just a little to obvious if they called it the Tyrannus
Anne Ominous
What an unfortunate choice of name.
Tar"a*nis\, n. [L. taranis, from the Celtic; cf. W. & Corn. taran thunder.] (Myth.) A Celtic divinity, regarded as the evil principle, but confounded by the Romans with Jupiter.
Mel Tisdale
One wonders at exactly what threats there are out in the big outside world that necessitates such an expenditure. If the enemy is a large one, the U.K. is not going to fight the good fight on its own, that's why it is a member of NATO. And anyway, a large enemy is almost guaranteed to be equipped with nuclear weapons, either overtly or covertly.
If the enemy is a small one, we have Trident, which without any warheads can be equipped with sufficient technology to place all of its 60,000 kilos travelling at 15,000 mph on any target with extreme precision. That would release sufficient energy to do a great deal of damage. That should be sufficient to bring the parties to any conflict situation to the negotiating table. And if not, then put a warhead on one. Or would that give the lie to the idea that nuclear weapons are a deterrent.
In short, the U.K. has better uses for its money than on designing and developing killing machines like this weapon. When it ceases to have large numbers of people needing food banks, when it has enough money to bring the National Health Service back to its past glory, when its people can be said to be generally happy with their lot and not living in dread of becoming homeless or living in dread of the next energy bills, then, and only then, will it make sense to spend money on projects such as this. It already spends more than is sensible on defence.
Britain needs to realise that its Empire is over - it really is about time.
Scott Nicolson
I'll bet good money the testing facility was Woomera.
Fantastic, the killing robots have arrived. Coupled with all the advanced manufacturing robots which are eliminating good-paying human jobs, a keen time to be a man.
Phillip Noe
What a waste of resources! While our only habitat is deteriorating the war machine pushes for more and more of these high-tech gadgets. It just doesn't add up. Without a healthy habitat nothing else matters. If the funds that are spent on keeping us on a war footing were invested in shifting to sustainable generation and use of energy we could solve the climate change crisis and stop putting our future generations at risk.
Len Simpson
The F35 is now obsolete
Mel, first, Great Britain is not Denmark, or some small county only known of by the few people living the next few towns over. Second, the short & simple is that having more flexibility is always better than having less. Third, firing off Tridents is pricey. Also these aircraft are very hard to shoot down, hence they typically should a very good combat lifespan. Fourth, security today is based upon collective security principals first defined by President Wilson. Rejecting those collective security principals is one of the leading reasons for WWII. Is there really a good reason to relearn that lesson?
The Rise of the Machines.
James P Pratt
Give a good fighter pilot an F-22 and put five of these drones in the sky and the pilot will become an ace-in-a-day. The most important aspect of dog fighting is situational awareness and sitting at a computer monitor is rather limited compared to actually being in the environment.