Sorry to bring this back, but in the original first post it suggested that UK Taranis would be flying in 2010. However, in the hoopla around the damaged wind turbine in Louth in the UK this week, the newspapers are reporting that the MOD as saying that the Taranis was using the ranges in the area at the time. One of the newspapers on the attached link. Its also being reported elsewhere

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4178800/UFOs-spotted-by-hundreds-at-wind-turbine-site.html

Could this be that very rare occurance when a UK project is actually ahead of schedule ? :eek::D

If those turbines we hit by an aircraft then you’d expect some debris. Also in the middle of a wind farm isn’t exactly an ideal place to be test flying a prototype aircraft.

And if you do wait and decide to go for the F35 anyway you may just have to wait a little longer while early production slots are grabbed by another nation.

“CAMM”?

BTW anybody know if Crotale VT-1 is going to sea?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84233&highlight=camm

It’s all “the war against terror”. Had 9-11 not happened we’d probably still be patroling no-fly zones over Iraq.

That might of been how it was sold but really I don’t see how the Iraq War was ever going to achieve anything to combat terrorism.

Same war, different country. This whole “start another war” is a load of crap. Like saying fighting in France in WWII was a different war than fighting in Germany in WWII.

How exactly was the Iraq war anything to do with Afganistan then? The enemy in Stan was Al Queda and the Talaban for providing them with a refuge, what links did they have with Iraq?

As for commitment to the first one do you suggest we give the current Iraqi government the finger and stay after they’ve said they want us out (2011-ish)?

No I’m saying that the Bush’s commitment to Stan as referenced above is questionable because the job was half done when he decided to pull troops out and started another war.

The article sounds more a way to put pressure on the Brits to get more deeply involved in Afghanistan than anything else. This has been going for quite some time, and you find similar articles/pressure in Canada and other countries.

And frankly, the Times is so accustomed to posting articles on a supposedly imminent and deep crack in the special relationship with the US (i.e. every time that the UK dares not do exactly what is expected of her by the US) that their credibility on this subject is lower than zero.

Exactly, if British troops are so poor then why is so much pressure being applied for more? Is the same level of pressure being applied to the rest of NATO members including the ones that are not contributing as much or restricting the deployment of its troops to safer zones?

Iraq is stable. The exit deal is in place. Oil revenues are secured for the future. Afghanistan is a more dire situation now and they are sending troops there ? Whats wrong with it ? Atleast they aren’t saying lets negotiate with the Taleban are they ?

Choosing to start another war while you’re in the middle of one doesn’t exactly show commitment to first one now does it.

Iraq stable? Its more stable than it was, car bombings and other killings are still happening and will continue to happen for years.

I like the commitment Bush has given to the war in Afghanistan, I am yet to see a positive commitment from British for a long time.

What like leaving the job half done, pulling a load of troops out and sending them to war somewhere else?

:confused: