typhoon? no. just because they have a similar sillouhette doesnt make them comparable.[/p][/quote]The Rafale does a reasonable job at a fraction of the cost. It can also operate from aircraft carriers too. Sadly the Typhoon may be advanced, but it is a cold war relic trying to find a new role. It has cost the UK taxpayer £17.6 billion and cost £35,000 for every hour they spend in the air. That's a lot of money that the NHS could do with. Birtrumthegreat

10:32am Fri 7 Feb 14

ste220 says...

relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable" ste220

10:44am Fri 7 Feb 14

Birtrumthegreat says...

ste220 wrote:
relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
[quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful. Birtrumthegreat

1:46pm Fri 7 Feb 14

noddy57 says...

we still lead the world with flight technology,,,but we once did in everything,looks like we wont be needing pilots any more if this is the future,,very impressive technology but why are there so many young people out of work ?
we still lead the world with flight technology,,,but we once did in everything,looks like we wont be needing pilots any more if this is the future,,very impressive technology but why are there so many young people out of work ? noddy57

1:49pm Fri 7 Feb 14

salvadore says...

Another cowardly weapon to kill innocent people and call it collateral damage. All drones should be banned, they fly around intimidating communities who don't know that they could be a target because the controllers think they should be. This is killing without a Fair trial or compensation for the killing of the innocent.
Another cowardly weapon to kill innocent people and call it collateral damage. All drones should be banned, they fly around intimidating communities who don't know that they could be a target because the controllers think they should be. This is killing without a Fair trial or compensation for the killing of the innocent. salvadore

1:52pm Fri 7 Feb 14

ste220 says...

what has the fact that the pilot isnt present in the aircraft alter. this isnt autonomous, its just a big remote control plane
what has the fact that the pilot isnt present in the aircraft alter. this isnt autonomous, its just a big remote control plane ste220

1:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

ste220 says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
ste220 wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
f16's arent even in the same generation, never mind league. you'll be saying the spitfire is better next cos it was on threpence hapenny to build.
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.[/p][/quote]f16's arent even in the same generation, never mind league. you'll be saying the spitfire is better next cos it was on threpence hapenny to build. ste220

2:10pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Jerzei Balowski says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
ste220 wrote:
relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now !
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.[/p][/quote]This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now ! Jerzei Balowski

5:32pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Birtrumthegreat says...

Jerzei Balowski wrote:
Birtrumthegreat wrote:
ste220 wrote:
relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now !
You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth.

If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense-
aerospace.com/articl
e-view/feature/13237
9/why-rafale-won-in-
india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap
h.co.uk/finance/news
bysector/epic/badot/
10528636/Blow-for-Br
itain-and-BAE-System
s-as-UAE-rules-out-E
urofighter-deal.html


To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example.
[quote][p][bold]Jerzei Balowski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.[/p][/quote]This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now ![/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth. If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense- aerospace.com/articl e-view/feature/13237 9/why-rafale-won-in- india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/finance/news bysector/epic/badot/ 10528636/Blow-for-Br itain-and-BAE-System s-as-UAE-rules-out-E urofighter-deal.html To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example. Birtrumthegreat

6:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Jerzei Balowski says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
Jerzei Balowski wrote:
Birtrumthegreat wrote:
ste220 wrote:
relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now !
You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth.

If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense-

aerospace.com/articl

e-view/feature/13237

9/why-rafale-won-in-

india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap

h.co.uk/finance/news

bysector/epic/badot/

10528636/Blow-for-Br

itain-and-BAE-System

s-as-UAE-rules-out-E

urofighter-deal.html



To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example.
Some very good points, particularly about BAE management. The decision to sell out of Airbus in order to chase US defence orders was monumentally stupid and short sighted, just as Airbus was overtaking Boeing in the civil market. And the main reason Rafale won over Typhoon in the India bid was the fact that BAE and EADS would not stump up the cash up front to add the required capability to the aircraft, instead relying on winning orders first then using that money to add the features the Indians wanted - again monumentally stupid, but this is what happens in the UK nowadays, where we have a culture of Bean Counters running everything, morons with virtually nil engineering knowledge.

However, I cannot let you get away with the Rolls-Royce comparison. BAE has won two defence export orders to Saudi Arabia which dwarf any other export orders in UK history !

Back to the original subject though, drones are an emerging technology, and we have the engineering capability based on previous projects like Typhoon to get a leading position and gain huge export orders. Presumably you would rather we bought a US-made equivalent and laid off thousands of skilled workers in the NW, decimating our manufacturing base ?
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jerzei Balowski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.[/p][/quote]This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now ![/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth. If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense- aerospace.com/articl e-view/feature/13237 9/why-rafale-won-in- india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/finance/news bysector/epic/badot/ 10528636/Blow-for-Br itain-and-BAE-System s-as-UAE-rules-out-E urofighter-deal.html To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example.[/p][/quote]Some very good points, particularly about BAE management. The decision to sell out of Airbus in order to chase US defence orders was monumentally stupid and short sighted, just as Airbus was overtaking Boeing in the civil market. And the main reason Rafale won over Typhoon in the India bid was the fact that BAE and EADS would not stump up the cash up front to add the required capability to the aircraft, instead relying on winning orders first then using that money to add the features the Indians wanted - again monumentally stupid, but this is what happens in the UK nowadays, where we have a culture of Bean Counters running everything, morons with virtually nil engineering knowledge. However, I cannot let you get away with the Rolls-Royce comparison. BAE has won two defence export orders to Saudi Arabia which dwarf any other export orders in UK history ! Back to the original subject though, drones are an emerging technology, and we have the engineering capability based on previous projects like Typhoon to get a leading position and gain huge export orders. Presumably you would rather we bought a US-made equivalent and laid off thousands of skilled workers in the NW, decimating our manufacturing base ? Jerzei Balowski

9:17am Mon 10 Feb 14

ste220 says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
Jerzei Balowski wrote:
Birtrumthegreat wrote:
ste220 wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"
F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.
This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now !
You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth. If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense- aerospace.com/articl e-view/feature/13237 9/why-rafale-won-in- india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/finance/news bysector/epic/badot/ 10528636/Blow-for-Br itain-and-BAE-System s-as-UAE-rules-out-E urofighter-deal.html To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example.
on a side note about rolls royce and public funds. which engines do you think power the typhoon?
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jerzei Balowski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ste220[/bold] wrote: relic? how is the most capable multi role fighter a relic? without the spend of having it in the air, perhaps there wouldnt even be a UK? as for the rafale doing a reasonable job, cant argue. but tbh, when it comes to national security i'd rather have a touch more than "reasonable"[/p][/quote]F16's are very capable and you would get nearly three of these for every Eurofighter purchased. There are nearly 5,000 in operation throughout the World and they are even developing a pilot less one. I can't see the Eurofighter ever being this successful.[/p][/quote]This is the sort of attitude that lost us a world-leading position in successive innovations like the first jet engines and the first jet airliners after WW2. A refusal to invest in leading edge technology simply because it would be better spent on the NHS, etc. So short sighted because, for example, if we had sold as many airliners as Boeing did over the last 50 years, we would have had a massive tax income for generations to come which would be funding the NHS to a far greater level than it is now ![/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head, if BAE were building airliners, they would be sold to private sector businesses and making genuine money, outside of government funds. Historically BAE had shares in Airbus, but sold out, favouring cold war military jet development instead. In reality the tax revenue that BAE pays into the government, comes from money that the government pays into BAE, hence it is just recirculating public sector cash. Now if you compare this to Rolls Royce's business at Barnoldswick, they have years of work ahead of them making commercial jet engines, which is genuine profit/tax revenue that contributes to UK economic growth. If you take a look at the current need for Military aircraft in the UK, their primary roll is to intercept an airliner full of terrorists, so anything that is supersonic will do the job, hence a squadron of cheap F16's is more than adequate. Israel seems quite happy with them and they fly combat sorties on a regular basis. Now even if the Typhoon is a technically good aeroplane, orders for them appear to have dried up. If you read this you will see why India chose the Rafale :http://www.defense- aerospace.com/articl e-view/feature/13237 9/why-rafale-won-in- india.html . It is also possible that UAE will go down this route too :http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/finance/news bysector/epic/badot/ 10528636/Blow-for-Br itain-and-BAE-System s-as-UAE-rules-out-E urofighter-deal.html To use a motoring analogy, everyone likes the look and performance of a Ferrari, but the practicalities of running a fleet of them, as an everyday delivery vehicle, or reps wagon is out of the question. Sadly the Eurofighter falls into this category. Come 2018, I can see a lot of redundancies being handed out at Warton and Samlesbury, as BAE are too slow to adapt to changing markets and develop new innovative products. Look at the Nimrod debacle as an example.[/p][/quote]on a side note about rolls royce and public funds. which engines do you think power the typhoon? ste220

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree