BAE Taranis UCAS

Published on Feb 5, 2014

Video inteview with Bob Fraser, Commander for Taranis first flight.
Taranis, the stealthy unmanned combat vehicle demonstrator is the most advanced aircraft ever built in the UK

http://youtu.be/ljhWf18ikA8
 
From a friend of a friend. Picture taken today.

Also worth noting is that the head on and side pictures are taken on 12'th and 9'th of April.

+ Shot pulled from BAE site.
 

Attachments

  • 1540563_10151912831962546_1524310182_o.jpg
    1540563_10151912831962546_1524310182_o.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 81
  • homepageimage.jpg
    homepageimage.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 69
only mentioned in the linked telegraph article in reply #25 of this thread.


erm.... I think we can discount the supersonic claims
 
Yes, i was at that time referring to the article. Sounded very BS at the time, obviously still is. High res shot available here:

http://resources.baesystems.com/pages/search.php?search=!collection1046&k=14fa82329b
 
The supersonic claim showed up in the article about the flight on BBC's site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26046696


Jonathan Beale said:
Test pilot Bob Fraser said everything went according to plan. But if you ask him how high or fast it flew he is not allowed to give a precise answer.
He will only say Taranis flew at least "twice as fast" as any other drone he has operated from the ground. Eventually it is supposed to fly faster than the speed of sound.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know why, but I find this thing a real beauty among all the recent big uav design
 
Tested in Australia. Woomera?
 
http://defensetech.org/2014/07/15/britains-stealth-drone-hits-breakthrough/#more-23251
 
Could someone please explain all the hoopla around this? What makes Taranis anything more than, say, another Phantom Ray?
 
It's Britain's only flying UCAV demonstrator (vs the US's X-45, X-47A, X-47B, Predator-C, etc) and the British are proud of their engineering. Like the X-47B there's also the common misconception in the general public that this thing is at something like IOC when the reality is quite the opposite.
 
i guess the amount of hoopla is subjectve. i personally wouldnt say theres a lot of hhopla about taranis. there may be more written about it than phantom ray but less than about x47. its just one in the line of ucav demonstrators flying around the world, no more, no less.
 
Dragon029 said:
It's Britain's only flying UCAV demonstrator (vs the US's X-45, X-47A, X-47B, Predator-C, etc) and the British are proud of their engineering. Like the X-47B there's also the common misconception in the general public that this thing is at something like IOC when the reality is quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

No its not its the culmination of projects so far into a Stealthy, jet powered airframe, there have been plenty of other technology demonstrators before it and others will follow it.
 
Taranis versus Phantom Ray? As far as is visible, there's not much difference. However, Taranis is being tested more extensively and appears to be part of a broader effort that includes all parts of an operational UCAS, rather like J-UCAS was.


The same goes to some extent for Neuron, where the flight test vehicle is intended for a live demo of cued detection, ID and track of a relocatable target.
 
LowObservable said:
Taranis versus Phantom Ray? As far as is visible, there's not much difference. However, Taranis is being tested more extensively and appears to be part of a broader effort that includes all parts of an operational UCAS, rather like J-UCAS was.


The same goes to some extent for Neuron, where the flight test vehicle is intended for a live demo of cued detection, ID and track of a relocatable target.
Click to expand...

So in that regard the Taranis program would be comperable to the X-47B program in intent? That is to say, instead of a one-off, "who knows what, or if, we're going to do with it" Phantom Ray it's more of a lengthy research program?
 
sferrin said:
Could someone please explain all the hoopla around this? What makes Taranis anything more than, say, another Phantom Ray?
Click to expand...

Its quite easy to build something that looks "stealthy" (e.g. Neuron, X-47B) but is rather more difficult to build something thatactually is "stealthy" (e.g. Taranis). But these different demonstrator programmes are all trying to demonstrate different things;

Neuron - Aerodynamics,Weapon Release
X-47B - Carrier operations
Taranis - as low signature as possible (which is why the progamme is so sensitive)
 
red admiral said:
sferrin said:
Could someone please explain all the hoopla around this? What makes Taranis anything more than, say, another Phantom Ray?
Click to expand...

Its quite easy to build something that looks "stealthy" (e.g. Neuron, X-47B) but is rather more difficult to build something thatactually is "stealthy" (e.g. Taranis). But these different demonstrator programmes are all trying to demonstrate different things;

Neuron - Aerodynamics,Weapon Release
X-47B - Carrier operations
Taranis - as low signature as possible (which is why the progamme is so sensitive)
Click to expand...
While the X-47B is designed to test carrier operations I'm fairly certain it's a stealthy design. ::)
 
sferrin said:
While the X-47B is designed to test carrier operations I'm fairly certain it's a stealthy design. ::)
Click to expand...

As I said; there's a difference between looking stealthy and actually being stealthy. X-47B falls down on the latter when you look in detail. It'll still be fairly stealthy compared to a normal aircraft but its likely that there is a very large difference between it and Taranis.
 
red admiral said:
sferrin said:
While the X-47B is designed to test carrier operations I'm fairly certain it's a stealthy design. ::)
Click to expand...

It'll still be fairly stealthy compared to a normal aircraft but its likely that there is a very large difference between it and Taranis.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to support that claim as Northrop Grumman almost certainly has more experience in the stealth dept than well, any European builder?
 
If I recall correctly, NG admitted that the X-47B was intended as a systems & aerodynamics demonstrator for the J-UCAS program and not representative of an operational airframe (unlike the X-47A for the earlier USN requirement), especially in the area of LO.
 
sferrin said:
Do you have anything to support that claim as Northrop Grumman almost certainly has more experience in the stealth dept than well, any European builder?
Click to expand...

NG definitely has more experience as a company but spread over many projects and decades. Its worth bearing in mind the UK has been building and testing stealth testbeds and aircraft for about 20 years now with the same team of people. Taranis is the latest step along the way. Its not like this has come from nowhere - the US doesn't have a monopoly on stealth.

I don't believe what I'm saying about X-47B is at all controversial. The differences can be clearly seen the nice high res photos, if you know what to look for. I believe quellish posted a link to a report recently that went into the signature trade offs NG made for X-47B. That is a reasonable place to start.
 
red admiral said:
I don't believe what I'm saying about X-47B is at all controversial. The differences can be clearly seen the nice high res photos, if you know what to look for. I believe quellish posted a link to a report recently that went into the signature trade offs NG made for X-47B. That is a reasonable place to start.
Click to expand...

I didn't say what you're saying is controversial. I'm merely asking for evidence. Pointing me to an article on the X-47B is unlikely to inform me on Taranis. "Just looks stealthier to my Mk1 eyeball." isn't necessarily evidence.
 
red admiral said:
I believe quellish posted a link to a report recently that went into the signature trade offs NG made for X-47B. That is a reasonable place to start.
Click to expand...


Nope, couldn't find it. I know several public references about the specifics exist, but I was not able to find them in the time I had.


Nonetheless, the X-47B is not intended to be a low observable vehicle. It's called "low observable representative". It has characteristics representative of low observable aircraft (basically, the configuration) but is not itself low observable.
 
sferrin said:
I didn't say what you're saying is controversial. I'm merely asking for evidence. Pointing me to an article on the X-47B is unlikely to inform me on Taranis. "Just looks stealthier to my Mk1 eyeball." isn't necessarily evidence.
Click to expand...

Given that the UK (or anyone else) hasn't posted signature data on the internet there is no "hard" evidence. But a simple eyeball over the available imagery to look at what design features have been included besides just overall planform shape tells you a great deal about the relative signatures (both RF and IR).
 
I saw the Taranis on the front cover of the Company brochure when I went for a job interview a few months back (didn't get the job), there was a short bit of puff about it inside - especially short on detail, sadly. ISTR they claimed it was a wholly company-funded private venture. I guess the hoopla is just like any sales hoopla - ours is better than theirs, come on you know you want one. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't.

This kind of tailless swept/delta wing is obviously good for stealth and robustness, so everybody's doing it. As an aircraft configuration, it is no more remarkable - and no newer - than Blèriot's monoplane. What a shame the great J.W. Dunne's patents of 1909 must have lapsed by now, he'd have made a fortune.
 
Given that the UK (or anyone else) hasn't posted signature data on the internet there is no "hard" evidence. But a simple eyeball over the available imagery to look at what design features have been included besides just overall planform shape tells you a great deal about the relative signatures (both RF and IR).
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • AP84058833252-2.jpg
    AP84058833252-2.jpg
    177.7 KB · Views: 269
quellish said:
red admiral said:
I believe quellish posted a link to a report recently that went into the signature trade offs NG made for X-47B. That is a reasonable place to start.
Click to expand...


Nope, couldn't find it. I know several public references about the specifics exist, but I was not able to find them in the time I had.


Nonetheless, the X-47B is not intended to be a low observable vehicle. It's called "low observable representative". It has characteristics representative of low observable aircraft (basically, the configuration) but is not itself low observable.
Click to expand...

Right, BUT, would you agree that it's designed with the intent that were it decided to put it into production it could be made VLO while maintaining the same basic OML?
 
VTOLicious said:
Given that the UK (or anyone else) hasn't posted signature data on the internet there is no "hard" evidence. But a simple eyeball over the available imagery to look at what design features have been included besides just overall planform shape tells you a great deal about the relative signatures (both RF and IR).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Great picture of the nozzle! I'd wondered about the wisdom of all that crap on top WRT RCS but since at this stage they don't appear to be concerned with RCS it makes sense from a cost point of view. However, on that note, most of them do appear to be masked by the fuselage from forward and below.
 
X-47B is aerodynamically representative of a stealthy design. However, it's not uncompromised, in rather obvious ways. Taranis is rather less so, also in ways that are visible and have been publicly discussed.
 
LowObservable said:
X-47B is aerodynamically representative of a stealthy design. However, it's not uncompromised, in rather obvious ways. Taranis is rather less so, also in ways that are visible and have been publicly discussed.
Click to expand...

Mind to elaborate a bit more ?
Are you referring to the (presumably RF antennas link / satnav) stuff on top ?
Or is there really something about the shape or control surface arrangement ?
Although it is extremely difficult to estimate such things, I personally feel the general X-47 shape and arrangement has greater RCS potential than Taranis.
But of course the full RCS story goes far beyond the shape.
And Taranis is not likely to land on a carrier any time soon.
 
I see lots of straight (not edge aligned) panel edges and unfilled panel gaps and fasteners.
 
Sure, I'm not saying the current X-47B bird is super stealthy, I was merely trying to look at the growth potential.
I trust NG know pretty well how to hide the gaps when needed, and fasteners are no big RCS deal when done properly.
As for "straight" or unaligned panel edges however, I don't see them (except open landing hook cavity).
 
TomS said:
I see lots of straight (not edge aligned) panel edges and unfilled panel gaps and fasteners.
Click to expand...

A production X-47B would have all of that cleaned up.
 
The x-47b's general layout is an excellent design for both scalability and stealth. Their white world bomber concept are just an enlarged x-47 and I wouldn't doubt that the so called secret RQ-180 has the x-47b shape with just elongated wings.
 
Aug.4 AvWeek has as interesting article on subject btw.
 
No prizes for those who guessed (pretty much everybody), but Woomera is now official:


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australian-official-confirms-taranis-test-location-405903/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom