Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

[CoreBrute]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10602105.stm

 

Named after a Celtic god of Thunder...capable of unmanned air strike...warnings that it will always be closely monitored by a well trained military crew?

 

This sounds like the perfect target for a super villain plot! And it's British, not American! Go Britain!

 

What do you guys think of this new piece of tech, and do you think you would use it in a game, or is it not sci-fi enough...or too sci-fi?

[brionl]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I'm sure it's remotely controlled, not an autonomous vehicle. Of course with remote control comes the possibility of hi-jacking.

[DusterBoy]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I don't regard the pilot as the weak link. A machine cannot, for example, abort its mission should it find itself at the wrong target, come up with solutions beyond its programming or respond to the unexpected, etc, whereas a human being can do all those things and more. It does look very cool though, very ultratech. No doubt because of the white paint job.

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I don't regard the pilot as the weak link. A machine cannot' date=' for example, abort its mission should it find itself at the wrong target, come up with solutions beyond its programming or respond to the unexpected, etc, whereas a human being can do all those things and more.[/quote']

 

Yes, but the human being doesn't have to be in the plane. I think that was their point:a pilotless plane can in theory easily outperform a piloted one, because it doesn't have to cosset a squishy meatbag. That doesn't mean fully automated, as indicated by the statement "Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground" The goal seems to be to build UAVs that can operate in hostile airspace or against defended targets, which current models like the predator cannot. The thinking is that an air combat UAV could allow you to build a next generation fighter that was smaller, faster, cheaper and stealthier than the current fighters - with the added benefit that you don't lose an expensive pilot if it gets shot down.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Yes' date=' but the human being doesn't have to be in the plane. I think that was their point:a pilotless plane can in theory easily outperform a piloted one, because it doesn't have to cosset a squishy meatbag. That doesn't mean fully automated, as indicated by the statement "[i']Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground[/i]" The goal seems to be to build UAVs that can operate in hostile airspace or against defended targets, which current models like the predator cannot. The thinking is that an air combat UAV could allow you to build a next generation fighter that was smaller, faster, cheaper and stealthier than the current fighters - with the added benefit that you don't lose an expensive pilot if it gets shot down.

 

cheers, Mark

 

All that is very true. The US is working on similar craft, and I expect other nations are as well.

However, if used against a high-tech enemy you have the problem of the enemy attacking the command link.

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

All that is very true. The US is working on similar craft, and I expect other nations are as well.

However, if used against a high-tech enemy you have the problem of the enemy attacking the command link.

 

Yup - or hacking it. But with modern fighters, you have the same sort of problem with attacks against support facilities - look at the controversial RAND corporation simulation where Chinese Sukhoi fighters defeated a force of F22s: not by beating the F22s, but by swarming their tankers, rendering the F22s unable to return to base. Like everything in war, you need to look at trade-offs.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Yup - or hacking it. But with modern fighters, you have the same sort of problem with attacks against support facilities - look at the controversial RAND corporation simulation where Chinese Sukhoi fighters defeated a force of F22s: not by beating the F22s, but by swarming their tankers, rendering the F22s unable to return to base. Like everything in war, you need to look at trade-offs.

 

cheers, Mark

 

There is an order of magnitude difference between those two.

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

There is an order of magnitude difference between those two.

 

In what way?

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

In what way?

 

cheers, Mark

 

Unless a force is idiotic (which the USAF has been known to act as) there is serious difficulty in successfully attacking support facilities.

I am not familiar with the Rand study you cite, but I expect the USAF paid no attention to security for the tankers (after all, no one has really disputed air control with the US since WWII.) With competent planning, the Sukhoi would have had to do a one way suicide mission just to reach the tankers AO.

Defending your support facilities is a routine mission for any force that is not either incompetent or suffering from extreme over confidence.

But preventing jamming of a link to your mobile unit that is over an enemy controlled area is VERY hard to defend against.

Vast difference in the difficulty between the two.

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Unless a force is idiotic (which the USAF has been known to act as) there is serious difficulty in successfully attacking support facilities.

I am not familiar with the Rand study you cite, but I expect the USAF paid no attention to security for the tankers (after all, no one has really disputed air control with the US since WWII.) With competent planning, the Sukhoi would have had to do a one way suicide mission just to reach the tankers AO.

Defending your support facilities is a routine mission for any force that is not either incompetent or suffering from extreme over confidence.

But preventing jamming of a link to your mobile unit that is over an enemy controlled area is VERY hard to defend against.

Vast difference in the difficulty between the two.

 

Ah - I see your difficulty - you haven't read the study. We're not talking some hypothetical attack on the US or similar, but an analysis of the likely battle space in a specific conflict. Here's the RAND study. They were analyzing a "pacific conflict" (basically a US defence of Taiwan). The US fighters/Fighter bombers deployed are likely to have a significant edge in technology, but a significant disadvantage in numbers. To counter that weakness in numbers and the advantage the chinese have in air bases requires the US fighters to operate over longer distances and to operate for longer on station, made possible by the use of in flight refuelling. A numerically stronger foe can afford to engage your fighters, accept their losses and deploy extra forces against your support - in this case, the tankers and take them out. If you don't deploy your in flight tankers, your options become even worse: you can only deploy a portion of your force, increasing the enemy's numerical superiority in the battle space.

 

So no, the USAF aren't idiots - but forward operations require potentially exposing support assets due to the limited range of current stealthed fighters. That's a risk that some day might have to be taken. Likewise, although detecting and jamming a frequency-hopping signal to multiple stealthed targets isn't the easy task you seem to think it is, it's always possible that the technology to do that might be developed some day.

 

In short, both options offer some advantages, and some risks. In many ways, a larger fleet of UACVs may be a lower risk/higher return strategy.

 

cheers, Mark

[Greywind]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Rhodey: The future of air combat... Is it manned, or unmanned? I'll tell you in my experience, no unmanned aerial vehicle will ever trump a pilot's instinct.

[Yansuf]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

OK, do you have a link to the study?

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

OK' date=' do you have a link to the study?[/quote']

 

In his post, where he says "Here's the RAND study", the word "Here's" is a link.

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

In his post' date=' where he says "Here's the RAND study", the word "Here's" is a link.[/quote']

 

Yup: that's how I usually do it. The link is actually not to the whole study (which you have to pay to get) but a powerpoint presentation summing it up. Still, does the job.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Ah - I see your difficulty - you haven't read the study. We're not talking some hypothetical attack on the US or similar' date=' but an analysis of the likely battle space in a specific conflict. Here's the RAND study. They were analyzing a "pacific conflict" (basically a US defence of Taiwan). The US fighters/Fighter bombers deployed are likely to have a significant edge in technology, but a significant disadvantage in numbers. To counter that weakness in numbers and the advantage the chinese have in air bases requires the US fighters to operate over longer distances and to operate for longer on station, made possible by the use of in flight refuelling. A numerically stronger foe can afford to engage your fighters, accept their losses and deploy extra forces against your support - in this case, the tankers and take them out. If you don't deploy your in flight tankers, your options become even worse: you can only deploy a portion of your force, increasing the enemy's numerical superiority in the battle space.

 

So no, the USAF aren't idiots - but forward operations require potentially exposing support assets due to the limited range of current stealthed fighters. That's a risk that some day might have to be taken. Likewise, although detecting and jamming a frequency-hopping signal to multiple stealthed targets isn't the easy task you seem to think it is, it's always possible that the technology to do that might be developed some day.

 

In short, both options offer some advantages, and some risks. In many ways, a larger fleet of UACVs may be a lower risk/higher return strategy.

 

cheers, Mark

 

OK, I've seen the study.

I stand by my statement that "there is an order of magnitude difference."

Yes, in the study the PLAAF defeated the US force. So what?

The question is not whether the USAF can be defeated; the question of which is easier, attacking bases and tankers, or jamming a control link.

[RexMundi]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Jamming. Don't need much to do it. It only get's complicated if you want to be uber mobile and sneaky about it. Otherwise all you need is a power source and something to radiate. Somewhat familier with the field.

 

~Rex

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

OK, I've seen the study.

I stand by my statement that "there is an order of magnitude difference."

Yes, in the study the PLAAF defeated the US force. So what?

The question is not whether the USAF can be defeated; the question of which is easier, attacking bases and tankers, or jamming a control link.

 

At the moment? No contest - attacking bases and tankers, hands down. It's currently technically impossible to jam tight beam frequency shifting communications.

 

All of which is beside the point I originally made, which is that both unmanned and manned combat aircrafts have their weaknesses and strengths.

 

cheers, Mark

[phookz]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Nonsense. Just buy enough dice of Dispel and you can easily jam those communications.

 

All kidding aside - it is a very cool looking plane, and looks more like something from a movie or comic book than the real thing. I wish there were more photos of it.

 

More/better pictures/information available:

http://defense-update.com/features/2010/july/taranis_12072010.html

http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100712_taranis.html

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

[RexMundi]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Tight beam frequency communication requires isn't infallible...for the most part it is though. Indeed, if you are looking to jam one thing, you are pretty much not going to be able to do that unless you are exceedingly lucky and or are using the same equipement and so forth.

 

So, you jam EVERYTHING. Put enough power behind it and you can sunspot the entire field and there is nothing to jump to. The Issue with that is you can find what's Doing the jamming, and take care of it. Various natural phenomena does it All the time.

 

As for Currently Technically Impossible. Lot of that goes around in the Military especially. Things like the U2 were Technically Impossible in their Performance ability until Powers Got Shot down. The SR-71 pulled off more then a bit of "technically Impossible" before it was revealed. Tight Beam is a wonderous thing until the beam is interupted. Freq Shifts even better until there isn't anything to shift to. That's always been one of the biggest concerns in the field, especially with the UAV's but even with pilots and guided munitions. You don't need to Jam and block completely, it's often far more effective, to just burp it a bit.

 

As for attacking bases and Tankers, that's one of the reasons the Strategic Bomber comes back to life. Fighters Make Movies. UAV's Make Movies where you get to watch Jessica Biel bounce up and down on one of those pilates balls listening to an iPod, but Bombers Win Wars, and with the right programs (the last several blocks of the B-1 program and especially with the propossed B-1R), can make it exceedingly difficult to pull off "computer wins" when all those programs are stuck within the parameters of what they are programed with.

 

Still, I like the UAV approach and some of the other propossals I've seen for it, still, as has been pointed out in the UAV field, crash after crash, while the UAV is capable of doing things that a pilot can't, it's also very easy to make it do stuff that it's airframe can't withstand, and without the "seat of your pants" instinct and feel, can't recover from (A basic flat spin is a killer of Reapers left and right...)

 

Should be interesting. Nice test bed at least so I look forward to seeing the technical results down the road.

 

~Rex

[DusterBoy]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I have a feeling that "technically impossible" oftentimes translates to "wishful thinking". After all, how many times do you empirically test something you know to be "impossible"?

[Markdoc]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I have a feeling that "technically impossible" oftentimes translates to "wishful thinking". After all' date=' how many times do you empirically test something you know to be "impossible"?[/quote']

 

In science and research? All the time.

 

"Technically impossible" just means "Can't be done yet". That's why I wrote "Currently technically impossible". Here's the core problem: power diffusion. To jam a signal, you need to a) be on the same frequency and be powerful enough that the noise you introduce overwhelms (or at least significantly degrades) the signal, which means in short, you need to project a significant degree of the original signal's power. So far, so good. You can also broaden the frequencies you emit on, so you can jam more than one frequency at once (called barrage jamming). There's a catch, of course: the more frequencies you spread over, the more power of your signal is reduced. The technical paper I linked to pointed out that with current technology, the available spectrum is too broad for effective jamming across all of them - there's that word again: current.

 

So yeah, in the future, that technological problem might be overcome. Maybe in a secret lab somewhere it has already been overcome (not very likely though - unlike in movies, in rea life technology breakthroughs tend not to remain secret for very long). In the meantime, it remains easier to saturate air defence and attack support vehicles. That can be done with existing technology and forces.

 

cheers, Mark

[RexMundi]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

I think one of the things that would logically arrise from the Drone field eventually will be the manned mother Ship so to speak (lot of good Airframes out there or that), which controls the UAV's with a much shorter and tighter arc of communication. Gives more mobility as well to.

 

As far as Saturation. Numbers speaking it does work, it just tends not to be done. Ugly things happen when you start splashing unarmed tankers and what not. Not to mention, there are a few directives on the boards, with airframes that simply don't need the Support Infrastructure to be anywhere near the possible range of enemy retaliation. As simple and as cost effective as the last 3 blocks of Refits for the b-1 and the last 2 refits for the b52-h, relatively speaking. When it's a game of range, you start using the movers with the range, but speaking of that and the topic, a Tanker, let's stuff it in a big Airframe as well, no less then a wide body heavy, could easilly pack away the control systems for more then a few UAV's to fly cap for it.

 

That would be nifty. Shamu actually has teeth for once.

 

~Rex.....falls back on old lingo but....it's an interesting idea the over all topic, should turn out nifty.

[Adventus]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Also, remember that the communication satellite system the British has for it's military is called SkyNet!

 

Lets see: highly advanced computer system .........check!

robots with guns...................................check!

Autonomous flying weapons platforms...check!

 

Are we sure Terminators are only in the movies? Or are they taking over very quietly?

[RexMundi]

Re: Taranis-The British plane that deserves to be in a comic book

 

Very quietly. But, for all we know, Skynet and Markdoc could be one and the same right? Then again, such a thing could be with any of us, but it certainly has all the elements of a movie for SyFy to jump on....oh wait their next one is Sharktopus......maybe after that bit of cinema genius....we can have the Taranis Swarm take over.

 

~Rex