UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 27 Nov 2014 01:05

The crashed Heron appears to be a EW/Sigint version with cheek antennas as well as blade antennas on the twin booms.
The blade antennas have not been seen on IAF Herons before, I think.

Edit: IE has a few more photos of the vehicle here.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 27 Nov 2014 08:50

looks like a controlled crash landing on sand, as opposed to a nose dive. i suspect engine failure.

Dennis good catch on the cheek antennas.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 30 Nov 2014 07:36

what ij it?

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 01 Dec 2014 00:19

Shreeman wrote:

what ij it?

On the tail it says 'Eagle Eye' probably made by http://www.omuavsystems.com/eagle-eye.html

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 01 Dec 2014 00:32

i guess this suites the specification http://www.omuavsystems.com/baaz.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Dec 2014 04:11

Ahead of Obama trip, US delegation to visit India

South Block officials say India is interested in long-duration unmanned aerial vehicles like Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk, which can scan 100,000 sq km area in a day and has an endurance of 28 hours.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2014 04:27

I would have thought the Triton would have been better given that it would eventually be fully integrated with the P-8's Increment 3. But I guess the focus is on persistent high altitude monitoring of the LOC and not the coast and the IOR in general.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Dec 2014 04:46

March 4, 2013 :: Indian HALE UAV Requirement Draws Interest

and Northrop Grumman has been cleared by the U.S. government to conduct preliminary discussions with the Indian navy on the MQ-4C Triton.

Dec 5, 15 and Feb 28.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 01 Dec 2014 06:04

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2014 06:43

Its one of the few systems I have seen in a long time, whose projected acquisition numbers are being reduced because it is turning out higher mission availability rates and reliability than what the USN predicted before going in for the system.

The Navy currently plans to buy 68 Tritons, Capt. Jim Hoke, Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) Triton program manager told reporters on Tuesday.

However, the service may not need that many aircraft as the MQ-4C is probably much more reliable than the service originally anticipated.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Dec 2014 21:14

NRao wrote:Ahead of Obama trip, US delegation to visit India

South Block officials say India is interested in long-duration unmanned aerial vehicles like Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk, which can scan 100,000 sq km area in a day and has an endurance of 28 hours.

Follow-up:

India 'seriously looking' to co-produce weapon systems with US

India has shortlisted five of the 17 hi-tech items of military hardware offered by the US for co-production and co-development under a one-of-its kind American offer to boost bilateral defence cooperation.

These items are believed to be - naval guns, mine scattering anti-tank vehicles, unmanned aerial surveillance system, Javelin missiles, and aircraft landing system for carriers, informed defence sources familiar with the development between the two countries, told PTI.

BTW, under DTTI, the US has cleared, among other technologies, "stealth" technologies. US companies are cleared to seek Indian companies to partner with.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Dec 2014 11:49

Does not look like we will be co-developing anything but rather just buying and doing a bit of screw driver assembly work.

From that perspective, there's nothing they are offering which every other defence supplier on the planet isn't offering - except that its sanction prone and perhaps even bugged!

One thing that would be of great interest however are the electronic payloads carried about their HALE and MALE naval UAVs. But I doubt they'd be willing to part with that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Dec 2014 05:36

You can only co-develop a system that has not yet been developed. For the basic Triton, the Radar is in testing on the testbed, the vehicle itself is proven in combat and is now being tested for unique maritime missions only. This however does not stop the IN for developing variants that do not yet exist, or for co-developing variants that the USN wishes it had but cannot afford to develop by itself. For example, with the surplus power there is nothing stopping the IN or the IAF for seeking to add its own Electronic warfare, or buying US or Israeli EW packages and incorporating it into the Global Hawk to use it as a mid-altitude long endurance jammer against different types of threats. That need is currently not there within either of the US services from such a vehicle but that doesn't stop the IAF in pursuing such a thing (just as an example).

From that perspective, there's nothing they are offering which every other defence supplier on the planet isn't offering

Which other defense provider is offering a UAV with the mission set or the capability of the Triton? With a similar package that is already funded and destined to be acquired (rather then being a power point of something that "may be done" but likely not to be done)? Northrop pretty much has a BAMS monopoly for the type of things the Triton is going to be doing, especially when large distances and long persistence is involved. I do not think many will bother competing internationally with them because the large USN order (50+) alone gives Northrop grumman a competitive advantage that is going to be nearly impossible to overcome. Its not like Northrop is walking around air shows with a global hawk, and asking foreign partners to team up so that they could develop a BAMS version through joint funding. Having said that, the USN and other operators (Japan, Australia etc) would most likely operate this thing for decades so it makes perfect sense to develop it through a partnership for roles not yet conceived.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Dec 2014 07:23

Does not look like we will be co-developing anything but rather just buying and doing a bit of screw driver assembly work.

From that perspective, there's nothing they are offering which every other defence supplier on the planet isn't offering - except that its sanction prone and perhaps even bugged!

One thing that would be of great interest however are the electronic payloads carried about their HALE and MALE naval UAVs. But I doubt they'd be willing to part with that.

Co-produce should mean that both use the product that is being screw driver assembled in India. ?????

There are substantial indicators to show good progress, including both nations identifying single point of contact.

Meanwhile:

Janes :: Dec, 3, 2014 :: US official says Javelin still on India co-development agenda

Officials at the US State Department have indicated that the Javelin remains one of several possibilities for defence industrial collaboration

I would suggest we wait till end of Feb.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Dec 2014 15:27

brar_w wrote:You can only co-develop a system that has not yet been developed.

Nothing will be co-developed as its already developed. Its just screw-driver giri with the label of co-developed stuck onto what is an already developed & deployed system. They don't need India to co-develop anything.

Which other defense provider is offering a UAV with the mission set or the capability of the Triton?

Nobody said they are offering the full extent of BAMS to India in the form of Triton. At best what they are offering is but a sub-set of its features and that too just for outright purchase.

Basically we are just buying stuff at great expense.

The UAV program in India should be focused almost entirely on developing electronic payloads. This is the most urgent need for the UAV program. Developing our own BAMS is a great way to start. Unless the focus shifts away from building & flying UAVs (which is the easy part) to building the electronic payloads be it BAMS, Bathymetery, Multi-spectral Lidars, comms.. etc (which is the hard part), we will forever be dependent on buying over-priced stuff from overseas.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Dec 2014 19:24

Nothing will be co-developed as its already developed.

Thanks for repeating exactly what I said.

Nobody said they are offering the full extent of BAMS to India in the form of Triton. At best what they are offering is but a sub-set of its features and that too just for outright purchase.

If the IN or the MOD wants to take a look at the BAMS Triton, could you elaborate which systems from it would be excluded with references based on which you have come to that conclusion? If the MOD is looking for something to patrol the border on land, then the BAMS would not even be an option. There is a GH variant that takes care of that, and it has its own sensors, some of which are developed while others are in the works.

Co-development for such a system would not mean co-production or massive technology transfer. You can do all those things but then the cost to do so would only be justified through a large order. Since, the MOD is unlikely to buy more then a few if any at all, it is more likely that co-development here refers to working on joint IAF or IN requirements using the Global Hawk family as a solution. You are not going to go around asking for TOT or licensed production when your orders may be 5 or 6. Like I mentioned, the IAF/IN can work on incorporating its own EW package, or using one developed by the US OEM's (Pandora, NERO) etc. Just because the USN does not have a need for such packages does not mean that they cannot be developed by Indian OEM's working closely with those in the US (co-development), with the capability ultimately being absorbed into existing USN assets or being marketed in the export market. The Triton or later block GH's are going to be in service for decades and though the family has been developed and is proven, the system itself would be constantly in development through one effort or the other.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 08 Dec 2014 10:02

.

one more

Sky Lark UAV

The Northern Command of the Indian army that guards the Chinese and Pakistani border, has been seeking to buy 49 small UAVs. The army already operates dozens of larger Israeli UAVs, the smallest of which is the half ton Searcher UAV. The Northern Command is after a portable UAV that could be moved around on the border and quickly launched and put to work by the troops, especially those on foot patrol in this chilly mountain wilderness.

According to Strategy Page, India has decided back in October to buy Israeli-made UAVs, but no decision was made as to which model. The most likely candidate, given that Northern Command specified a UAV weighing under 10 kg (22 pounds) would be the Skylark.
This UAV, which has been around since 2008, has an impressive combat record and a new version (Skylark 1LE) recently showed up. This is a 7.5 kg (16.5 pound) aircraft with a 1.1 kg (2.4 pound) payload. This is sufficient to carry an Israeli designed video camera, a laser designator and communications gear that can work with the American Rover ground terminals (designed to let commanders on the ground see what UAVs are seeing). Max endurance is three hours, max altitude is 4,700 meters (15,000 feet). Max distance from the operator is 40 kilometers.

This model would do what Northern Command wanted with little risk of embarrassing failures. Thus Indian vendors (like mega firm Tata) and other suppliers (like the Israeli firm offering the 9 kg Skylite) would be less attractive candidates than Skylark.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 09 Dec 2014 09:59

SajeevJino wrote:.

one more

Sky Lark UAV

The Northern Command of the Indian army that guards the Chinese and Pakistani border, has been seeking to buy 49 small UAVs. The army already operates dozens of larger Israeli UAVs, the smallest of which is the half ton Searcher UAV. The Northern Command is after a portable UAV that could be moved around on the border and quickly launched and put to work by the troops, especially those on foot patrol in this chilly mountain wilderness.

According to Strategy Page, India has decided back in October to buy Israeli-made UAVs, but no decision was made as to which model. The most likely candidate, given that Northern Command specified a UAV weighing under 10 kg (22 pounds) would be the Skylark.
This UAV, which has been around since 2008, has an impressive combat record and a new version (Skylark 1LE) recently showed up. This is a 7.5 kg (16.5 pound) aircraft with a 1.1 kg (2.4 pound) payload. This is sufficient to carry an Israeli designed video camera, a laser designator and communications gear that can work with the American Rover ground terminals (designed to let commanders on the ground see what UAVs are seeing). Max endurance is three hours, max altitude is 4,700 meters (15,000 feet). Max distance from the operator is 40 kilometers.

This model would do what Northern Command wanted with little risk of embarrassing failures. Thus Indian vendors (like mega firm Tata) and other suppliers (like the Israeli firm offering the 9 kg Skylite) would be less attractive candidates than Skylark.

Nothing like starting the FUD well in advance of a formal RFP, eh?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2014 02:12

India Looks to buy American MQ 4C HALE UAV

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2014 02:15

This with the above post.

DTTI:

India hopes to seal the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles deal with the US during Obama visit

US President Barack Obama's visit next month could bring some good tidings for the Indian skies, both in hinterland and along the border, with Delhi planning to acquire Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from America.

With defence trade and joint production as key talking points during the visit, UAVs are among the items that the two sides are looking to co-produce and co-develop, official sources indicated.

This is part of the Indo-US Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) that would receive a fillip during the Obama visit. The bilateral political-military dialogue last week in Delhi prepared the ground work for DTTI discussions for the presidential visit, sources informed.

Besides, the appointment of Ashton Carter as US Defence Secretary would be good news for DTTI. It was Carter who as Deputy Defence Secretary initiated DTTI and pushed for defence exports and discussed joint production during his visits to Delhi in 2012 and 2013.

Currently, India has few UAVs. But sources pointed out that the government is likely to give a major push to induction of UAVs in armed forces, which could be either made at home or acquired from foreign players. Delhi could end up spending $3 billion for UAVs of different sizes, range and parameters catering to varied specific requirements over the next decade, according to defence experts.

Last June, Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, had told reporters in Washington that the US has a number of "ground breaking" defence technologies, including UAVs, to offer India for co-development and co-production.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 17 Dec 2014 06:08

There were plans to deploy tube launched UAVs from Pinaka. Anything heard on that front since then?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Dec 2014 11:33

Will not export of armed UVAs violate missile control treaty or something?

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 17 Dec 2014 18:59

.

Is it about MQ 4 UAV deal

Yagnasri wrote:Will not export of armed UVAs violate missile control treaty or something?

Countries already sold Armed UAV's to other Nations . UK and some other EU Nations taken Delivery of Predator Version of UAV

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2014 08:51

Deal for high altitude UAVs likely

India and the U.S. are negotiating a deal for the purchase of high altitude, long endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).

An agreement or announcement to this effect is likely when U.S. President Barack Obama visits India as the chief guest for the Republic Day ceremony next month, sources informed The Hindu.

Though the variant and the numbers are not known, it has been learnt that the UAV in question is most likely the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, a non-combat drone and the largest unmanned aircraft system built by the U.S.

Global Hawk is a HALE Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) with extraordinary intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, providing near-real time, high resolution imagery of large geographical areas both during the day and night, in all types of weather.

The Global Hawk has an endurance of over 24 hours and can operate at an altitude of 60,000 feet. The U.S. has extensively deployed it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It has further been upgraded as the MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance platform for the U.S. Navy.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 22 Dec 2014 10:39

Neshant wrote: Basically we are just buying stuff at great expense.

The UAV program in India should be focused almost entirely on developing electronic payloads.

Develop own sensors and then spend a good part of a decade trying to get them to work with someone else's airframe and software. Europeans tried that. It's called Eurohawk. It's nothing short of an embarassment and a financial boondoggle.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 22 Dec 2014 10:43

It would be cool if we add another 8 P8I for navy and 24 of these Triton UAV's for round the clock surveillance.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2014 10:54

Nobody said they are offering the full extent of BAMS to India in the form of Triton. At best what they are offering is but a sub-set of its features and that too just for outright purchase.

Need to wait for a few weeks, but I think this Hawk deal us part of the DTTI framework.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2014 12:03

Not sure if funds or people problem but we have not even productized and inducted a male uav yet forget hale.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Dec 2014 19:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9U9gQAkM0Y

Panchi has started flying. As per AKM, panchi project was executed in 8 months.

Also, it too will have automated take off and landing.
http://www.oneindia.com/feature/drdo-s- ... 02534.html

Damn hobbyists, some of the members here can do it in 8 days flat

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 25 Dec 2014 19:09

Rustom-1 is "ready" and Rustom-2 will be "ready" in an year.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 722384.ece

Cleared for production ?

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Dec 2014 21:32

Panchi looks like can take off from SBTF just as easily, the short take off is good.

member_28911 · Post by **member_28911** » 26 Dec 2014 17:39

From Saurav Jha:

Non-delivery of an actuator by MooG USA due to non-grant of export license has delayed its (Rustom-2) first flight, now expected in March 2015.

An indigenous actuator based on a modification from one of our missile programs is being used now.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 26 Dec 2014 17:54

And Khan claims to be our friend.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Dec 2014 19:08

Who told them to depend on Khan? or it is just an excuse?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 26 Dec 2014 20:56

And we are using indigenous actuators only in missile programs. Rest is imported, though "indigenous actuator" has a very good vibe to it.
For the record, from gogol:

An actuator is a type of motor that is responsible for moving or controlling a mechanism or system. It is operated by a source of energy, typically electric current, hydraulic fluid pressure, or pneumatic pressure, and converts that energy into motion.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 27 Dec 2014 06:23

Gyan wrote:Who told them to depend on Khan? or it is just an excuse?

Ehrrm, DRDO floats tenders for parts inviting Indian as well as foreign firms for parts. Often it happens that a certain product category is unavailable in India. Mind you, they have a fair idea of what is restricted for export and what isn't, but every now and then some babu in the exporting country too wants to use his discretionary power. Rustom-1 probably didn't face this problem because it shares lineage with Rutan Long-EZ (parts available in civilian market). Rustom-2 on the other hand is a clean sheet design and might require a new class of actuators and also.

In all probability, this whole new indigenous actuator development thing started way back when the existing actuators on Rustom-2 might have exhibited issues during last year's engine ground runs. Mind it, Rustom-2's first flight was declared imminent at that point. The last tender for actuators was floated out only in August 14, so blaming Khan for delays in Rustom-2's flight isn't exactly fair, however it is a proof that Khan can't ever be in our "reliable suppliers" list.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/vie ... Micro=6511

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Dec 2014 22:51

however it is a proof that Khan can't ever be in our "reliable suppliers" list.

Only if there was an indigenous manufacturer available, would we know how completely reliable Khan CAN be. It is not a sarcastic comments but a technical that such a part would not be on restricted list only.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Dec 2014 23:53

What about manufactures of actuators from other nations? Those that have no lists of any sorts. We went through such posts about 10-15 years ago with Moog and the LCA.

India should look at other alternatives.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 28 Dec 2014 10:52

Someone in the US policy making chain is seriously dumb to block actuators of all things - while we are importing billions of $$$ worth of gear from them.

Seriously Stupid or someone OLD who is not in tune with the new world dynamics. Obama better straighten or delete these minions out of the decision making chain if US-India relationship are to progress. No more UAV imports from US - bye bye $$$!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Dec 2014 16:55

Yagnasri wrote:And Khan claims to be our friend.

Friend-enemy is rarely relevant at the geopolitical level. Actuators for the Tejas are still sourced from the Moog. Components for the Rustom on the other hand cannot be authorized until the process of India's membership in the MTCR is completed. The ball for that was set rolling at the Obama-Modi October meet and will be high on their agenda next month.