Royal Navy's helicopter drone makes its first autonomous flight

The Royal Navy has conducted the first flight of a helicopter-sized autonomous drone that is planned to operate from its ships in support of missions, including hunting for hostile submarines. The Proteus autonomous full-size helicopter. The Proteus autonomous full-size helicopter – click to enlarge Pic: Simon Pryor/ Open …

[Ken G]

Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

I can't tell from the article whether the intention is that this drone can operate to and from ships without a pilot in the loop?

As I understand it, landing on ships at sea is difficult.

[KittenHuffer]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

With the right sensor package it may actually be easier for the drone.

It would be able to react to ship movement far faster that a meatbag would be able to, as it would be able to monitor all of its sensors all of the time. And then take the required action(s) to maintain its position relative to the ship far faster and more accurately.

[druck]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

If you want a successful landing, you don't react to the ship's movement, you anticipate it.

[Pickle Rick]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

Anticipation is a reaction to observation.

[steelpillow]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

This is where software wins hands down over meatbags: it can maintain a complex real-time model of the current wave conditions, deck heave and flight dynamics, and pretend it is playing doom.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

Ken G,

The Americans have landed several autonomous drones on aircraft carriers, catapulted them off and landed them again. Which is harder than landing a helicopter on a frigate's deck, in all but the roughest of weather.

Whether it's as good as a human pilot or not, I don't know though. It's not going to be able to guesstimate and anticipate the weather, in the way human pilots do, but on the other hand has much faster reactions, so might not need to. If not, you just change the rules as to what sea states the drone choppers are allowed to fly in - there's still plenty of uses for them when it's not incredibly rough.

[hammarbtyp]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

A drone has some advantages compared to a manned helicoptor

Firstly they can be smaller but carry the same payload.I once spent 6 week watching seakings take on and off a RFA oiler and it was amazing to see how close the blades got the hanger deck. In theory a drone would have a greater margin

Second is perceived risk. A human capable chopper may not get launched due to risk of fail to recover and loss of a human crew. In worst scenarios a drone can be ditched (although the bill would be considerable)

On the downside, however good your AI is, I would back a experienced human pilot to adapt to conditions, especially ones that have not been encountered before.

[Ken G]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

I was thinking of the Irish Naval Service which bought 2 SA365F Dauphin helicopters to deploy at sea on the LÉ Eithne. After about 2 years of training they gave them up, on the basis (from memory) that developing and maintaining pilot proficiency for ship landings and takeoffs was too expensive. While most drones are smaller that manned helicopters, this one seems to be exactly the same size as the manned one which it is based on.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

While most drones are smaller that manned helicopters, this one seems to be exactly the same size as the manned one which it is based on.

Naval aviators are a special kind of crazy. I worked with one who explained in heavy seas, they'd lower their winch line to the ship and winch themselves down to the deck.. Which could be pitching & rolling quite a bit, which he said in rough seas could be quite exciting. I guess Robocopters could do the same thing with sensors monitoring how much the landing pad is moving.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

I remember being in a manned copter on a flight out to a semi-sub in the northern North Sea - it was quite bumpy flying out there as it was stormy. The wind was gusting >50kt on location and half of us disembarked on a nearby fixed platform whilst the pilot took the rest to the semi. I went into the platform radio room* and listened into the pilot's communication with the semi's HLO - he was asking for continuous wind speed reading from a hand-held anemometer. Gusts ranged from 49 to 55 when, following a 47 the HLO sounded startled to see the copter on the deck. The pilot came back for the rest of us and, visualising the previous conversation, I could understand why we were hovering for a few minutes and then descended to the helipad very quickly. As we disembarked we could tell the blades were holding the beast down.

I recall another offshore visit when the flight out took around 45 minutes - the return a couple days later** was a shade over two hours. A strong westerly all that week. The return flight was rough and low - and we were all glad when we finally reached land! The weather limitation on helicopter operations wasn't a flight issue, it was sea state should a rescue be required. The pilots were the best.

*It was a platform I'd visited several times previously and because of my role (see **) I had what amounted to an all-areas pass.

**My job at the time involved two nights offshore - each week a different installation - running audits on various operations.

[ian 22]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

Experienced drones will tell you below 40 degrees south latitude there is no law. Below 50 degrees there is no God. And then there’s the screaming 60s.

[Gordon 10]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

Not this drone though - its the same size as a chopper. Seems more a crafty pork barrel attempt by the Leonardo than a serious attempt to create a drone chopper. Surely you'd make them smaller to cram 2 into the same space as a chopper for Meatbags.

[anothercynic]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

It's a quick and dirty programme - Take what already exists, modify it and make it run 'autonomously'...

[Luiz Abdala]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

I have seen a video of a meatbag-operated helicopter being ANCHORED to a ship in 10-foot waves while pitching 30 degrees, and it was the most awe-inspiring thing I have ever seen in a while. Inches from disaster at every second, and both the ship's crews were ON THEIR TOES to make it happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0s4pKEOu6E

I wonder how much stress is being removed from the equation for every part involved when the bird has a computer brain.

[Gordon 10]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

... Or how much stress is ADDED?

[Luiz Abdala]

Re: Unmanned take-off/landing on ships?

On another video, a new type of autopilot installed on a F18 tried to chase a refuelling basket drogue, weaving up and down with it. The pilot got seasick really quickly hahah. Guess they didn't try that again for several years.

[KittenHuffer]

[Austrian Accent] Get to the chopper! [/AA]

[Anonymous Coward]

And US subs too if they continue to f around with their threats to take Greenland

[VoiceOfTruth]

Britain will capitulate

The politicians are queuing up with the same words in different variations: 'this is wrong'. Where are the 'all options are on the table' threats? The USA (not just Trump) is a direct threat to a European nation, yet the word are soft.

After Greenland, soon to be renamed 'Trumpland' on USA maps, Canada will be next. I think Canada deserves it more than most - it really thought by doing what the USA told it to do that it was a player. It has been played. People like Carney aren't even on the B team.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Lots of downvotes from Quislings.

It was not unusual during WW2 to find lots of people in invaded countries actively supporting the invaders. Half of France, for example. After ze war they all claimed to be in the Resistance, shaved the heads of a few women, and politely forget their treachery.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

No, we are just tired of your brand of bullshit.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Britain will capitulate

"Britain will capitulate..."

Only in your dreams, I think. Not that it is for 'Britain' to take the lead on this - as you well know, Greenland belongs to Denmark, so this is primarily for Denmark to decide. The UK will no doubt support them fully in whatever course they and the people of Greenland decide to take.

The language that has been used both by the Danish and Greenland politicians after their meeting with the US last week, and the language being used now is about as tough as diplomatic language can be without risking further escalation. If Trump thinks the EU and other Western European countries are simply going to roll over and allow him to bully them into submission, I think he will be disappointed. Public opinion generally appears to behind resisting his intentions.

The European politicians have a difficult tightrope to walk - we are dependant on so much which we acquire from the US, and militarily a large portion of European equipment is US sourced in some form, so there is a need to keep everything on a diplomatic level. If Trump decides to use military force, we shall have to see how Denmark and greater Europe responds, but before he takes such action, Trump has to ask himself how many dead Americans the USA is prepared to pay for Greenland.

[LogicGate]

Re: Britain will capitulate

He also needs to consider who holds US bonds and loans.

US deficit spending is only possible as long as they can take up loans. Without these loans, there will be no money to pay soldiers.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Without these loans, there will be no money to pay soldiers.

We live in interesting times. Not that long ago, there were 'Yanks go home!' protests in places like Germany calling for closure of US bases. Demark and Greenland are protesting again. Then if these actions lead to the collapse of NATO and a European replacement.. Closing US bases in Europe would result in a loss of those soldiers spending, but also create challenges for the US around where to put them. It would save money operating all their bases, but still carry a lot of costs for closures. But with a $1.5tn defence budget, it can probably shuffle some money around, unless that money gets devalued, which might be the point behind deficit spending. Inflate the debt away and call it good.. maybe.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

>He also needs to consider who holds US bonds and loans

America's enemies, and therefore no need to pay them ?

[LogicGate]

Re: Britain will capitulate

And the moment the US defaults on an existing loan, where will they get their next loan?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

>where will they get their next loan?

Venezuela

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Britain will capitulate

>> If Trump thinks the EU and other Western European countries are simply going to roll over and allow him to bully them into submission, I think he will be disappointed.

What will they do? Nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> What will they do? Nothing.

You're wrong!

They will monitor the situation closely.

(That'll teach the Americans)

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Britain will capitulate

If Trump decides to use military force, we shall have to see how Denmark and greater Europe responds, but before he takes such action, Trump has to ask himself how many dead Americans the USA is prepared to pay for Greenland.

I think it's unlikely (hopefully) to ever get that far, but there's the famous Kissinger quote "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”. Trump is just being Trump, but I think the bigger danger is the supporting rhetoric from other US neocons who think Greenland is rightfully American. But currently a huge diplomatic sh1tshow that's leaving our 'leaders' floundering. Or in Kaja Kallas case, drinking. But some of the comments from advisors like Stephen Miller seem to indicate their are Americans even crazier than Trump. But midterms soon, which will no doubt provide popcorn moments.

But a section of America has shown its true colours, and one obvious solution is to start drastically reducing any dependence on the US because they're clearly not a reliable partner. Which was also arguably the message behind Ass. Sec. Nuland's infamous "Fsck the EU!" comment. The US has certainly done this, but then the US is acting in its own interests first and foremost. Russia and China must be watching this spat and laughing their asses off though.

So I think projects like this are a good use of European money because it provides a needed capability, and reduces dependency on the US. Greenland has a rather long coastline, so autonomous drones like this and other European fixed-wing surveillance aircraft are a GoodThing(tm). Configure them with patrol routes, let them fly and it might detect a Russian, Chinese or even American sub

[Tron]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The Chinese are doing a good job of pivoting away from a dependency on exports to the US and Europe will have to now as well.

We can probably tank the US economy simply by refusing to buy/invest in AI, but folk are not bright and are still buying into the AI scam.

The US is isolating itself, and whilst there is no military or territorial risk for them in doing that, there are financial risks. If the RotW shun America's finances and trade drops off a cliff, it will start to hurt.

The Repulsives are going to get a spanking in the mid-terms. When Trump becomes a clear electoral liability for them, things may get a bit testy over there.

[Casca]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Ah, another dig at Kaja Kallas. Calling her a drunk do you?

You really are a pathetic human being.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Ah, another dig at Kaja Kallas. Calling her a drunk do you?

Well-

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-chief-diplomat-kaja-kallas-state-world-means-time-start-drinking/

EU chief diplomat Kallas: World’s woes mean it’s time to start drinking

And she is the EU's chief 'diplomat', responsible for all the EU's foreign policy. Too bad Demark isn't soveriegn in that respect. However, there is scope for some fun if US-Demark diplomacy gets kinetic given Demark signed a bilateral security treaty with Ukraine. So if the US invades Greenland, Ukraine will have to defend it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> Ah, another dig at Kaja Kallas.

Let's be honest, that fruit hangs so low you need a shovel.

> Calling her a drunk do you?

I'd be impressed if her IQ is such that she can open a bottle unaided. And I thought Borrell was bad. :(

[seldom]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Unfortunately, as the European nations have donated all their armour and heavy weapons to Ukraine, the only nation that still has a significant amount of this equipment in Europe is the US.

As a cynic I must say "Well played."

Convince the Europeans the Ukraine must join the EU.

Convince the Europeans Ukraine must join NATO

Convince the Europeans to cut off connections to one of their biggest trading partners.

Convince the Europeans Putin is coming for them.

Convince Europeans to give all their heavy military equipment to Ukraine because the US has no more old stuff to get rid of.

Say Greenland looks tasty, and by the way, do you know how many troops we have in Europe at the moment?

[nobody who matters]

Re: Britain will capitulate

"...as the European nations have donated all their armour and heavy weapons to Ukraine, the only nation that still has a significant amount of this equipment in Europe is the US"

Whilst significant quantities of weaponry have been transferred to Ukraine, it is by no means all of it. In fact, it represents a relatively small proportion, and of course the munitions are being replaced as fast as is possible by manufacture of new.

I would also question your use of the word 'donated' as I don't think it is all being presented to Ukraine quite free-gratis and for nothing.

As for the US forces in Europe, despite the increase in men and armour since 2022, the level of US manpower and firepower currently based in Europe is less than a quarter of what it was in 1980, so not as significant as certain people keep tryng to pretend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> the only nation that still has a significant amount of this equipment in Europe is the US

And Russia. That's in Europe too, whatever the geographically challenged think.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Wait until the Norwegian oil fund moves out of the US. That will be fun for the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> The UK will no doubt support them fully in whatever course they and the people of Greenland decide to tak

1. Britain no longer has global projection capability (hasn't had for a long time) and depends on the US for its own defence.

2. Britain gave away Diego Garcia to the US after kicking out the locals at the septics request. Special relationship and so on.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Come on. Deny it: the USA is actively threatening Canada and Greenland.

The world is tired of America's bullshit is more accurate.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The US has on at least two previous occasions tried to obtain ownership of Greenland, and on both occasions was politely rebuffed (plus on one occasion tried militarily to acquire Canada, and was somewhat more vigorously rebuffed).

Trump's demands are thus unoriginal in nature, only in presentation - it's Trump being Trump, and by now we should understand that.

Given how ardent Trump was about avoiding US 'boots on the ground', it seems unlikely that he's going to do anything as rash as try to occupy Greenland militarily. Obviously, if the US military did occupy Greenland, there is nothing the EU / rest of NATO can do about it. There would be nothing we could do about it even if Russia joined in on Europe's side - the US military is that dominant in it's power.

That point, of course, shows how nonsensical the Trump claim of 'it's about defending the US' is - the US military can already decide who is in charge in Greenland, if it wants too.

If Trump was truly concerned with US national security, he would not be wittering on about Greenland, and would not have sent his special forces to kidnap Maduro from Venezuela - he would have sent them to London to kidnap Starmer, and stop the Chagos deal instead, which is actively harmful to both UK and (especially) US national security, as well as breaching the fundamental rights of the Chagosian people.

I'm sure someone will point out to Trump that forcibly occupying a Nordic nation's territory might not be the bet way to win a Nobel peace prize, given as the prize is awarded by a Nordic-based committee.

Given all we've seen of Trump already, the demand on Greenland will like as not resolve to be about getting commercial mineral rights.

If Trump really does order US troops into Greenland - well, Trump is gone in 2.5 years, and even if Vance or similar take over, there will be a POTUS with a non-Trumpian viewpoint within a decade or so, when sanity (and freedom for the Greenlanders) will be restored (which is more than can be said for Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossians)

[imanidiot]

Re: Britain will capitulate

"well, Trump is gone in 2.5 years, and even if Vance or similar take over, there will be a POTUS with a non-Trumpian viewpoint within a decade or so, when sanity (and freedom for the Greenlanders) will be restored"

You presume sanity will return when well over half the US voters voted FOR the idiot currently leading them down the sewer slide. There is little sanity to be found and little reason to assume thing will get better.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: Trump is gone in 2.5 years,

The free world can't wait that long.

Putin will invade Finland or the Baltic States

China will take over Taiwan and possibly S. Korea.

The world economy will crash making the Wall St Crash of 1929 a mere side show.

The Yuan will replace the USD as the world reserve currency. The USA will no longer be a force in the world with mass unemployment and starvation. Only the top 1% with their private jets, islands and everything will come out on top. The 1930's dust bowl of the midwest will be 100 times worse because very few people have any savings.

[Like a badger]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Given how ardent Trump was about avoiding US 'boots on the ground', it seems unlikely that he's going to do anything as rash as try to occupy Greenland militarily.

No? I'd not want to make any such predictions against the creeping dementia, stupidity, paranoia, entitlement and narcissism that is the five pointed star at the core of the orange felon's personality.

On a practical note, Greenland has a total population less than that of a European medium sized town, and only one settlement with population greater than 10,000, the remainder are just villages. A series of lightning raids could take over all the island's populated areas in a single morning with no prospect of serious casualties (and they'd all be locals, not invaders).

I can't see European leaders using force to defend Greenland - any deployed troops would have orders not to open fire on US troops (or contractors) without their home government's authority, by the time that message gets through to a leader of state's office the action in Greenland would be finished. Europe needs to think differently about the pressure it can bring to bear on the US. Nationalising ASML might be a wise decision in the short term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The UK defended the Falklands with fewer people still against a well equipped (if not trained) modern military.force.

Why wouldn't Greenland be defended just as vigorously

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Because the UK government of the time wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of Argentina.

Ironically it was sucking up to the USA about as much, but fortunately we had the French on our side against American objections

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The UK defended the Falklands with a tiny force that was quite quickly forced to surrender.

The UK then liberated the Falklands, but to do so had to deploy near enough the entire surface fleet of the Royal Navy (when that was actually quite an impressive sized fleet), having neutralised the Argentinean Navy, and with the Argentinean airforce operating at the limit of its range.

And we lost a lot of ships. Plus 255 UK service personnel, 3 islanders and ~700 Argentineans died.

The US is way more powerful than the Argentineans were, and would dismantle the RN, along with any/every other European navy that took part, with relatively few losses of their own - yes, we might sneak a sub through and kill a carrier - they have 14, it would just make them annoyed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> Why wouldn't Greenland be defended just as vigorously

I'd suggest googling "difference between Argentina and the US" might help you understand the ways of this world.

[imanidiot]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Nationalising ASML is just not going to work short term or long term. Short term there's a lot of US origin parts and tech in the ASML litho systems (lasers, cameras, a lot of stuff in the EUV source if we're talking EUV litho, etc). Excizing US parts and trch would take a few years I suspect. Months at the ver least for DUV systems. Long term nationalising it wouldn't go over well with customers outside the US. Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, China (older DUV tech), Israel, Ireland would all have a problem with such a move and in the DUV market Canon and Nikon are just waiting to make a move and knock ASML out of the market again

[nobody who matters]

Re: Britain will capitulate

"....it's Trump being Trump, and by now we should understand that."

Indeed it is Trump being Trump, but the majority of people still do not seem to have grasped what it is the "Trump is". Many seem to write him off as 'insane', 'deranged', suffering from dementia or some other such reason/excuse and seem unable to understand anything he does. If you really see him for what he is, he is transparent and his aims and intentions are quite frighteningly clear, and all his seemingly deranged actions actually make sense in relation to that.

I am not entirely sure that you have fully grasped it either.

"....if the US military did occupy Greenland, there is nothing the EU / rest of NATO can do about it."

Bit of a sweeping statement I think. I wouldn't be so sure about that - I don't think the EU/UK could afford to <not> take any action - failure to show a willingness to stand up against the US in such a circumstance would almost certainly lead to Trump invading other sovereign states. Even a small pile of American bodybags might help apply the brakes.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Possibly, but equally, active resistance could make things much worse.

A peaceful military takeover (no US blood shed) makes it easier for a future POTUS to accept that occupation is an error, and restore sovereignty to Denmark/ the Greenlanders. Deaths amongst the invading US military (due to active defence) could predictably move US public opinion to demand the territory is kept, since 'our boys were killed'.

Active defence creating US casualties might act as a deterrence, but might just as readily cause the US to widen military action against the nations actively defending Greenland (and in fact, I think that would be more likely the response of Trump). It would also be a serous rupture in NATO that might prove impossible to repair a few years down the line.

And on top of all that, I think most of NATO would be more casualty averse than the US would be - there will be body bags on both sides.

A longer term strategy to a (what hopefully remains hypothetical) US military invasion of Greenland might be for the Greenlanders to adopt a strictly peaceful attitude of contempt, expressed not least by the occupying forces discovering that not a single person anywhere on the island speaks English. Let the US garrison feel unwanted and despised, plus cold and bored, since every night club or bar they go in closes the moment that they walk in. And then, as mentioned, wait until a better POTUS turns up.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Britain will capitulate

If you really see him for what he is, he is transparent and his aims and intentions are quite frighteningly clear, and all his seemingly deranged actions actually make sense in relation to that.

I am not entirely sure that you have fully grasped it either.

I think I have. Trump is a fairly easy read thanks to his ego and constant exposure, eg how he performed on The Apprentice, or his 'Art of the Deal'. Or just his view of the world through a lens of real-estate transactions, not traditional geopolitics.. But Trump isn't the only problem and there's a rather powerful and influential section of America that seems to agree with him, ie the ultra militants like Trump's golfing buddy Lindsey Graham who regularly speaks his brainz wrt what US foreign policy should be.. Even though that's the State Department's job, not a simple senator from S.Carolina. But a strange situation where invading & kidnapping a head of state was a good idea. A better idea would be to bomb Iran and decapitate their leadership. Which legally is a pretty insane idea, but then the US plays fast and loose with their Tomahawks.

And now Greenland.

The why of that deal is.. strange. Trump claims it's imperitive for US national security, but it has pretty free basiing rights and already operates a space defence base there.. Unless the plan is to install offensive capability to be able to launch LHRW or other IRCPS missiles over the pole at Russia's northern bases. Greenland, Denmark & the EU might be OK with upgrading defensive capability, but offensive systems is just a tad escalatory. Russia would naturally object, and a desire to plonk IRBMs right on Russia's borders created the Ukraine conflict.. Which has also demonstrated that IRBMs like Russia's Oreshnik can be rather useful.. So the UK & EU should probably develop our own.

Then there's the obsession with 'rare earth'. Sure, Greenland has those, but most of Greenland is under rather a lot of ice, and relying on that melting is based on some rather dubious 'science', especially as Actic ice mass has been increasing, not decreasing. But the US doesn't need ownership to exploit those, and probably could have made a deal with Denmark, Greenland and the EU for exploitation, because we need rare earths as well. So something like this-

https://www.metaltechnews.com/story/2026/01/21/tech-metals/usa-rare-earth-forges-a-french-connection/2616.html

Leveraging the European foothold and rare earth metal-making capacity that it gained through the $220 million acquisition of United Kingdom-based Less Common Metals, USA Rare Earth plans to build a government-backed rare earth metals and alloys plant in France.

"We are proud to establish Europe's first metal-making platform, which will accelerate the realization of a secure, sustainable transatlantic rare earth value chain," said USA Rare Earth CEO Barbara Humpton.

So Macron apparently declined Trump's invitation to join his 'Peace Board', which comes with a very reasonable $1bn membership fee. A tad more expensive than Mar a Lago's dues, but the 'Peace Board' comes with more benefits.. right? But in response to Macron's snub, Trump's threatened a 200% tariff so Americans won't be able to enjoy French wines or real champagne. So in response to that extortion attempt, France could retaliate by slapping a 200% export tariff on French rare earths.. Which Trump would no doubt use as justification to own Greenland.

But such is politics.

There's also the ego issue. America's 250th anniversary is coming up, so stock up on Californian sparkling wines because champagne will get rather expensive. But Trump is a real-estate guy, Greenland is a land transaction and he's treating it much the same way he did when buying up land in & around New York. Make the owners offers they can't refuse. Which is also an ego thing, so Trump already has the imaginatively named 'Trump Towers', and what better to celebrate winning the War of Independence (with a lot of French and Russian help) than stealing Greenland and renaming it Trumpland. Thus (as Russian politicians have said) cementing his place in world history.

But for all the wrong reasons.

Bit of a sweeping statement I think. I wouldn't be so sure about that - I don't think the EU/UK could afford to <not> take any action - failure to show a willingness to stand up against the US in such a circumstance would almost certainly lead to Trump invading other sovereign states.

Yep. It's some simple psychology. Trump's ego makes him a bully and currently he's able to beat the world with a very big stick. And Europe has a bunch of clueless and very weak politicians who've been maneuvered into a state of dependency. So the EU needs to act to prevent this cycle of abuse, which will likely be painful in the short term. Scott Bessent has said that the EU needs to just chill, and not retaliate, but one of the reasons why Trump might have a hard-on for Denmark is they decided to reduce their dollar exposure and risk, which is a big risk, especially with the AI bubble that's currently inflating the American bubble.

So there's the option of retaliatory tariffs. The EU (and UK) can do this because we're sovereign (ish). Europe currently sits on around $7tn in US gilts and equities. We could start selling those and investing the money in our own defence industries, or developing nations that might not be such an abusive relationship. But the dollar is rather risky right now, especially if the US Supreme Court rules that Trump can't unlilaterally apply tariffs on a whim. If that happens, Trump will have to refund US importers billions, which the US doesn't really have and can't afford. Especially if people stop buying US Treasuries, the $100bn in counter-tariffs, and the nuclear option of ACI.

But there's also another huge American problem that's been distracting (and bleeding) the EU & UK.. Ukraine. The US started that conflict, and is now washing its hands of it. Trump boasted that 'NATO' is now buying billions of US weapons to give to Ukraine to prop up that conflict and buy gold toilets. Great deal for the US, lousy deal for UK & EU taxpayers, and a horrific deal for Ukraine because they're doing the actual bleeding.. So we could stop that conflict by simply cutting off the tap. Ukraine would have to capitulate, but it would allow the UK and EU to focus on our problems. So then spend the money on building up EU defence instead of the dependency on US weapons. If we sell off some of that $7tn, there's a lot of money that could be invested locally. Build Robocopters, an IRBM, artillery, anything but Patriots for air defence.

And then there's the stuff of SF & other future fiction, ie try to restore relations with Russia and trade with them instead.. But that's again why Ukraine happened because a combined EU/Russia would overtake the US economy in most sectors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> No, we are just tired of your brand of bullshit.

He's not wrong though. Indeed, many welcomed occupiers across Europe and, as for France in particular, the Communists were the only effective and organised resistance, something that was quickly "forgotten" when the Marshall money started coming in (and even before).

[LogicGate]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Fancy you complaining about Quislings after that post.

https://images.ndla.no/YDgm7UqR/medium.webp

"I audiens hos Hitler. - Jeg er Quisling! - Og navnet?"

"At a reception with Hitler.- I am Quisling! - Yes, and your name please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The only "quisling" around here is a pro-Russian apologist like yourself (*) trying to exploit the current crisis for Russia's benefit.

If the US is behaving less like an ally and more and more like an outright enemy, that still doesn't make our enemy's enemy any more of a friend.

We're certainly not obliged to go along with your implied false dichotomy of agreeing with your propagandistic pro-Russia talking points or being pro-Trump/US "quislings".

(*) "Quisling" assuming you're even a citizen of any of the countries affected.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Britain will capitulate

More weasel words: "behaving less like an ally "

How about this: the USA is an imminent threat to a European country and conducting economic war against its opponents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Whether or not describing the US and Trump as behaving "more and more like an outright enemy"- something that most neutral observers would (rightly) interpret as condemnation- was still insufficiently hyperbolic to meet your partisan standards is your problem.

It's also neither here nor there. Even if we go along with considering the US an outright enemy country and their supporters "quislings", that doesn't get Russia or its supporters and apologists- like yourself- off the hook for being the same thing.

The only difference is which enemy country you support.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> The only "quisling" around here is a pro-Russian apologist

No skin off my nose, but what have the Russians done to you?

Personally, the Germans have killed my entire family, and if I still can (just) get along with them I don't see what your problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

The Germans are no longer an enemy nor behaving like one- and haven't done so for the better part of a century now. Russia has invaded a sovereign European country and is actively working to undermine other parts of the continent and the same alliance that has helped protect it for just as long- something they've been pretty successful in so far with their exploitation of divisions and promotion of people like Trump. (*)

If you *really* needed all that explained, I hope I've done so sufficiently for you.

(*) Something that the likes of VoiceOfTruth and their pro-Russian talking points were trying to push further under the pretence of concern for Europe's security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> The Germans are no longer an enemy

Have you been to Germany much? Do you speak German?

I trust the Russians a damn sight more than I'd trust your regular German, let alone a politician.

(As it happens, I've worked with both for decades. But there is no point in trying to explain to most westerners that they live in a bit of a fantasy land. Still impressed by how thoroughly brain washed some people are, though)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

You asked what my rationale was for my opinion and were given a reasoned (and reasonable) answer.

Feel free to respond to that rather than ignoring it as you did above.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> Russia has invaded a sovereign European country

Would I be mistaken in thinking that "European" is the key word here?

Because when *we* invade sovereign mostly¹ non European countries that is perfectly alright, so it seems.

Glass houses, etc.

¹ Serbia says hello.

[Gordon 10]

Re: Britain will capitulate

Lots of downvotes because you're a moron.

You dont effectively go to war with the biggest economic and military super power in history just coz some numpty throws around words like quisling on the interwebs.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: Britain will capitulate

So you would let the USA steal Greenland. Your country could be next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> Lots of downvotes because you're a moron.

And so is the pathetic excuse for a moderator that this blog has.

I've reported your post not once but three times because of the name calling. You could have made your point perfectly well without it, as others have done.

But no, it appears that he is OK with that. However, elsewhere I made a completely inoffensive joke¹ touching on Peter Thiel's sexuality and *that* post got deleted.

How he can be so goddamn useless and still manage to breathe, never mind hold a job, I'll never know.

Reflection of the times, I suppose.

¹ A common one that I get from gay friends, go figure.

[steelpillow]

Re: Britain will capitulate

And in other news, VoiceOfTruth has replaced themself with an AI. Amazingly, it is as truly [epithet of choice] as the original.

[martinusher]

Re: Britain will capitulate

If you read contemporary eye-witness then from a German perspective France had been an ally of the Reich for most of the war.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: PM Carney

Is a far better Politician than Trumpf could ever be (And that's before his mind went do-lally). His years running the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England gave him an insight into how the world works that Trump (and the rest of his idiots) could only have wet dreams about.

Trump is a megalomaniac straight out of the Hitler /Mussolini mould.

May I humbly suggest that you go back to watching Pox Spews, NewMax or any of the other purveyors of propaganda rather than commenting here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: PM Carney

Let's never, *ever* forget that Trump was never even the successful "dealmaker" he's spent his life pretending to be.

It always grates that even otherwise critical discussion of him tends to go along with this and ignores that he was able to spend his life cosplaying an idiot's parody of a super-rich developer only because he inherited a shitload of money from his daddy.

Trump is no better off today than he would have been had he invested the entire lot in a tracker fund instead and done nothing else for his entire, worthless life.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: PM Carney

It always grates that even otherwise critical discussion of him tends to go along with this and ignores that he was able to spend his life cosplaying an idiot's parody of a super-rich developer only because he inherited a shitload of money from his daddy.

Private Eye used to write a lot about Trumps deal making. Like one of the few people who managed to lose money owning a casino. Or if you watched 'The Apprentice', you'd have also gained an insight. But it's also problematic that Trump's cabinet didn't stop him, which I think is part of the problem. Some Americans seem to deeply resent Europe, because we have a long history, culture and tradition and they have Starbucks and Cheez Whiz. And currently a massive ego problem with Trump 'making his mark on history', hoping Denmark will fold and Trumpland becomes a headliner for America's 250th anniversary. Europe probably can't prevent the US taking it, if Trump really wants to, but as Russians have said, he really will go down in history. The whole Ukraine thing happened to drive a wedge between the EU and their neighbour, and our 'leaders' fell for it hook, line and sinker.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: PM Carney

Carney had a very weak record at the Bank of England. Having the job does not mean he was good at it.

May I suggest you go and read more about Carney's record before pretending he was some kind of magician.

[werdsmith]

Re: PM Carney

Silkpurse, sow's ear. BofE is a tough gig.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britain will capitulate

> Canada will be next.

I don't think so. Nigeria is more likely, IMO. Or Iran, but that's a seriously high risk bet.

[ICL1900-G3]

Blimey!

As anyone who has flown, ir more likely, tried to fly a helicopter, will tell you, that is quite some achievement.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Blimey!

I thought it was easy. On the grounds that rotary aviation is so unnatural, and helicopters to ugly, that the ground rejects them - and that's how they stay up. So you just need a computer to keep reminding the ground that it's there, and just how fugly it is, and the thing should stay up forever.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Blimey!

Only works until something like an A10 flies over, then the ground realises that there are worse looking things than helicopters, and might suddenly embrace the helicopter.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Blimey!

"What's that? Its a big round thing, It's coming at me very fast, very fast indeed. it needs a big round sounding word. Round, ground. Ground, that's it! Ground!

I wonder if it'll be friends with me!"

(HHGTTG, Magrathea episode.)

[LogicGate]

Re: Blimey!

Helicopter:

10 000 highly stressed components trying to vibrate apart.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

I have top end graphics processing boards (conduction cooled, Y2K vintage) that have survived in Middle Eastern Airforce helicopters since that time. It's certainly not a benign environment! (And to link to last week's guilty admission - these are regularly subjected to a high pressure air stream to blow out the sand and dust from around the metal encased boards.)

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Blimey!

10 000 highly stressed components trying to vibrate apart.

This component is still my favourite-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut

But also one of the reasons I only took a few lessons in a helicopter. I got to thinking about the number of critical components, the MTBF and the bad things that could happen if holes in the swiss cheese line up. But they're still relatively safe and some day, might still try for a pilots licence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut

Before I open: is that NSFW?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Blimey!

Before I open: is that NSFW?

It's safe, amusing, and one of those things it's probably best not to think about, if you're ever in a helicopter. Oh Jesus, why is my rotor flying off <thataway>. See also helicopter ejection systems, which may also invoke prayers that the ejection sequence has fired correctly..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

> one of those things it's probably best not to think about, if you're ever in a helicopter

I fly helicopters quite often (pax, though I used to fly fixed wing for a living). So far I haven't been in a helicopter accident, though I know a few people who have, not necessarily once, and three fellow pilots who died in heli crashes (bird strike, training accident, power lines).

But apart from that, they're fairly safe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

I remember chatting with a Royal Navy pilot who told me the helicopter he flewcould loop.

Once.

Then it needed a full gearbox rebuild.

[Boris the Cockroach]

Re: Blimey!

All made by the cheapest supplier...........

<<gets highly stressed when making them

[Caver_Dave]

Re: Blimey!

I test flew an auto-gyro a few times when I was a teen (towed on a 50m rope by a car along an abandoned runway near my home), and to be honest I found that easier than steering a barge on the Broads in later life! I suppose it just depends where your natural aptitude lies? My friend (whose father drove the car) just could not get the hang of it and two broken blades later, the job was given to me. My friend did not carry on into 6th form and I soon lost touch, so I do not know if the auto-gyro was ever flown free.

Obviously, the flights would not be allowed now, and we only ever tried when there was thick fog hiding the activity from the roads.

[NXM]

Re: Blimey!

How are you still alive?

I ask the same question of myself, bearing in mind some of the stuff I did and miraculously survived when younger.

[Michael Strorm]

Re: Blimey!

Survivorship bias meets the anthropic principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

> could not get the hang of it and two broken blades later

> we only ever tried when there was thick fog hiding the activity from the road

Any connection between the two?

> I found that easier than steering a barge on the Broads

Move the lever to the left and - hang on, what's just happened?

[Antony Shepherd]

Re: Blimey!

Back in the noughties when I was learning to fly I went to do all my aviation exams in a week with a guy down in Bournemouth. On the last day he took us to the pub and seeing an autogyro at the airfield said “You’d never get me up in one of those. Ken Wallis can fly them ‘cos he’s a fuckin’ genius, but they’re fuckin’ deathtraps”.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blimey!

> we only ever tried when there was thick fog hiding the activity from the roads.

Youngsters have so much to learn…

[that one in the corner]

Proteus features a modular payload bay

PLEASE tell us that is loaded/unloaded from underneath

> payload module designed to deploy sonobuoy sensors that are used to detect and track submarines

and that can be dropped whilst hovering over the sea, then an access ramp drops down and the buoys slide out?

Perhaps the "modules" could have big white numbers painted on the front as a reminder of their contents? And "module" is such a long word, perhaps a shorter one could be used?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Proteus features a modular payload bay

Unfortunately the drone can only be deployed from the UK's remaining Caribbean palm tree equipped island

[steelpillow]

Re: Proteus features a modular payload bay

"Proteus, retrieve Module 61. Repeat, retrieve Module 61."

"But we only have 24 modules available, Sir."

"Proteus, Module 19 appears to be having trouble..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"a modular payload bay"

Not looking too far off Thunderbird 2. I'm sure the Royal Navy could make good use of TB4.

[Korev]

Re: "a modular payload bay"

Slightly surprisingly, Britain's only functional attack submarine is being sent to Australia

[Korev]

Re: "a modular payload bay"

I wonder what it was convicted of

[Pickle Rick]

Re: "a modular payload bay"

Insubordination

[Long John Silver]

Proud to be British

Protecting the North Atlantic from Russian Submarines.

That begs the question of the danger these submarines pose. Are they a collision hazard for surface vessels? Do they frighten sea life? Are they 'running' illicit shipments of vodka to the USA?

Next, there is the matter of how the automatous helicopter offers protection. Upon spotting a Russian submarine, does it blast, at great volume, British pop music with the intention of frightening cultured Russian matelots into rushing back to their home port? Perhaps the one ton payload consists of al dente cooked spaghetti for dropping into the sea with the intention of snagging the submarine's propellors?

Britons, and anybody roaming the North Atlantic, may now sleep more easily at night.

[Claptrap314]

Really, El'Reg?

"A discussion of the possible mission roles can be found on defense site Navy Lookout here." These will be the unclassified mission roles. That really bears pointing out, as not ALL of your readers are conscious of such things.

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Why does it look like that?

Is it simply skeuomorphism, or is there a good reason for it to look like "human-controlled craft just without a windscreen"? Most UAVs don't.

Not trying to be silly, believe it or not.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Why does it look like that?

That is because it is modified from a "human-controlled craft" - this being vastly cheaper (and quicker) than designing a brand new airframe from scratch.

The article does tell us this ;)

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Re: Why does it look like that?

Ugh, serves me right for only skimming the article

[martinusher]

Nice Toy, But....

The problem I have with this sort of thing is that Yoevil seems to be in the running for "The Worst High Street in Britain" -- it certainly seems to have gone downhill somewhat over the last decade. While that 80 million will obviously contribute somewhat to the local economy spending that money on something that may or may not be deployed over maybe the next decade is just money down the drain, money that should be spent on essential improvements to the UK as a whole.

(No, I don't live there but I just happen to have a sister who does.)

[werdsmith]

Re: Nice Toy, But....

Most High Streets are now considered to be the worst in Britain by their locals.

No point in lamenting, times have changed and retail has irreversibly changed. Trying to preserve High Streets as they were is a bit pointless.

[Conundrum1885]

NX-class

Interestingly I heard rumblings that at least a few UAP sightings in the US (cough Nimitz /cough) might have been tests of an experimental aircraft.

The air equivalent of a Caterpillar drive though using low observability gas closed cycle turbines for propulsion and a lifting body design.

Would explain a few things, and why it was all covered up.

FLIR probably showed 'Things' that us mere civilians weren't supposed to see.

Oddly enough my own experiments here with such devices led me to a considerable discovery, that the supposed limit for ionocraft does not exist if you consider

all the variables ie full control over ionization at the corona wire or points.

It is certainly enough to lift a craft against gravity and the 'low hanging fruit' here would be a hoverboard that can float 1-2" off the ground for hours at a time.

[Anonymous Coward]

How defence money gets used

In peacetime and wartime are two very different things.

And I haven't seen neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians develop or deploy large rotary wing UAVs.

Just saying.

[nobody who matters]

Re: How defence money gets used

As the one in the article is for the Royal Navy, and it appears intended mainly as an aid to reconnaisance, and to deploy tracking and information gathering equipment,therefore its size is of less consequence than the ability to carry the required equipment to wherever it is to be deployed.

It is not attack drone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How defence money gets used

Never been close to a defence contract, have we? Next to pharmaceuticals, it has to be the most profitable business that's technically legal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you love…

…all the geopolitics, military, and aeronautical experts in these parts? :)

At least back then when El Reg was a proper tabloid most people here didn't take themselves too seriously.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Don't you love…

…all the geopolitics, military, and aeronautical experts in these parts? :)

It's all connected. Geopolitics shapes a huge amount of spending. Currently that's fixated on Russia (Russia, Russia) as the existential threat it's been since the Cold War. Except since that ended, countries have been imposing defence cuts that mean our military is being continually challenged to do more with less. But Russia isn't the only threat, and per wiki-

As of December 2025 there are six Type 45 destroyers and seven Type 23 frigates in commission.

In the Royal Navy to perform all the duties tasked to them. UK relies heavily on maritime trade, so those ships are rather busy doing freedom of navigation, anti-piracy, drug interdiction and might be tasked to shoot down missiles & drones aimed at Israel, if the US decides to attack Iran again. But a lot of ocean to cover, and not a lot of ships. But Ukraine has also very clearly demonstrated capability gaps that will affect peer-level conflicts and also any nation or group of nutjobs who've seen the effectiveness of air & sea drones, and go "we can do that!". Especially if they're helped.

So then we need counters, which is where this Robocopter is probably a GoodThing(tm). Give them patrol routes, let them loose and they extend sensor coverage, and may be able to detect those drones. The Earth isn't flat, and curvature means sensor range might only be 15-20km against small, low altitude threats. Especially when enemies (and allies) are getting sneaky. So Ukraine's attacked ships in the Med using drones. Their drones don't have the range to have traveled their from Ukraine, so they were almost certainly deployed from a ship, and Ukraine doesn't have a navy. So they were probably launched from a merchant ship, and that's something any reasonably funded enemy could do, state or non-state.

But that might also trigger other requirements. Like Robocopters are good, but how to have say, 4 continuosly in the air, on patrol or screening a Falklands-style task force that would have chartered merchant transport ships, especially given the EU doesn't have much in the way of amphibious assault capability. Especially after good'ol free-gear Kier decommissioned HMS Albion and Bulwark last year. Those used to be able to operate up to 2x Chinooks, or probably more Robocopters. So how, then do the Royal Navy get those drones in the air where they're needed? The QEs could carry a bunch, but we have.. 2 of those, and they need escorts. So maybe we pacify Trump and his 'Golden Fleet' that may or may not have psedo-battleships, and build some cruiser-weight ships with bigger hangers, landing pads, lots of missiles & guns. We used to be able to do that, but successive government downsizing has massively reduced our defence capability & capacity. Fixing that would be expensive and slow, but we might even get some exports. Probably a better use of public money than inflating the 'AI' bubble, or tilting at windmills.