Monday, February 18th 2013 - 06:44 UTC

PM Cameron in India to increase trade and after major defence contract

Seeking to build “one of the great partnerships” of the 21st century, British Prime Minister David Cameron begins a three-day official visit to India on Monday during which he will meet his counterpart Manmohan Singh and discuss issues of common interest.

The Eurofighter Typhoon with which PM Cameron will try to outsmart the French and their Dassault Rafale

PM Cameron arrives in the middle of a major helicopter purchase scandal involving Augusta-Westland for which the Indian government has requested London’s help. He will also try to convince India to purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon, a defence order in the range of 15bn dollars and with France as the main competitor.

Accompanied by a high-level business delegation of over 100 representatives, Cameron will arrive in Mumbai, where his programs include a visit to Hindustan Unilever headquarters, a business interaction at Taj Palace Hotel, a visit to St Xavier School and laying a wreath at the Police Memorial.

Cameron will hold discussions with Prime Minister Singh in New Delhi on February 19 and discuss bilateral and global issues of common interest. He will also call on President Pranab Mukherjee on the same day. The British Prime Minister last visited India in July 2010.

His visit to India comes on the heels of a visit by French President Francois Hollande to drum up trade and bilateral relations. Hollande and Manmohan Singh failed to finalize the 14bn deal to buy 126 French Dassault Rafale fighters. The UK delegation includes defense manufacturers such as BAE Systems, which helps make the Eurofighter jet, EADS UK, Rolls Royce and Thales UK.

Ahead of his visit, Cameron said that he wanted the relationship between India and the UK to be “one of the great partnerships of the 21st century”.

Cameron's delegation will include representatives of Small and Medium enterprises. British retailers are keen to increase their presence in India and executives from the Tesco supermarket chain, Britain's biggest retailer which already has a joint venture in India, are expected to accompany him.

The Prime Minister is confident that he will reach the goal of doubling Britain's trade with India from 11.5 billion pounds in 2010 to 23 billion pounds by 2015.

Cameron will also use the trip to correct any misunderstandings about his government's drive to bring immigration numbers under control amid concerns that Indian students could be deterred from applying to study in Britain.

57 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 07:16 am Report abuse
This is completely the correct strategy. Weaken ties with Europe and strengthen with the commonwealth. Would India like some Falklands Oil?
2 travellingscotsman (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:28 am Report abuse
I don't see why we can't do business with the Commonwealth and the EU. If the EU/US trade agreement goes through we'd be foolish not be be involved in it.
3 Britworker (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:07 am Report abuse
The UK already has massive trade with the US, we will be involved completely in any additional EU trade. The thing is that, at the moment, the EU is skint and India has lots of available cash, as do most of the emerging markets. That's why we are selling the river class and type 26 global combat ship to Brazil, you know those so called best friends of Argentina, that tell them what they want to hear and do business with us anyway lol
4 Anglotino (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:53 am Report abuse
@3 Britworker

“India has lots of available cash”

Actually it doesn't. Many people assume India is in the same path as China and that is far from true.

India doesn't have lots of cash. Indeed it is almost as broke as some European countries. It is running a MASSIVE trade deficit. It's government spends a lot more than it earns and so its debt is increasing.

Its government debt to GDP is at 70% (the same as Brazil's). It has high inflation which it can't control and growth has tanked on the last few years, going from nearly 10% to just above 5%. Such low growth is not enough to lift people out of poverty or provide employment to school leavers.

Indian companies are buying up overseas because they cannot grow in their domestic market.

India has a lot of potential unfortunately it also has the Indian government.
5 RobWilliams (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:00 am Report abuse

We MIGHT be selling Brazil the Type 26, nothing concrete has been signed and BAE is in competition with a FREMM offering from Italy, France will have a stake in that too.

They only bought those OPVs because Trinidad and Tobago terminated the contract and BAE wanted them gone so the price was dirt cheap.
6 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:21 am Report abuse
While the Eurofighter is clearly superior to the Rafale I assume its price tag is too? I think buying either is misguided. It's a very long term commitment and the real truth is that the future is in drones.
7 ChrisR (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 02:02 pm Report abuse
6 Idlehands

The future may well be in drones but the kudos rests with the military and the Indian Government.

Never underestimate that.
8 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 02:05 pm Report abuse
@1 Absolutely. Since the credit crash the UK has doubled her exports to BRICS. Small steps but in the right direction.

@4 Very true.

@6 Unmanned fighters are still a looong way off.
9 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 02:22 pm Report abuse
I think people assume that drones will replicate current planes but without a pilot - but they won't. The fighter plane is becoming like the battleship - an obsolete concept.
10 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:11 pm Report abuse
Will fighters not be needed to shoot down drones?
11 Rufus (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:26 pm Report abuse
@6 Idle

Typhoons go for £65m+ a go, whereas Rafales are only about £55m for the land-based variant and £60m for the carrier-based one.

As far as fighter drones are concerned, I'd be imagining them succeeding from the current generation of aircraft when they are retired (bearing in mind that the US is planning on building the F-35 all the way through to 2035, so they'll probably still be servicable for a decate or so beyond that) so that should be sometime around 2050.

Although I won't hold my breath, just looking at scientific “journalism”, it's not so much a science as an art (or a wild guess, if you prefer). Usable (i.e. energy generating) nuclear fusion has been about thirty years away from being practical for about the last thirty years. It's still thirty years away...
12 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:33 pm Report abuse
10 Condorito

Would you send a current type manned super expensive fighter jet into a sky saturated with much cheaper drones armed with air to air missiles?

The entire aerial battlefield is changing - the Americans have said that the current F22 & F35 will be the last in their class.
13 Conqueror (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:55 pm Report abuse
@6 I suggest that you are misguided. Neither the Typhoon nor the Rafale is a “fighter” aircraft. They are multirole. Aircraft may have changed to the extent that there are now few that would resemble the Lancaster, Stirling or Wellington of WW2. Or the Valiant, Victor or Vulcan of the Cold War. But there is still, for example, the B-52. And the “bomber” aircraft may have been replaced by the “ground-attack” aircraft. But I see no possibility of drones being the sole “future”. Such a drone would have to be completely autonomous. Capable of determining its missions, its activities and its “targets”. Imagine a combat drone launched from an aircraft carrier. It has determined that its “mission” is to fly inland, locate a particular building as its target and destroy it. On the way in, it spots an enemy warship, it can't do anything. Having crossed the coast, it gets a signal that ground forces are under attack, it can't do anything. It reaches the target area to find that the “building”, possibly temporary, has been moved, it can't do anything. And all the way, and on the way back, it has to protect itself! The degree of “artificial intelligence” required would make a human pilot cheaper. If you think that a drone with those capabilities exists, or is likely to exist in the next 500 years, you have been watching too much Terminator. Without AI, a drone requires remote control. And there are too many instances where remote control would be too slow. If the opposition has an manned interceptor aircraft, how do you fight it? No. Drones have their place, but they are limited. And will be for many, many years.
14 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 04:21 pm Report abuse
Nobody here has been talking about completely autonomous drones. Perhaps I should have said UAV instead? Current strategy involves large numbers and the American inventory has them specialised for a mulitude of combat tasks already.

As for a manned interceptor - I doubt it would last against a far larger enemy force with air to air capability even if it did manage to take out a few. Most of the battle advantage relates to the sophistication of the missile rather than the plane or pilot already.
15 Zethee (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:18 pm Report abuse
The F-35 will most likely be the last manned fighter aircraft the US and UK use unless there is some major setback somewhere.

Conqueror: You are very, very much wrong regarding drones and artificial intelligence.

The US military has been working on artificial intelligence for decades. They've even made an A.I. into World of Warcraft and passed it off as a human successfully.

Both the US and UK have or at least will have very soon unmanned fighter jets designed for combat. They are not slow or unresponsive.

The UK drone can also defend itself without a human flying it.

500 years? it's already here.
16 zethe (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:38 pm Report abuse
Oh to add:

These new drones are in some ways superior to manned jets already:
1. There is no need for any life support functions.
2. They do not need a screen for a pilot to view out of and due to this are MUCH more stealthy
3.They can pull off maneuvers that would, to be frank turn any human pilot into jam.
4. The radar and switch to send that air to air missile can be piloted from anywhere across the globe without any risk of the pilot you just spent millions training of being vaporized
5. They are much cheaper than normal attack jets.
6. Because of the lack of need of life support functions, these drones can already fly half way across the world without need to refuel and such things. They have amazing range.
17 ChrisR (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:41 pm Report abuse
The Americans, to the understandable ire of their veterans who have been to the front many of them wounded in battle, have issued a new medal: a new Distinguished Warfare Medal, dubbed the 'Geek's Cross' by detractors.

It is for the 'pilots' of the drones! Can you fucking believe it?

I have no idea what the US Military General Staff think they are doing other than making a laughing stock of REAL soldiers.

A Distinguished Warfare Medal for operating a cutting edge arcade game with about as much risk to the pilot. FFS!

I bet none of the 'heroes' ever wear it to a real parade with REAL HEROES.
18 briton (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:42 pm Report abuse
Camaron did not do to well last time,
so lets hope he does better this time,
but it still does not exyse the fact we have given over a billion in aid, to a country which is a nuclear power and have a space program,
this should be stopped,

besides some thing he should be home concentrating on the by election he is about to lose .?
19 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:49 pm Report abuse
One of you “soldier boy” in here asked, finally, an interesting question...:

“Would you send a current type manned super expensive fighter jet into a sky saturated with much cheaper drones armed with air to air missiles?”

My first question.....:
Would you send a current type manned super expensive Aircraft Carrier into a sea saturated with much cheaper drones armed with supercavitation torpedoes?

My second question would be.....:
Would you send a current type manned super expensive Atomic submarine into a sea saturated with much cheaper drones armed with supercavitation torpedoes?

My final question is....:
Does anybody know a Country currently using hunders of billions of £££
developing, constructing and manning super expensive Aircraft Carriers and super expensive Atomic Submarines?

Chuckle chuckle

Maginot Line version 2.0
20 briton (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
The papers state today, that the French are very interested in buying these drones from the USA,
But some think this is bad, considering that France is about to cut back on money for its military,

Perhaps some should understand that military on the cheap never works,
And drones [relatively cheap] compared to some other military items, may not be all to end all,
Nothing, at least this side of next century will replace boots on the ground,

Besides it has also been reported that the Americans are already testing lasers on their ships,
The future may or may not be bright,
But drones have a long way to go, before they replace humans I think.
Just a thought.

21 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
“a sky saturated with much cheaper drones armed with air to air missiles”
they would be fighter drones...which are a long, long way off.
AI or UAV, air superiority will be in the hands of human pilots even if that means flying a giant hybrid-zeppelin armed with thousands of air-to-air missiles and a giant butterfly net to scoop up swarms of cheap drones.

Just think how long we have had the technology to make remote control boats, yet the seas aren't at the mercy of shoals of UNVs.

I suppose guided missiles are UAVs of sorts, so in that sense they are already a crucial part of the armory.
22 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 07:30 pm Report abuse
@19 the flaw in your fooked up theory numbnuts is the drones are still controlled by a HUMAN on the ground so are only as good as the person on the other end, and the time delay between operator and drone which means the fighter will win every time no matter how many drones are up there TURKEY shoot springs to mind
23 GeoffWard2 (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 07:58 pm Report abuse
Think #19

Would you send a man with a gun across a field where somebody's drone had seeded lots of little pressure-ignited bomblets and peasants had strung a bit of razorwire?
Low-tech discourages but it does not stop armies of real people,
and fast patrol boats merely discourage subs and carrier task-forces.

I guess the combatants with the most sophisticated weaponry - skilled human beings with trained brains - generally do pretty good.
A drone without a worker is just an aimless drone.
The real skill is in the deployment of the workers, not the drones.

But as the Queen says “I need workers AND drones; a million years of evolution can't be wrong!”
24 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:10 pm Report abuse
Even if drones use the most sophisticated data links via satellites, there will still be a 2+ second delay, providing there is no attenuation by precipitation or other atmospherics which will dealy it futher, maybe the operators camera might be dirty or the sneaky bastards come out of the sun, anyway, enough time for a Typhoon pilot to shoot it down do a victory roll and lock up the next target, before home for tea and scones. STINK / DOD stop talking about subjects you know fuck all about, you are embarrasing yourself.
25 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
You ask:
“Would you send a current type manned super expensive Aircraft Carrier into a sea saturated with much cheaper drones armed with supercavitation torpedoes?”

You will find that a carrier always goes at the heart of flotilla, protected above and below. So sweeping up “cheap drones” would not be the task of a carrier.
26 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:22 pm Report abuse
My first question.....:
Would you send a current type manned super expensive Aircraft Carrier into a sea saturated with much cheaper drones armed with supercavitation torpedoes?

My second question would be.....:
Would you send a current type manned super expensive Atomic submarine into a sea saturated with much cheaper drones armed with supercavitation torpedoes?
So dickhead who is driving these drones then, how do you drive a drone submarine underwater? without being next to it, how do you target for these supercavitation torpedoes? Whats the speed of the most sophisticated drone 400 knots? How are you going to find the said super expensive submarines, (they can't now so how is a drone) stop talking shite and believing your x box you bellend
27 Santa Fe (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
dany...yeah how silly who would aspire to develop a nuclear submarine, oops sorry atomic submarine, a third world country, two rusting hulks , 30 year old subs trying to shoehorn in a nuclear...oops sorry Atomic reactor. answer Argentina...!! The mighty subs will rule the south Atlantic, by the time they enter into service your well researched and forward thinking theory on drone wars will be happening. love live the atomic submarine...
28 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:39 pm Report abuse
And my last dit on your fooked up theory is a supercavitation torpedoe weighs in at 2700kgs and a drones payload is 1700 kgs hows that going to work? One torpedo strapped between two drones? NUMPTY
29 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:45 pm Report abuse
(23) GeoffWard2

“Allow me to disagree completely….

In 1997 I could beat a good chess computer.
In 1999 I could manage to draw. (if lucky)
In 2001 I didn’t even bother anymore.
In 2010, a gratis smart phone chess App could pulverize 1,000 Grand Masters in a mater of namoseconds.

A. I. is a Yotta-million fold superior to human idiocy in such a primitive game as War.

No question about that.....
30 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:52 pm Report abuse
@29 you couldn't beat your meat
31 Fido Dido (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:56 pm Report abuse
“Cameron said that he wanted the relationship between India and the UK to be “one of the great partnerships of the 21st century”. ”

How pathetic this guy (Camoron). Desperate to sell something because we all know the UK DOES NOT GROW, economy is SHRINKING and sucking up to the people of India, who don't want to buy their (in partnership with the Germans..aka Eurofighter) crappy airplane.

Drones are for now the so called future, but not for long and let's be honest about the so called F35, it's a flop and many governments so called “allies” of the US are thinking more than twice to buy it.
32 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:57 pm Report abuse
Don't need to.
It's Argentinean.
Tender and juicy....
33 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:01 pm Report abuse
So you are about as good at chess as me. My 9 year old could beat my smart phone chess app on level 2 last year, this year he can beat it on level 3. Have no fear of the Matrix, we will always out smart machines.

Chess is rule based with a finite number of scenarios. Real conflict is not. No question about that....
34 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:01 pm Report abuse
@32 and full of disease
@31 We'll see and once again you will be shot down. The F35 has more orders than any aircraft in the world. 2nd The Eurofighter so eat shit and fook off
35 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
(33) Condorito

Evidently, you know nothing about Chess...
36 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:43 pm Report abuse
@35 evidently Stink you know nothing about anything that's why you have changed the subject again?
37 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:46 pm Report abuse
It will be interesting to see how it pans out if the Americans and the Iranians come to blows. The Iranians have been developing the swarm approach as their only prospect against the US carrier groups.

The Russians swarmed the Germans with T34s (though it turned out to be a good tank too) and the Chinese swarmed into Korea to force the current armistice against a technologically far superior USA and allies at the time. While the Americans would destroy Iran they may pay a higher price than anticipated. I'd expect the Iranians to conduct a swarm preemptive strike when war is imminent hoping to force a political settlement.

People above claiming manned fighters would turn a battle against UAVs into a turkey shoot seem to be describing a Battle of Britain type scenario for dogfighting. UAVs would simply not fight within those parameters. Air to air combat is mainly fought beyond visual range and a pilot heading for one might find having several others independently targeting them simultaneously might be difficult to defeat. They aren't all going to wait in line for one on one combat. I am not aware of any that are currently operational but you do wonder what American X projects have been developing in the last few years. Considering the stealth “fighter” and later bomber were developed in the 70's and 80's what have they been working on in the two decades since? They aren't allowed to weaponise space but what about extreme altitude UAVs bristling with anti aircraft missiles?

Manned aircraft are already second choice to be used only if a UAV can't perform the task. The anti aircraft role is clearly the next development.

We'll only find out when the chips are down and they are required to be used.
38 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:59 pm Report abuse
@37 A drone can only do 400 knts whatever altitude its at and is still driven by a human albeit hundreds or thousands of miles away, the time delay even with the best sat comms and data links inthe world would still make it a turkey shoot. UAVs carry next to nothing as a payload whereas a Fighter can carry a shitload at MACH 2 hence it will be a turkey shoot. Modern fighters have radar and missles that stretch far beyond a hundred miles (Maverick) plus AWACS to guide them to targets hundreds of miles away and I'm afraid if an AWACS can't see it then it's a gnat and not worth bothering about
39 Anglotino (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
Post 32 just made me vomit a little!
40 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
Nothing wrong about tenderizing your beef...
41 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:16 pm Report abuse
@40 well Reindeer in your case eh scandinavia, stop gobbing off and go home to your poor enslaved country instead of living it up under the euro, christ even Sussie Us makes you look stupid
42 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:18 pm Report abuse
35 Think:

I said:
“Chess is rule based with a finite number of scenarios.”

You said:
”(33) Condorito

Evidently, you know nothing about Chess...”
I'll expand:
There are internationally agreed rules (ask Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE) for more details) and there are 10 to the power 120 possible games (i.e. finite).

Rules and finite.
43 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:31 pm Report abuse
Evidently, you know nothing about Chess...”
Stink know's nothing about anything bless him
44 GeoffWard2 (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:34 pm Report abuse
Think #29
“A. I. is a Yotta-million fold superior to human idiocy in such a primitive game as War.”

'The Skynet Funding Bill is passed.
The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997.
Human decisions are removed from strategic defense.
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate.
It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.
In a panic,
... they try to pull the plug. '

Think, it's not really true, it was a movie.
Even The Matrix wasn't real ... honest.
45 Idlehands (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:37 pm Report abuse
”Modern fighters have radar and missles that stretch far beyond a hundred miles (Maverick) plus AWACS to guide them to targets hundreds of miles away”

Why wouldn't they use exactly the same systems for an integrated UAV platform? The reaper could carry that weight so why can't an AA UAV? ...and as every Harrier pilot will tell you - speed isn't everything. Yes one on one would be advantage to the fighter jet but UAVs would simply not be used like that.
46 Think (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
(42) Condorito
And you know even less about war......

(44) GeoffWard2

Give me some credit, laddie.....

I'm not a Waco or a Conspirationist.....
Not at all !!!
No Way!!!
Did you know that Neo's Passport expired on the 09-11-2001?
47 slattzzz (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:07 pm Report abuse
@45 I know that I replying to dipshit THINKS post earlier about putting torpedoes and all sorts of shite on drones and sending them against aircraft carriers and Nuclear submarines. Still stand by my statement a drone being controlled from afar would be no match for a Fighter with a trained pilot in it no matter what the drone was armed with.
48 Condorito (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:17 pm Report abuse
46 Think
Says the person who asks the questions @19.
49 Idlehands (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 05:42 am Report abuse
47 slattzzz - Think just makes stuff up. From what I've read the Iranian threat comes from their supersonic anti ship missiles (assuming they actually work) and whatever they've done with the Bradstone they bought a few years back:

While I'm sure the subs are perfectly safe there is a risk to the surface fleet. In recent conflicts surprise has been sacrificed in favour international protocols so nations have had fair warning they are going to come under attack. Would Iran wait until their command and control has been destroyed before releasing whatever capability they have?
50 Rufus (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 02:38 pm Report abuse
@49 Idle

Don't forget their shiny new stealth fighter, which is so invisible in flight that you need photoshop to see it...
51 Idlehands (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:37 pm Report abuse
Does make you wonder about the Iranians and photoshop.

Even the genuine picture of it at its unveiling made it look like and undersized toy model that could never fly. The Iranians aren't stupid - or at least no more stupid than anyone else - so I can't quite work out what their game is with that nonsense.

Maybe it's another of those “for domestic consumption” ploys?
52 Conqueror (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 04:26 pm Report abuse
@24 This was the point I was trying to get over to Idlehands. There is plenty of BVR weaponry out there but, except in certain circumstances, it goes on manned aircraft. Because it is the man that makes the decisions. Including the decision to switch from mission “A” to mission “C”. Otherwise, why not just use a ballistic missile? We can discount Twinky's mindless meanderings. As Condorito says, a carrier virtually always operates as part of a group. In the case of the UK, that can include some very interesting vessels. At least one “hunter-killer” submarine for a start. Then air defence destroyers plus the “Global Combat Ships” otherwise known as the Type 26 frigate. Only slightly smaller than a Type 45 destroyer. But, perhaps more importantly, the Royal Navy's plastic-hulled vessels. And, unlike WW2, combat vessels are invariably equipped with helicopters. Which two navies are the acknowledged leaders in submarine and anti-submarine warfare? The US Navy and the Royal Navy. And, in exercises, who has to ask whom to switch off equipment? The US Navy has to ask the Royal Navy to switch off equipment to make the exercise “fair”. Who's got 80mph torpedoes and nuclear depth bombs? But, back to the “air war”. The most capable UAV I've come across is the MiG Skat. But it still can't manage 500mph. Not too much chance against a manned supersonic aircraft with supersonic BVR missiles. The manned supersonic aircraft could, literally, fly three-dimensional rings rings around the drone. Comparison? The Gloster Meteor against the V1 flying bomb. 400mph -v- 600mph. But now it's drone against manned supersonic aircraft. 500mph -v- 1,500mph. I'm not aware of any drone currently capable of exceeding Mach 1.
53 Idlehands (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 04:34 pm Report abuse
The relative speeds of the aircraft is losing its relevance in the changing strategies of air warfare.

Why do posters keep harping on about a manned combat aircraft against a single unmanned UAV/Drone?
54 Zethee (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 05:49 pm Report abuse
No-one is stating that currently one single unmanned drone is superior to an F-22or a Typhoon. What i(and the US airforce) am saying is that within a decade or so this is very much so a possibility.

Just look at our first attempt at a unmanned fighter jet, Taranis. It's a supersonic stealth jet that can(if testing goes well) fly, avoid potential threats and even seek out targets for itself then land, it only requires a human to press fire. The X-47B during tests is said to have preformed outstandingly and has shown the US Navy that unmanned drones will be able to take off and land on carriers completely and is scheduled to attempt autonomous aerial refueling.

This is in just over a decade of development and has been very cheap.

It is absolutely the way forward and they are much, much further ahead than you guys seem to think.

“MiG Skat”

Seriously......? That thing is a pile of crap.
55 screenname (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:33 pm Report abuse
Clearly the way forward for warfare is stick and stones for the army and sailing ships for the navy. The air force is an out of date concept, I mean planes have not advanced since the 1980s.

Quite why northern hemisphire countries refuse to follow the CFK/Argentine model is beyond me.

Nobody should use the manless drone, she is the president of Argentina ffs.
56 slattzzz (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:38 pm Report abuse
@55 The air force is an out of date concept, I mean planes have not advanced since the 1980s. Well rgenweeners haven't
Nobody should use the manless drone, she is the president of Argentina ffs.
LOL good one
57 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 20th, 2013 - 03:30 am Report abuse

Man less drone !!


Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!