Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 20 Dec 2014 12:06

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1399 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2012 16:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
I will go with empty weight of 5tons and internal weapon payload of 2Tons


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2012 17:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34010
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
well since we havent even got a Rustom2 with Nags flying yet, all this specing out seems premature.

others are 10 yrs ahead of us - minimum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2012 20:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 809
vic wrote:
If you look at the MTOW, ability to add external fuel tanks and intended increase in range, you will get 2000NM which is around 4000km


:rotfl: We also hear you have anti-gravity properties & my mind sees endless possiblities!

Anyways, I haven't seen anyting concrete backing your original claim of 4000Kms combat radius with payload. Thats 8000 Kms range fully loaded along with 10-15% bingo fuel requirements. Not happening for a while atleast in India. We are far far away from this today like Singha mentions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2012 22:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26831
Location: NowHere
Instead of wildly putting numbers, let us go by real facts. Take chips..e.g: from the nearest SC sea, our ADS should have UCAVs take off, and return back to replenishment. What is the deepest target it should take on?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2012 02:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
We are far away from flying AURA but the 15 ton MTOW has all indicators of 5000km range when it enters squadron level service


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2012 03:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 809
:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jun 2012 23:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 2516
Location: USA
Few months ago Iran displayed an American drone which they claimed to have hijacked. USA denied and said it crashed due to technical failure and now Texas University students have demonstrated it can be done by spoofing. Ofcourse this is a different drone and not as sophisticated as the one that was displayed by Iran.

Students hijack US drone in mid-air for $1,000 wager

If it is this simple, you must wonder if Iran was telling the truth and did hijack the drone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 01:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 3140
^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 03:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4667
Quote:
^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.


why the assumption?? They are not pakis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 07:57 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 22 Feb 2012 21:01
Posts: 35
Location: Bangalore
snooping was the technique involved


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 09:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 2516
Location: USA
It is 'spoofing'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 10:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Speaking of "spoofing", does any body know whether GPS?GLOSSNAS signals for military purposes is encrypted?

The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 12:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Sep 2011 02:13
Posts: 265
rajanb wrote:
Speaking of "spoofing", does any body know whether GPS?GLOSSNAS signals for military purposes is encrypted?

The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.


Yes I believe they are, infact all packet transactions over Internet are secure, hacking into these packets is called "Packet Sniffing" like secure credit card transactions and decryption is quite difficult. The Navy computers as would be for any other secure network would be part of Org Network with firewall and rigid security. So hacking wasn't the issue, but the problem was with pendrives which are thriving places for trojans, and so pendrives are generally banned. The chinese trojans got copied from the pendrives and may have copied the files to them and sent them over when connected to another non-secure machine. Spoofing is something different, its like a fake copy of some website/object which people think is the original one and give away their personal details into it. Spoofing can also be faking an user account.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 12:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
^^^ There should be a very strong encryption-id for the host controller and the UAV. So the UAV knows the command is coming from its origin host.

These ids can be at multiple levels i.e primary, secondary, tertiary. Also, can be changed for each operation and then changed at specific intervals. So am surprised that this can be hacked into.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 01:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2072
Surya wrote:
Quote:
^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.


why the assumption?? They are not pakis


While its true that regime is occasionally prone to embarrassingly silly bragging (photoshopped multiple missile launches, vaporware wonder-weapons, etc) the Iranians have substantially invested in their science, technology and engineering base from the 1960s to the present.

"Mohandis" or "Engineer" is a term of respect. Not quite the same as "Doctor" but still significant.

Especially after the isolation of the Iraq war experience when they had to mount major intelligence operations to scour the world for spares at ridiculous prices they don't want to just buy technology, they want to master it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 01:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2072
Surya wrote:
Quote:
^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.


why the assumption?? They are not pakis


While its true that regime is occasionally prone to embarrassingly silly bragging (photoshopped multiple missile launches, vaporware wonder-weapons, etc) the Iranians have substantially invested in their science, technology and engineering base from the 1960s to the present.

"Mohandis" or "Engineer" is a term of respect. Not quite the same as "Doctor" but still significant.

Especially after the isolation of the Iraq war experience when they had to mount major intelligence operations to scour the world for spares at ridiculous prices they don't want to just buy technology, they want to master it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 09:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2011 09:42
Posts: 775
Location: Bay Area
rajanb wrote:
Speaking of "spoofing", does any body know whether GPS?GLOSSNAS signals for military purposes is encrypted?

The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.


I saw a report on CNN some years back where Iraqi insurgents were able to see the surveillance videos being beamed back by drones. That report said that the insurgents could do it because the data was not encrypted.

That is one level of vulnerability, I would be surprised to find out that even the control commands are sent unencrypted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 09:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
^^^ I thought as much. I hope that our UAVs have encryption.

Encryption technology is used in India. Particularly in Stock Exchanges and ATM Bank networks. It is normally a function of the HW & SW. The application would need to tap into those routines so the application becomes bullet proof.

I do believe the MoD and Home also use similar products.

But if it is Windows then it is :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 10:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31
Posts: 1430
They are not spoofing the command signals the UAV is receiving from a satellite or nearby controller/transmitter. They are spoofing the GPS signal it receives from the GPS satellite. The GPS receiving algorithm is a well known standard so that anyone in the world can go into business and make and sell GPS receivers. What the professor is doing is making a transmitter that can impersonate the GPS signal. So for instance a command from Nevada AFB tells the UAV to fly at 10,000 ft altitude at 150 knots in a northeast heading. That is a secure signal that cannot be spoofed. But the UAV relies upon GPS to know what altitude and direction to go in, THAT can be spoofed. So the professor merely sends a spoof GPS signal that tells the plane it is flying at 20,000 ft altitude and it is heading in a southwest direction. So the plane MUST follow its encypted commands and lower itself to a 10,000 ft altitude and change direction. BOOM! CRASH! You guys dig?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 10:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
TSJones wrote:
They are not spoofing the command signals the UAV is receiving from a satellite or nearby controller/transmitter. They are spoofing the GPS signal it receives from the GPS satellite. The GPS receiving algorithm is a well known standard so that anyone in the world can go into business and make and sell GPS receivers. What the professor is doing is making a transmitter that can impersonate the GPS signal. So for instance a command from Nevada AFB tells the UAV to fly at 10,000 ft altitude at 150 knots in a northeast heading. That is a secure signal that cannot be spoofed. But the UAV relies upon GPS to know what altitude and direction to go in, THAT can be spoofed. So the professor merely sends a spoof GPS signal that tells the plane it is flying at 20,000 ft altitude and it is heading in a southwest direction. So the plane MUST follow its encypted commands and lower itself to a 10,000 ft altitude and change direction. BOOM! CRASH! You guys dig?


I definitely dig. So for controlling UAVs you need encrypted GPS signals, with an encrypted id packet defining the source. Using a commercial signal for military applications is a no no.

The other alternative would be to track the UAV and send it encrypted signals directly for change in attitude, heading, distance and fire commands, autonomously w/o GPS. There were A/C flying before GPS was born.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 11:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31
Posts: 1430
rajanb wrote:
TSJones wrote:
They are not spoofing the command signals the UAV is receiving from a satellite or nearby controller/transmitter. They are spoofing the GPS signal it receives from the GPS satellite. The GPS receiving algorithm is a well known standard so that anyone in the world can go into business and make and sell GPS receivers. What the professor is doing is making a transmitter that can impersonate the GPS signal. So for instance a command from Nevada AFB tells the UAV to fly at 10,000 ft altitude at 150 knots in a northeast heading. That is a secure signal that cannot be spoofed. But the UAV relies upon GPS to know what altitude and direction to go in, THAT can be spoofed. So the professor merely sends a spoof GPS signal that tells the plane it is flying at 20,000 ft altitude and it is heading in a southwest direction. So the plane MUST follow its encypted commands and lower itself to a 10,000 ft altitude and change direction. BOOM! CRASH! You guys dig?


I definitely dig. So for controlling UAVs you need encrypted GPS signals, with an encrypted id packet defining the source. Using a commercial signal for military applications is a no no.

The other alternative would be to track the UAV and send it encrypted signals directly for change in attitude, heading, distance and fire commands, autonomously w/o GPS. There were A/C flying before GPS was born.


Probably for the expensive stuff like the global hawk, etc., there are backup systems like inertial navigation computers, etc., in case the GPS fails or is jammed, but the cheap UAVs that law enforcement agencies must use may not have backup systems. Just my guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 11:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34010
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the mil-grade gps signal transmitted from satellites is said to be encrypted (said to be accurate to 3ft) while the 10m accuracy civilian is perhaps not. this civilian GPS is also what "have nots" like Indian military also use with the understanding that it cannot be used for critical guidance systems but ok for daily peacetime use. later we paid for and got access to mil grade GLONASS signal (iirc in 2010).

I hope we are not banking for sudarshan type weapons to use civilian GPS because if the Prof could do it, many others will pick up the idea or have already picked it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012 12:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Quote:
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Unma ... ir_Systems


The X-45C, as currently envisioned, will be a flying wing powered by a single F404-GE-102D turbofan engine. Current specs include:

The payload and range specifications are as defined by J-UCAS requirements. The operational radius specification is for a strike to a predefined target and back home again. A secondary range specification dictates a two-hour loiter capability at a radius of 1,850 kilometers (1,000 NMI).

Partly because of the pressure from Boeing, in the summer of 2003, Northrop Grumman formed an alliance with Lockheed Martin to help develop the "X-47B", a follow-on to the X-47 that would compete against Boeing efforts. The alliance, which repeats the successful teamup that won the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter effort, is focused on building a modular stealthy UCAV that could be adapted to a wide range of missions. It would have a speed of Mach 0.8 at 10,670 meters (35,000 feet) and endurance of up to 12 hours.

The USAF envisions that J-UCAS will feature:

Stores pylons on the wings for external fuel tanks or additional munitions.
Mid-air refueling capability.
A narrow field-of-view SAR-MTI system for targeting and post-strike damage assessment.


Hence M-88 Kaveri JV powered AURA with 15 MTOW can have strike range of 5000km radius


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2012 02:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1528
Location: GSLV++
AINonline: Bams Demonstrator Lost as Definitive Version Rolls Out
June 15, 2012
Quote:
A demonstrator for the U.S. Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (Bams) UAV crashed near NAS Patuxent River on June 11. The UAV crashed into swampland about 20 miles east of the base and was destroyed, after what the Navy described as a routine flight. The accident came just four days before Northrop Grumman unveiled the first MQ-4C, the full-specification Bams UAV, at Palmdale, Calif.

The Navy has acquired five surplus Block 10 Global Hawks from the U.S. Air Force as Bams-D versions. Three have been deployed to the Gulf, where they operate alongside U.S. Air Force Global Hawks from Al Dhafra airbase in the UAE. They retain the original Raytheon integrated sensor suite producing EO, IR and SAR imagery, including additional maritime modes. They also carry the maritime automatic identification system and a Sigint system. During surveillance missions over the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, they are controlled from Patuxent River.

The definitive MQ-4C has a new sensor suite offering 360-degree coverage, thanks to Northrop Grumman’s new 2-D AESA radar with a rotating antenna, and a Raytheon MTS-B EO/IR full-motion video turret.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2012 02:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
vic wrote:
Quote:
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Unma ... ir_Systems


The X-45C, as currently envisioned, will be a flying wing powered by a single F404-GE-102D turbofan engine. Current specs include:

The payload and range specifications are as defined by J-UCAS requirements. The operational radius specification is for a strike to a predefined target and back home again. A secondary range specification dictates a two-hour loiter capability at a radius of 1,850 kilometers (1,000 NMI).

Partly because of the pressure from Boeing, in the summer of 2003, Northrop Grumman formed an alliance with Lockheed Martin to help develop the "X-47B", a follow-on to the X-47 that would compete against Boeing efforts. The alliance, which repeats the successful teamup that won the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter effort, is focused on building a modular stealthy UCAV that could be adapted to a wide range of missions. It would have a speed of Mach 0.8 at 10,670 meters (35,000 feet) and endurance of up to 12 hours.

The USAF envisions that J-UCAS will feature:

Stores pylons on the wings for external fuel tanks or additional munitions.
Mid-air refueling capability.
A narrow field-of-view SAR-MTI system for targeting and post-strike damage assessment.


Hence M-88 Kaveri JV powered AURA with 15 MTOW can have strike range of 5000km radius

With all due respect, your extrapolation of range based on MTOW is as naive as it gets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2012 15:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Ok I am naive but not malafide. You are welcome to provide your data/interpretation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2012 21:05 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
^^^ No, don't get me wrong. I did not mean any kind of malice.

we have no idea of the breakup of the 15T MTOW. How can we assert anything without knowing the fraction for fuel?

Besides UAV range is generally not related by fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jul 2012 21:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11761
AW&ST : Indian UCAV IUSAV- Aura Detected

Aura-1
Aura-2
Aura-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jul 2012 07:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jan 2012 18:00
Posts: 967
Good to hear proper backing from the IAF and proper funding from the govt is forthcoming for the project. Although, it is sad that the IAF tried to find a foreign source for a UCAV before backing the indigenous one. I hope we see the day when its the other way around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Sep 2012 20:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Was just going through the tenders on DRDO page and came across the tender for the landing gear of Rustom II.

1. It will have a non-retractable landing gear (Not sure. See postscript).
2. The all up max weight is 1800 kgs. All up weight with 5% fuel is 1095 kgs. so I am expecting that that empty weight is around 1076 kgs. This makes sense with the engine power and 350 kg payload . A vehicle with 1800kg empty weight having 350 kg payload, seemed very under-utilized to me.
3. The vertical stabilizer looked broader and shorter in the schematic.
4. Two underwing stations (one per wing) are clearly shown.

I would love to know more about its engines. The Saturn 36MT is a turbofan, isn't it? Is there a turboprop version of the same? Any information about it?

P.S.

Errata:
I am a little confused. The tender is named "Supply of non-retractable landing system (NLG and MLG) and integration on air vehicle". All throughout the tender, Rustom II's landing gear has been described as "the undercarriage consists of a tricycle non retractable landing gear with a steerable nose wheel". But at the same time, the tender specifies functional tests for the landing gear which have the following two as test points:
- Retraction/Extension Testing (extension and lowering are used interchangibly)
-- Demonstration for retraction and deployment timings considering 15% additional weight of wheels.
 -- Demonstration for 5000 cycles [as per spects document]
 -- Repeatability and consistency should be demonstrated in the tests. Any test sequence involving the normal
retraction and lowering system should be repeated 25 times, and any test sequence involving an emergency
lowering system should be repeated 5 times. [Ref’n DEF STAN 00-970-Volume 2]
- Testing of limit switches with up-lock and down-locks and Landing gear doors.[by demonstration].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2012 02:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Posts: 499
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Apologies if these have already been posted to this thread (I haven't been following).

This is the video of the 'unveiling' of the Dassault "NEURON" (UCAV)


Demo films and animations.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 19:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 6321
IAF to induct the IAI Harop advanced loitering munition / UCAV / suicide drone by next year:

IAF to induct first killer drones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 07:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
arun wrote:
IAF to induct the IAI Harop advanced loitering munition / UCAV / suicide drone by next year

A very good development indeed, this order of 100 Harop would be an initial order I hope... Hope offsets are part of this deal.. This along with the upgrades for almost all our UAVs would be huge force multiplier...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 22:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
how many UAVs are part of this upgrade plan of the Indian Armed Forces, last we heard was, UAVs of all three forces are to be upgraded to enhance range, endurance and mission diversity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 03:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Jun 2012 20:26
Posts: 1676
Location: Chaprasi and Bawarchi third gilass, South East corner, aka Agneya
Where is JC Cage?

He said 8 years ago by 2006 we would have our own UAVa in numbers made in India.
All I see is Israel is making money and UAVs selling to CAR nations
.........


Drones: The New Nuclear Arms Race? (VIDEO)
Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, Posted: 11/14/12 1:44 PM
Updated: 11/14/12 2:29 PM
Everyone's got a drone, or so it seems.

It wasn't long ago that the U.S. had a monopoly on drones, but that is no longer the case. In fact, Israel -- not the U.S. -- is reportedly the world's largest exporter of drones, selling Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the technology to build them to Nigeria, Russia, Mexico, and most recently to Azerbaijan as part of a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of drones.

In 2004, 41 countries had acquired UAVs according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. As of 2011, the number climbed to at least 76 countries. While only a small number of them have armed drones, many are beginning to invest in weaponizing drones.

Watch:
Play



In the Middle East, Iran is developing its own domestically produced drones, and taking every opportunity to boast about them, including showing off a new attack hovercraft that can launch drones and missiles, or so they claim. Hezbollah, among the most innovative non-state armed militant groups, has sent Ayoub, an Iranian built drone 35 miles into Israel's airspace, effectively challenging the Us and its allies.

When discussing the threat to security in the Middle East, the mainstream media focuses on nuclear weapons and terrorism. But remain effectively silent on drones.

Yet, we recently learned that on November 1 two Russian-made Iranian warplanes shot at an American military surveillance drone flying over the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran, marking the first known instance of Iranian jets firing at a U.S. drone.

Do these developments mark a trend towards open-source warfare? If they do, why are we, whether ordinary citizens or the media, seemingly unconcerned by this new arms race and the widely accessible nature of drones?

Like Israel's unwillingness to acknowledge their own nuclear weapons program, the Obama administration has so far refused to formally acknowledge its drone program.

There are reports of more than 400 "targeted killing" drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and about 3,000 people have been killed, including hundreds of civilians. But we may never know just how many people have died at the joysticks of pilots in Nevada or New Mexico.

In March 2011, the U.S. Air Force began training more pilots for drones than for any other purpose for the first time in history.

It is deeply troubling that the Obama administration has not only augmented Bush's drone program, but plans to continue to accelerate its secret war against "enemy-combatants" across the world. Firstly, it directly opposes U.S. interests and stokes hostility and anti-American sentiment, but most importantly sets a horrible precedent for those groups or nations who will undoubtedly acquire their own drone fleets.

I was joined by Daniel Nisman, an Israeli intelligence manager at Max Security Solutions in Tel Aviv; Heather Roff, an associate professor at the University of Denver; Peter Asaro, an assistant professor at The New School and Shirin Sadesghi, an international journalist in San Francisco, CA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 22:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36
Posts: 4932
Location: land of strip and search
publicly known uavs per country
Quote:
Data from Center for Strategic and International Studies,[6][80] Bharat Rakshak[81] otherwise where noted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 11:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7090
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
that quote is from wikipedia


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 14:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27
Posts: 131
NAL has announced a Micro-UAV Design competition.
The scenario makes for an interesting read...

MICAV - 2013 NATIONAL LEVEL COMPETITION MISSION STATEMENT DOCUMENT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 02:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
A lot of information about Rustom II here

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2013 21:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3854
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
'First Flight of UAV Rustom-2 scheduled in February 2014'

Quote:
'First Flight of UAV Rustom-2 scheduled in February 2014'
'First Flight of UAV Rustom-2 scheduled in February 2014'
BANGALORE: The first flight test of indigenously developed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Rustom-2, set to be used solely for defence purposes, would take place in February 2014 as per schedule, a top official said today.
...
...
To a query, Krishnan said DRDO had conducted four test flights of Nishant, fitted with 80 kg engine developed from scratch by ADE and it was ready for serial production and supply to the defence forces.

"We have had four test flights of Nishant which is now fitted with the new indigenous engine. We had to ensure that we get the altitude of 3.7 km so we had to carry some design modification to get the final altitude. Engine performance has been excellent," he said.

"This was the reason we could get to the desired altitude envelop, speeds and also endurance of four and half hours. Everything went well. We have supplied four LSP versions of Nishant to the army and are ready for serial production. The engine was developed over four years and Rs 20-odd crore have been invested on it," Krishnan said.
...
...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1399 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 35  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ankar, arshyam, Chandragupta, Google Feedfetcher, mody, rajkumar, Septimus P. and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group