EADS is a integrated compagny, franco german, that ums build in germany change nothing, they could build it in romania, as Dassault build falcons in USA, as the first A320 build in china will not be “chinese”, or the ford focus “english”

LOL, funny how Airbus & EADS here is seen as French only by Mr. Francois le Troll Quebec libre. :dev2:

Yes.

Appart for inacurate interpretations of BAe staments from no-official sources it doesn’t SAY anywhere either that Raven FIRST flight was fully autonomous and that it became fully autonomous even before 2005.

It says that Raven was fully autonomous. I do not have any statement saying it was in 2003, but neither do you to the contrary. Fact is, so or so, that BAE flew a fully autonomous UAV at least 3 years before Dassault did.

First Fully autonomous flight = Corax Dec 2005.

Strictly speaking, that is not what the slide says.

WHERE does it SAY ANYTHING about being FULLY autonomous on Raven’s slide please???
Take a hike Rob L!!!.:D

Are you stupid? Who says those two slides are the only sources on earth? Someone has already, a page or two back, posted an official BAE statement that Raven is fully autonomous. Also your slide does not say that Corax was the first autonomous flight of a BAE UAV.

the jet powered Raven is fully autonomous from take off to landing and is highly agile.

Link.
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1071513151.html

Give up you’re proven to be wrong AGAIN: FIRST FULLY autonomous flight for a BAe UAV was done with Corax in 2005.

Your slide does not in the slightest say that. Even Herti did fully autonomous flights (2004) earlier than Corax. Dude, you have no clue and its showing badly.

They ALL did to some extend, even AVE-D, for the simple reason that they needed some level of autonomy for flying them level without struggling too much; we’re talking about the FULLY autonomous issue.

Posters here have posted BAE official statements saying that Raven is fully autonomous.

Agreed. I don’t think MoD will CAN anything considering the strategic importance of SUAV(E) but they might ressort to collaborative programmes by lack of funding for a fully indigenously designed UCAV, expecialy in regard to the service intercontinantal strike requierements which dictates a LARGE airframe with air-refueling capabilities adding to cost.

2 full scale demonstrators vs. a share in a wooden model. :diablo:

(I do know the answer, BTW!!!)

Consider me intrigued! 😀

Corax served to develop what its programme goal says it did; Explore developement of advanced flight control system.

NOT the full automation you try to imply using uninformed sources, perhaps someone else thought so but it is clearly NOT the case and the UK comes only SECOND in Europe after SAAB as the best specialised press says rightly.

It takes some GUTS to deny BAe the knowledge of their own designs no?

Your own freaking slide says that it performed fully automated flights! :diablo: It takes some brains to read. 😡

Which specialized press says the UK comes second?

Good that you at least acknowledge that Dassault/France is at best third in autonomy, but probably also behind Finmeccanica/Italy (Sky-X iirc) and Germany. Dassault sucks balls at autonomous UAV/UCAVs.

Sure appart that its role is also clearly NOT that of an armed UAV and payload as listed by BAe document is NOT weapon load… you know as for two Mk82 and GBU 12 bombs?.

I never said so, this is Raven I’m talking about, are you getting confused again?

Great Diagrams of the Dassault airframe there 😎

I think part of the problem is with the terminology though. We have Reaper UAV’s dropping weapons with some regularity now (but they don’t use the ‘C’ ) but as Lordassap suggests the term UCAV is being used on the Taranis airframe and that may not ever carry anything hostile based upon his assertions, and that maybe the description UAV might be more appropriate.

Then to confuse things more we have the many documents at the UK Parliament that seem to describe Taranis as both a UCAV and UAV almost interchangably. They are the ones paying the bills so you would think they would know :eek::D

Not really, UCAV is a subcategory of UAV, every UCAV is a UAV but not every UAV is a UCAV. So saying UAV and UCAV to Taranis or anyother UCAV is completely correct. The term UAV does not exclude weapons capability.

They didn’t publish ANYTHING about a weapon bay development because there is NOTHING there to publish about it; there is NO weapon bay planed for Taranis.

There are no weapons releases planned, because gravity is a fairly well developed concept.

Testing will not include weapons separation tests or launches.
“We’re pretty confident gravity works and we have proven separation on all sorts of platforms. What’s important here is to prove a tangible military capability, … to focus on the operability of the weapon system. How does the UCAV manage the interface with the weapon? How does it ensure the rules of engagement are adhered to?” Allam asked.

Link.
http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3376485

So Taranis is to interface with weapons… perhaps in a weapons bay? Aviation Week, FlugRevue you name it. Two weapons bays.

The AVE-D’s flight consisted of an entirely automated sequence starting with its roll from its parking spot, to runway alignment, take-off, in-flight manoeuvres, landing, braking and moving back to the parking apron.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…utonomous.html

A little more than from runway-to-Runway…

And at least 3 years late.

Autonomy doesn’t do much for design expertise…

Yes it does, its one of the most important aspects of UAVs/UCAVs, no wonder Dassault had to give it to Saab for Neuron.

NO it didnt, you’re only giving the FIRST flight date NOT that of the fully autonomous flight…

Source that says that flight was not autonomous? Fact is BAE is years ahead in autonomy compared to Dassault because the absolute latest date would be 2005 when Herti flew fully autonomously in the UK (http://www.investis.com/bae/presentations/8autonomoussystemsnfuturecapability.pdf), that is at least 3 years (more probably 5 due to Raven) ahead of Dassault.

No matter what your are heavier but didn’t do much more for BAe than keeping up with Dassault and SAAB…

No need to keep up, they are ahead by a long shot.

What so funny? Turbomeca is French as far as i know Taranis is going to use it too no?

You were going on how much better France is at engines but they are using both the same UK/French engine (though the Taranis one will have R-R modifications).

Personal attack in view of a total incapability to argue properly, your trademark,

You regard me pointing out who exactly you are an insult? lol

Omg, thunder/sampaix/lordassap at it again lol.

More to it there are also historical realities meaning BAe had to design and build TWO TDPs in order only to keep up with SAAB and Dassault which had a clear lead at the time.

That might be, however since then BAE has surpassed them and will fly Europe’s largest ever UAV in 2009 and Europe’s first UCAV in 2010. Not to mention Fury (weapons released in 2008), Herti (first European UAV will full automatic flight), etc… .

Mike Turner was lobbying MoD in order to keep up “with the rest of europe” as he did put it at the time which in fact meant Dassault and SAAB; he got Corax and Raven, full size yes but YEARS behind too…

Years? Raven, a finless design, flew fully autonomously in 2003. That is three years after the AVE-D Petit Duc which flew in 2000, but that was only a 60kg, non-autonomous, non-finless design that crashed later on. Dassault didn’t achieve a first fully autonomous UAV than 2008, a full 5 years after BAE.

Here’s a comparison with SOURCES unlike your drivel.

Links on Dassault:
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0708/news/ave_c.htm
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/neuron/the-programm-goal.html?L=1

Links on BAE:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/28/205146/remote-horizon-bae-systems-uav-plans-unveiled.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/12/211013/bae-led-team-prepares-to-unleash-taranis-ucav.html

How anyone could conclude BAE being behind Dassault from this is beyond reasonable minds to comprehend.

Where they all are technologicaly is unclear in the case of the nEUROn team but i know the UK (MoD sources) still have some work to do on the IR signature Dpt only to develop the technology necessary for it (and that SAAB took the mickey into claiming nEUROn to be the first FULLY stealth platform in the EUs), based on MoD own staments on technology they aren’t far from being right, regardless of the number of UAVs developed and designed in the UK.

Sure… :rolleyes:

So what is happening in the UKs right now is i think what was going on with dassault at the time minus a few years thanks to Turner and his two TDPs.

No, BAE is NOT flying remote controlled 60kg model aircraft as Dassault did a few years ago.

It doesn’t matter too much for Dassault if Taranis fly earlier, they have it wraped up and financed, they were the first in the EUS to get there and they also retained design leadership which is what matters for them in order to develop and maintain design skills.

What? 1) Dassault did not get there first if Taranis flies first, which it will. 2) Dassault has a share in Neuron, not as much work as BAE has on Taranis or Mantis.

The nEUROn team is already at technology feasability studies stages for the successor of Tornados and Mirage 2000 (EFCS of course not those in French service) at DGA request as well as an operational version of nEUROn at an even more advanced stage.

Sure… . :rolleyes: