http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10664362

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Combat_Air_Vehicle

The closest American design I can find is the Pegasus, which admitadly could be described in simialr terms, but has a quarter of the max take off weight.

I know its is only a demonstrator, but it could be a production aircraft by 2018, replacing the tornado’s as they draw down.

Although carrier operation was never considered for Taranis itself, it would be easily possible to make an airframe capable of working off of a stovl carrier.

The carriers are notionally supposed to operate 3x 12 JCA aircraft for strike and cap missions.

I would like to see a buy of eighty F35b to equip six squadrons, with an attrition and deep maintenance reserve of eight aircraft.

I would like to see a similar number of Taranis come into service by 2020, primarily to equip the RAF.

By 2025 I would like to see a carrier capable Taranis variant brought into joint service with the RAF/RN whereby one of three F35b carrier squadrons would be replaced with this new RPAS for the carrier strike role.

We could sell a lot of them, to exactly the countries that want to buy F35b now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10629313

http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-phantom-eye-unmanned-airborne-system/15706/

As soon as its unmanned it don’t need the toilet or feeding!!

Maybe that sounds far fetched but already in the sub 20kg range we have 24 hour solutions.

Joined up thinking is needed indeed.

Why get rid of Watchkeeper when we have already spent out? The Hermes 450 have been put to good use and Watchkeeper should be better. Just because it requires and airfield doesn’t mean the RAF should have it. It’s a tactical asset.

My question about Mantis is does it offer significantly different capability to Predator ?(Sovereign capability I suppose).

I would certainly be prepared to cooperate with anyone if a true common requirement is established but I suspect France might go for an EADS product.

Taranis really only technology demonstrator. The idea of a production Mantis entering service in the 2020s is a bit of fantasy. Do we even want it? There is a lot of thinking to be done before UCAVs start replacing strike aircraft. Why not just stick with stand off missiles.

I would like to see a rugged UAV with sufficient range ad payload that has an STOL performance, able to land and take off from rough strips or the decks of a carrier or LPD without cats/traps.

Standardized ground control stations that comply with STANAG 4586 really ought to be everywhere now.

To a large extent the data gathered from UAS and how it is disseminated is a much bigger issue than the UAS itself. The Collect as I heard it called needs to get to places fast and in a standard format.

The seeming absence of the Navy from the Waddington UAS symposium was noticeable. It was a step forward that local industry was being addressed and told what was needed.

Ours might be ready to fall out of the sky, but 824 of them were built, the last of them were remanufactured in 2003.

If we limit usage to keeping say, 40-50 pilots carrier capable, shouldnt we be able to scavenge enough airframes?

We have to stop thinking in a single service manner, with Watchkeeper and Scavenger the Army and RAF will be imaging the same piece of ground yet completely duplicated, no common analysis or control yet likely operating from the same location. Watchkeeper needs a runway, so does Predator. We have turned the Hermes 450 into a ridiculously over complex airframe (folding undercarriage to preserve an uninterrupted sensor view for example) stuffed it so full of stuff that it is a wheezy overweight system with very little growth potential. It is fitted with a ground scanning radar that will be used the same way as that in Predator and even Sentinel.

The RN has yet to come to the party so no ships, even Albion and Bulwark have any facilities for Wathckeeper or Sentinel or anything else.

This has to stop

I picked on Scan Eagle because it is in service now, great performance, has a range of sensors, can be operated from the ground or ships or even launched from aircraft.

Having said that, it is simple so all the work we have done on Watchkeeper, Mantis, Taranis and the others should be channeled into a set of equipment programmes that take the high technology we have and maximise them for export and utility.

Actually that is not fair, all comments about standardised dissemination infrastructure, common ground stations etc is absolute common sense, which is why we are not doing it of course….

Where I really disagree is ruthless commonality for the sake of it. For example, the Scheibel CamCopter VTOL RPV (mini-helicopter) maybe better for RN use. Similarly in the next weight class MQ8 FireScout or the A160 Hummingbird would be better – actually VTOL might be better for the Army Air Corps too !

Finally I really, really don’t agree with you on the Mantis and the Taranis, but that’s because as I have stated many times before, I think the Government has given up the ability to have a “defence industrial” strategy because it does not fund UK armed forces to the appropriate levels. Thus there are plenty of off the shelf systems, already in service, or a lot closer to being so, than the Mantis. If BAe can sell it, and make profits for their mostly U.S. shareholders, then thats just fine – but don’t push into the RAF just cause its “British”.

Same with Taranis – I know your being deliberately contentious on that point, but its a demonstrator, its a long, long way from being an operationally capable replacement for the Tornado, and I don’t think it has any capability to operate from a carrier because its never been a requirement during its development program (but I could be wrong on that one).

An alternative would be to aim for a 2020 ISD and reduce Tornado numbers 4-5 years early to save some costs.

And with all the aggressive marketing of this product we should be doing, some exports might mean that we don’t need to save quite so much on the cost front for the programme because it could actually generate a little revenue.

As another question, is it easier to make a UCAV carrier capable and more importantly able to take off and land without CATOBAR gear. I know weight is reduced by lack of a pilot and that the aircraft can also handle much higher G forces for the same reason, but that can only be taken advantage of if the engine can accelerate fast enough on the deck and do the same for deceleration as it lands. It may be an insurmountable task. In which case Taranis would have to wait until the carriers mid-life to operate from it. However it should still definitely be used in the land based strike role.

I wonder how easy it would be to base Taranis/a derivative/another UCAV around the F136 with lift fan for a STOVL UCAV?