UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Gaur » 16 Jun 2012 08:20


Thanks a ton for sharing. That's one hell of a display of shock and awe.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 16 Jun 2012 09:31

for counter battery work this thing is obviously too slow and short legged. atleast a harpy sized thing is needed and that is perhaps one role we see for harpy and harop.

aakashj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby aakashj » 16 Jun 2012 09:39



Why one men (with weapon) disappears before hit at 02:54 ?

SriniY
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 11:11

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SriniY » 17 Jun 2012 10:56

^^^ that might be an apache, not a drone

I dont think drones have gun firing capability

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby nits » 17 Jun 2012 11:17

We have multiple UAV; Drone program running\devloped at a moment by various organizations... do we have a collective list\central page which lists all such programs... also wider Q is whether all these programs are complimenting each other...

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 20 Jun 2012 11:47

Austin wrote:AW&ST on Indian program on AMCA , Stealth and UCAV , Tejas Mk3

Big Plans




Reading from the above two articles it seems:-

There is a LCA Mark-3 with stealth features planned for the future. But this is the first time one has heard about it. Are they confusing it with LCA Mark-2??

Can this be LCA MArk-3 ? http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03/hell-is-this-aircraft-at-hals-defexpo.html

There is definitely Rustom-1, then Rustam-2 piston twin engined and Rustum-Turboprop which may be called Rustom-3. Is the High altitude surveillance UAV = Rustom Turboprop? Or we are going to have a turbofan based Rustom

Lastly UCAV might be AURA in the category of X-45/47 with design looking like Neuron

A bigger indigenous AWACS has always been considered as a next step and bi-static radar detection of steath aircraft may be logical next step.

Though Pulse jets & Sunlight powered HALE seems really far out

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Hiten » 20 Jun 2012 16:07

Piramal Healthcare looks to enter defence industry to bid for Indian Army contracts. To invest in Israeli UAV mfg co.

http://t.co/KTjv4blk

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2012 22:30

Worth posting in full

India invests heavily in UAVs

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby keshavchandra » 20 Jun 2012 23:52

Two Indian companies in fray for over Rs. 10,000 cr army deal
In a major boost to the private sector, defence ministry has shortlisted two indigenous agencies including Larsen and Toubro, Tata Power and HCL and the state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the over Rs. 10,000 crore tactical communication project of the army.

Two companies, including a private sector consortium for the Tactical Communication System (TCS) project of the Army, have been down-selected, Defence Ministry sources said here.

They will now submit a Detailed Project Report (DPR) on whose basis further steps will be taken to select the final winner, they said.

It was a significant step towards fulfilling army’s requirement to replace its older radio network system to handle communication requirements in battle zone, they said.

TCS is a wide network deployed to provide secure communications infrastructure and network enabled operating environment to tactical forces in a battle zone.

Commenting on the Defence Ministry decision to select the two companies, the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) said, “Army has selected a private sector Special Purpose Company consisting of Larsen & Toubro, Tata Power SED and M/s HCL Infosys Ltd as a designated agency (DA) for the prestigious TCS project. Both DAs are supposed to make the prototype and out of two the lowest bidder will be given the final project.”

“This selection is an outcome of rigorous rounds of scrutiny and years of concerted efforts put in by the Corps of Signals, army, Defence Ministry and Indian Industry together,” it added.

The TCS project would be the first programme under the ‘Make’ clause in the Defence Procurement procedure (DPP). Under ‘Make’ programmes, Government provides 80% funding for the development phase and rest comes from the industry.


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 21 Jun 2012 05:47

we keep hearing about Rustom, and plans to arm it, but no missiles are mentioned

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 22 Jun 2012 01:17

CROSS POSTING:

I was excited to see a lot of to and fro between Shiv Aroor and Prasun Sengupta about aero engines in the making ... I think the reporters both of them combined have the right picture and individually they are confusing between class of engines. THis is what my comprehension of India's engine programs are for UAVs/missiles:

1. GTRE Laghu Shakti (4-5 kN): This one is for UAVs for the 500-1000 kg class. There are reports that IAF/IN want a single-turbofan powered UAV where the piston/rotax engines won't do. This has never been reported before. Neelam Mathews had confused Rustom 1 as Rustom H and reported that it is flying with a 36MT engine. The reports further say that DRDO is already developing such a UAV). This engine can be used on missiles (don't know about restrictions) as NPO-Saturn builds the same class of engine 36MT used on various Russian missiles.

2. HAL (4-5 kN) engine: This one will be used for sub sonic cruise missiles like Nirbhay ... Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.

3. HAL (20 kN): This definitely is a new project. I was going thorugh HAL-CONNECT a few days ago and there was material on the same. Unfortunately, the link is not working today for me (Will post the link if it comes up again). I wonder what this engine is going to be used for? Future Trainers/UCAVs(5 - 10 Ton Class)?

4. Kaveri derivative: This is for IUSAV (10-15 Ton UCAVs).

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 22 Jun 2012 09:23

> Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.

on the contrary it was reported we had purchased engines and licenses for 36MT from saturn earlier. maybe we had purchased some tech also and would apply it to our own model free of restrictions same way the pandas 'clone' and 'reverse engineer' russian products with quiet blessings of the bear.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 22 Jun 2012 09:50

The official moto of HAL is "We are proud to be lazy corrupt screwdrivers". Read TATRA or ARV. HAL attempt at indigenous 4kn and 20kn engine can only mean attempt to refresh import contract of 36MT and AL-55i engines with more transfer of money under pretext of new JV

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 25 Jun 2012 10:47

On a different Note the specifications of Indian UCAV=AURA=IUSAV with MTOW 15 tons may indicate a UCAV with strike - combat radius of around 4000km, which can allow us to threaten Chinese East Coast for the first time.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 26 Jun 2012 02:08

vic wrote:On a different Note the specifications of Indian UCAV=AURA=IUSAV with MTOW 15 tons may indicate a UCAV with strike - combat radius of around 4000km, which can allow us to threaten Chinese East Coast for the first time.


radius of 4000 Kms ? WOW, pretty awesome if true. How did we arrive at that ? Analysis please.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 26 Jun 2012 10:14

Google for equivalent US led pregrammes for UCAVs

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby D Roy » 26 Jun 2012 10:19

Arrey Pappe that is range ( i.e 4000 km) and not combat radius. All these programs are intended to deliver an "honest" 1100 nautical mile radius strike vehicle. So basically whether your are talking about UCAS-D or Skat you are looking at a radius of action of about 2000 km and not 4000 km.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 26 Jun 2012 21:11

vic wrote:Google for equivalent US led pregrammes for UCAVs


I did, I couldn't find anything. Could you please point me in the right direction ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 26 Jun 2012 21:24

none of the US led programs seem to have more than 2000km radius and usually lot less.
LM X47, Boeing X45, general atomics avenger...

the X47 is big, the rest + neuron + barracuda are small fry....2x500lb in internal bay is typical payload.

the idea probably is not to have 20 platinum bullet B2 types, but 200 of small fry let loose in a swarm...cheaper and more expendable.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 26 Jun 2012 22:05

Singha, we all know this, but when someone makes claims they should back it up. I am waiting for further research notes from vic.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 26 Jun 2012 22:32

J UCAS

X-45C

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 26 Jun 2012 23:40

vic wrote:J UCAS

X-45C


That has a 1600 km combat radius.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 26 Jun 2012 23:57

range: how about a point-point strike mission? perhaps naval version is mandatory for UCAVs.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 27 Jun 2012 10:38

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

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sankum » 27 Jun 2012 15:42

UCAV at 15T MTOW.

We can expect a empty weight of 7T with a non afterburning version of Kaveri weighing 1T. Internal fuel of 6T (40% of MTOW) giving ferry range of over 8000 KM. This @ internal weapon payload of 2T.

Kaveri non afterburning thrust @5T.

For naval version we will require catapult launch capability.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 27 Jun 2012 16:54

I will go with empty weight of 5tons and internal weapon payload of 2Tons

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 27 Jun 2012 17:50

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.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 27 Jun 2012 20:04

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.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 27 Jun 2012 22:02

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?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 28 Jun 2012 02:56

We are far away from flying AURA but the 15 ton MTOW has all indicators of 5000km range when it enters squadron level service

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2608
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 28 Jun 2012 03:04

:)

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3798
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby saip » 30 Jun 2012 23:46

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.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby RoyG » 01 Jul 2012 01:45

^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Surya » 01 Jul 2012 03:51

^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.


why the assumption?? They are not pakis

gkriish
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby gkriish » 01 Jul 2012 07:57

snooping was the technique involved

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3798
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby saip » 01 Jul 2012 09:14

It is 'spoofing'

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rajanb » 01 Jul 2012 10:26

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.

member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_19648 » 01 Jul 2012 12:19

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.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rajanb » 01 Jul 2012 12:32

^^^ 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.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Johann » 02 Jul 2012 01:36

Surya wrote:
^^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.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: k prasad, morem, Yagnasri, Yashu and 41 guests