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.
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.

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Roperia » 02 Jul 2012 09:00

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.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rajanb » 02 Jul 2012 09:59

^^^ 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:

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby TSJones » 02 Jul 2012 10:38

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?

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rajanb » 02 Jul 2012 10:43

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.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby TSJones » 02 Jul 2012 11:26

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.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 02 Jul 2012 11:52

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.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 02 Jul 2012 12:17

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

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby PratikDas » 11 Jul 2012 02:47

AINonline: Bams Demonstrator Lost as Definitive Version Rolls Out
June 15, 2012
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.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 11 Jul 2012 02:52

vic wrote:
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.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 11 Jul 2012 15:03

Ok I am naive but not malafide. You are welcome to provide your data/interpretation

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 11 Jul 2012 21:05

^^^ 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.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 14 Jul 2012 21:32

AW&ST : Indian UCAV IUSAV- Aura Detected

Aura-1
Aura-2
Aura-3

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22539 » 15 Jul 2012 07:07

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.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 23 Sep 2012 20:52

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].

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 28 Sep 2012 02:44

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.....

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby arun » 05 Oct 2012 19:46

IAF to induct the IAI Harop advanced loitering munition / UCAV / suicide drone by next year:

IAF to induct first killer drones

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Shrinivasan » 06 Oct 2012 07:32

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...

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Shrinivasan » 06 Oct 2012 22:07

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.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby pentaiah » 15 Nov 2012 03:05

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.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby krisna » 29 Nov 2012 22:58

publicly known uavs per country
Data from Center for Strategic and International Studies,[6][80] Bharat Rakshak[81] otherwise where noted.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby krishnan » 01 Dec 2012 11:02

that quote is from wikipedia

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby akimalik » 01 Dec 2012 14:08

NAL has announced a Micro-UAV Design competition.
The scenario makes for an interesting read...

MICAV - 2013 NATIONAL LEVEL COMPETITION MISSION STATEMENT DOCUMENT

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 02 Jan 2013 02:56

A lot of information about Rustom II here

Image

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby putnanja » 04 Feb 2013 21:14

'First Flight of UAV Rustom-2 scheduled in February 2014'

'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.
...
...

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2397
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby VinodTK » 05 Feb 2013 06:37

Indian armed forces building deadly drone arsenal, also want combat UAVs
NEW DELHI: With an eye on both the western and eastern fronts with Pakistan and China, the Indian armed forces are slowly but steadily building a formidable arsenal of spy, target acquisition and "killer'' drones or UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).

Even as the Navy sets up spy drone bases along the coastline and IAF inducts "killer'' drones, the Army has inked yet another contract to acquire two more "troops'' (eight drones each) of Israeli `Heron' medium-altitude, long endurance UAVs.

"Under the Rs 1,200 crore contract with Israel Aerospace Industries ( IAI), the Army will begin inducting these new Heron drones from January 2014,'' said a senior defence official.

The drones, to be inducted into the new SATA (surveillance and target acquisition) regiments being raised, form a part of the overall modernization plan for the 1.13-million force being pushed by Army chief General Bikram Singh.

"The force wants speedy induction of various UAVs, from man-portable micro and mini spy ones to `killer' ones that act like missiles to hit targets. It will bolster capabilities for surveillance, weapon delivery and direction of artillery fire,'' said an officer.

In keeping with the plan to progressively induct drones right down to the battalion-level by the end of this decade, the Army is already establishing new UAV bases from Nagrota and Manasbal in J&K to Kumbhigram and Lilabari in the north-east.

The Navy, in turn, is looking to raise new UAV squadrons after establishing three at Kochi (Kerala), Porbandar (Gujarat) and Uchipuli (Tamil Nadu) to detect threats emanating from the sea.

Similarly, IAF is inducting additional Harop ``killer'' drones equipped with electro-optical sensors to loiter over high-value military targets before exploding into them. The force has also experimented with "add-ons or attachments'' to its existing fleet of Israeli Heron and Searcher-II surveillance drones to add a killer role to them.

The armed forces eventually want full-fledged UCAVs (combat UAVs) - akin to the American Predators and Reapers being used in the Af-Pak region - which return to their bases like fighter jets to replenish their missiles for fresh missions.

hey have inducted over 100 UAVs, mainly from Israel, as "major force-multipliers'' since the 1999 Kargil conflict. DRDO, too, has got into the act by stepping up its drone programmes, from the already inducted Nishant to the under-development Rustom-I and II drones.

As earlier reported by TOI, DRDO has also launched the secretive AURA (autonomous unmanned research aircraft) programme to develop stealth UCAVs capable of firing missiles, bombs and precision-guided munitions.

Similarly, another ambitious project on the drawing board focuses on designing solar-powered high-altitude, long endurance UAVs that can cruise in the sky for several days at a time for round-the-clock ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance) missions.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24189
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SSridhar » 05 Feb 2013 15:30

Wankel engine cleared to power UAVs - The Hindu
The Rs. 2,000-crore Kaveri engine may have eluded our own light fighter plane, the LCA. Now there is the smaller Wankel engine, though, to give some cheer for another reason.

The 55-hp Wankel engine, developed by three national research agencies, has passed muster to power the unmanned aerial vehicles used by the Army and the Air Force. It has been certified to be the engine for all future UAV programmes, according to K. Tamilmani, head of the certifying body for military planes CEMILAC (Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification.)

Wankel is a major achievement for the defence research establishment, Dr. Tamilmani announced at the Aero India seminar here on Monday. This will be used to power the home-grown UAVs Nishant, Lakshya and Rustom-1 and 2 versions used to observe and survey border areas.

The engine has been developed at a cost of Rs. 20 crore by the National Aerospace Labs and the Aeronautical Development Establishment, both based in Bangalore, and the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ahmednagar.

ADE has developed the UAVs. NAL, the prime partner, has transferred the technology to two companies in Hyderabad and Bangalore for production for a trial order of 20.

The engine was test-flown on the ADE’s Nishant unmanned air vehicle a few times over the last two years. The UAV reached its targets of 4.5 flying hours and an altitude of 3.6 km. The design of the prototype is frozen for new UAVs and for spares that are in service, said ADE Director P.S. Krishnan.

“Propulsion system is the heart of an aircraft. Until now we were buying [the UAV engine] from Europe. To be indigenised is very important as the airframe and other onboard systems are Indian,” Mr. Krishnan said.

“It’s an excellent engine in the 80-90-kg thrust class.” Such engines also go into powerful racing cars and boats.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby merlin » 05 Feb 2013 18:06

Why would Lakshya use it? Lakshya uses a small jet engine and not Wankel.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rohitvats » 05 Feb 2013 18:26

VinodTK wrote:<SNIP>The drones, to be inducted into the new SATA (surveillance and target acquisition) regiments being raised, form a part of the overall modernization plan for the 1.13-million force being pushed by Army chief General Bikram Singh.

<SNIP>


From an Orbat junkies perspective, the most important bit of news.

1. Each SATA Regiment it seems has an organic troop of 4 x UAV for surveillance and target acquisition.
2. Coupled with WLR, this gives a SATA Regiment tremendous capability.
3. Now, during my research on the Artillery Divisions in IA, it had come to fore that each Arty Division has a SATA Regiment. The above news means that each of these has integral UAV troop.
4. I know for sure IA had couple of SATA Regiments under some Corps reporting directly Corps HQ. Now, it seems that IA is raising 1 x SATA regiment per Corps - apart from the ones with Arty Divisions.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby keshavchandra » 05 Feb 2013 20:53

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 380484.ece

Wankel engine cleared to power UAVs
The Rs. 2,000-crore Kaveri engine may have eluded our own light fighter plane, the LCA. Now there is the smaller Wankel engine, though, to give some cheer for another reason.

The 55-hp Wankel engine, developed by three national research agencies, has passed muster to power the unmanned aerial vehicles used by the Army and the Air Force. It has been certified to be the engine for all future UAV programmes, according to K. Tamilmani, head of the certifying body for military planes CEMILAC (Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification.)

Wankel is a major achievement for the defence research establishment, Dr. Tamilmani announced at the Aero India seminar here on Monday. This will be used to power the home-grown UAVs Nishant, Lakshya and Rustom-1 and 2 versions used to observe and survey border areas.

The engine has been developed at a cost of Rs. 20 crore by the National Aerospace Labs and the Aeronautical Development Establishment, both based in Bangalore, and the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ahmednagar.

ADE has developed the UAVs. NAL, the prime partner, has transferred the technology to two companies in Hyderabad and Bangalore for production for a trial order of 20.

The engine was test-flown on the ADE’s Nishant unmanned air vehicle a few times over the last two years. The UAV reached its targets of 4.5 flying hours and an altitude of 3.6 km. The design of the prototype is frozen for new UAVs and for spares that are in service, said ADE Director P.S. Krishnan.

“Propulsion system is the heart of an aircraft. Until now we were buying [the UAV engine] from Europe. To be indigenised is very important as the airframe and other onboard systems are Indian,” Mr. Krishnan said.

“It’s an excellent engine in the 80-90-kg thrust class.” Such engines also go into powerful racing cars and boats.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2659
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Feb 2013 23:23

Great news!

The 4.5 hours endurance is too little for Rustom-2. I hope the report refers only to the Nishant endurance and there is a 36-hour endurance variant for Rustom-2

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 05 Feb 2013 23:25

Endurance may be a limitation of amount of fuel carried rather than the engine.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 05 Feb 2013 23:40

Prem Kumar wrote:Great news!

The 4.5 hours endurance is too little for Rustom-2. I hope the report refers only to the Nishant endurance and there is a 36-hour endurance variant for Rustom-2


Acoording to the keynote talk on UAVs, Rustom-2 will have 36 hours at station (the slide showed 24+ hours though).

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Feb 2013 23:51

rohitvats wrote:
VinodTK wrote:<SNIP>The drones, to be inducted into the new SATA (surveillance and target acquisition) regiments being raised, form a part of the overall modernization plan for the 1.13-million force being pushed by Army chief General Bikram Singh.

<SNIP>


From an Orbat junkies perspective, the most important bit of news.

1. Each SATA Regiment it seems has an organic troop of 4 x UAV for surveillance and target acquisition.
2. Coupled with WLR, this gives a SATA Regiment tremendous capability.
3. Now, during my research on the Artillery Divisions in IA, it had come to fore that each Arty Division has a SATA Regiment. The above news means that each of these has integral UAV troop.
4. I know for sure IA had couple of SATA Regiments under some Corps reporting directly Corps HQ. Now, it seems that IA is raising 1 x SATA regiment per Corps - apart from the ones with Arty Divisions.


I saw that too. Certainly a technological leap, and even a capability leap, but I kind of stopped myself thinking that its a "tremendous" capability with just 4 UAVs on hand per regiment. Putting aside attrition buffers, even if these UAVs are rotated on twelve hour basis, we are looking at two UAVs on station per regiment at any given time. If attrition seeps in, that lowers even more. I would have thought that each SATA regiment would have at least two (or more?) UAV troops?

Just not sure how effective a single troop per regiment is going to be. (contrariwise, are they hoping to make up the numbers with a lot more SATA regiments? )

I may be completely off the mark though, so forgive my ignorance.

-Vivek

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2659
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Feb 2013 02:23

Cybaru wrote:Endurance may be a limitation of amount of fuel carried rather than the engine.


Sure, but the engine needs to be certified for long endurance operations.

Moreover, a 55hp engine might be under-powered for Rustom-2. IAI Heron uses a 115hp engine for a 250Kg payload. I read some place that Rustom 2's payload is likely to be 350Kg. The armed version might have a higher requirement. I think the Wankel engine might actually refer to a series of engines

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby pentaiah » 06 Feb 2013 02:45

Well I thought of developing a UAV for India with this

http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=393


95 BHP

Image

The AR682R aero-engine has been developed to power UAVs which require up to 120 bhp. It is based on the proven AR642 core engine which was designed to meet UK CAA / European JAR-E and US FAA FAR-33 certifications for manned flight.


Design Features

High power to weight ratio.
Small frontal area.
Economical fuel consumption.
Low levels of vibration.
Integral lightweight belt-type reduction drive to propeller.
Technical Specification

Engine Type
Twin rotor Wankel-type rotary engine.

Capacity
294 CC per rotor.

Power Output
90 BHP at 7000 rpm. Alternatively 120 BHP at 8000 rpm with EFI System

Weight
56.5kg for full wet running installed assembly. As illustrated including 2 kw generator, throttle actuator, fuel pump and pressure regulator etc. Propellor not included.

Direction of Rotation
Anti-clockwise (looking at face of prop flange).

Ignition System
Full duplicated 28V C.D system with magntic triggering firing twin plugs. R.F shielded.

Fuel Type
AVGAS (100LL) or Regular grade (min 92 RON) Mogas automotive (leaded or unleaded).

Specific Fuel Consumption
0.55 lb/bhp/hr at 70% cruise

Reduction Drive
Tooth belt system including heavy-duty rubber anti-torsional-vibration device. Standard ration 2.03 to 1.



watch this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

People are developing in their garrage these systems, for 20 crores funding I woulod have given them at least a squadron of flying objects

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby PratikDas » 06 Feb 2013 03:27

From DRDO the Wankel rotary engine:
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 06 Feb 2013 03:58

Prem Kumar wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Endurance may be a limitation of amount of fuel carried rather than the engine.


Sure, but the engine needs to be certified for long endurance operations.

Moreover, a 55hp engine might be under-powered for Rustom-2. IAI Heron uses a 115hp engine for a 250Kg payload. I read some place that Rustom 2's payload is likely to be 350Kg. The armed version might have a higher requirement. I think the Wankel engine might actually refer to a series of engines

Don't forget the Rustom-2 will have two engines. But even then two 55hp engine is not going to make the cut. And definitely a 55 HP engine cannot propel Rustom-1.

Like you, I am beginning to believe that there will be a class of engines.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rohitvats » 06 Feb 2013 09:30

vivek_ahuja wrote:<SNIP>I saw that too. Certainly a technological leap, and even a capability leap, but I kind of stopped myself thinking that its a "tremendous" capability with just 4 UAVs on hand per regiment. Putting aside attrition buffers, even if these UAVs are rotated on twelve hour basis, we are looking at two UAVs on station per regiment at any given time. If attrition seeps in, that lowers even more. I would have thought that each SATA regiment would have at least two (or more?) UAV troops?

Just not sure how effective a single troop per regiment is going to be. (contrariwise, are they hoping to make up the numbers with a lot more SATA regiments? )

I may be completely off the mark though, so forgive my ignorance.

-Vivek


Vivek - this is one capability we are in the process of introducing on the scale of entire army. Remember, we did not have beyond couple of SATA Regiments earlier. So, increment will happen in due course of time. BTW, this 1 x UAV troops per regiment is my deduction based on reading of the news item. Apart from these UAVs, I think UAV troops are already maintained as part of Army Aviation Corps Helicopter Squadrons - here again, I think it is one troops/flight per Squadron (I'm not too sure, will need to double check). So, at Corps level, we do have between 8-10 UAVs.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vic » 06 Feb 2013 09:40

There is already a tender out for 120hp engine for Rustom. so indigenous is out.

If two wankel cores are combined in each engine then it can give 100-120hp.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, Neela, sum and 44 guests