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.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neshant » 15 Oct 2014 12:18

Marten wrote:Sir, without digressing let me say this again - if opto elecs sensor packages and autopilot packages are available off the shelf, why would we reinvent the wheel?


Because its not available off the shelf. Most of the high end sensor systems like long range & deep penetration bathymetric ladar, high altitude persistent stare, tagging..etc are under export restrictions while others like Argus are not even available to NATO member countries. There are "big data" systems built around these systems and that's where the real complexity & gains are to be had. In that sense they are not sensors but complete systems.

The reality is many here don't even know how far behind India is in this field.

After much thinking, I've concluded that India's weakness is that it has no consumer electronics development industry. In almost all countries that excel in the above field, a thriving consumer electronics R&D base provides a springboard for development of such systems.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 15 Oct 2014 13:18

^^ generally true. but neither does UK, France or Israel a big play in CE industry. I think a nation has to be advanced in basic sciences, precision manufacturing, hardware & software design and overall engg to be a player in defence field. just a CE industry is not enough else Taiwan should be a superpower in this field.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neshant » 16 Oct 2014 07:48

Singha wrote:^^ generally true. but neither does UK, France or Israel a big play in CE industry. I think a nation has to be advanced in basic sciences, precision manufacturing, hardware & software design and overall engg to be a player in defence field. just a CE industry is not enough else Taiwan should be a superpower in this field.


I'm not talking about the defence field as a whole. Most of what is called the defence field requires huge investments in big ticket items and big risks to go along with it. There's no easy entry point there.

I'm talking about this specific field. This field is good for India because it provides a low cost entry point into a high tech arena which is not flooded with suppliers. It also ties in well to what we currently do or could do - although at the secondary level wrt big data for example.

What we have is manpower for the secondary level. What's missing is the all important primary level - the component level supply chain, expertise and innovation required to build the hardware system in the first place.

In that sense, China is closing the gap with the west on both the primary & secondary level. Any country other than the US that goes to war with them in the 21st century is going to get a nasty surprise.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby PratikDas » 16 Oct 2014 10:53

Neshant ji, I'm sorry to say that your entire contribution to this thread seems to have boiled down to the rather obvious conclusion that India is way behind the US [Gorgon Stare] and UK [Argus] when it comes to UAV applications. Having followed this thread for several days because of the activity, much of which you are responsible for, this is a huge anti-climax. We have learnt nothing from you, despite Marten ji requesting you to share your knowledge. We have only been subjected to your laments.

If someone were to jump into the Space thread everytime PSLV launches a textbook successfully only to remind everyone that a textbook weighs much less than the 6.8 ton MUOS-1 launched by Lockeed Martin's Atlas V, what exactly would their contribution be, save for stating the obvious?

The saving grace in your posts is the acknowledgement that what may be available COTS to "hobbyists" in the US may not be available COTS to even the GoI. That is why anything achieved in India in this field, no matter how primitive it may seem to you, is worthwhile and worthy of encouragement, if not Mangalyaan-like applause. Incidentally, Mangalyaan too has been noted by some to be unworthy of praise for its meager ambitions. Not many in the Mangalyaan thread are perturbed by such opinions.

I too shall state the obvious in that UAV applications like stare, tracking, bathymetry, and what not, need a UAV and one that can carry a payload of useful magnitude. India is developing these UAVs now. If this is too boring then I really would suggest you consider hnair ji's advice.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neshant » 16 Oct 2014 11:54

PratikDas wrote:I too shall state the obvious in that UAV applications like stare, tracking, bathymetry, and what not, need a UAV and one that can carry a payload of useful magnitude. India is developing these UAVs now.


Other way around. Define the payload, then develop the craft to carry it.

Not that the development of a craft is any great R&D challenge to begin with. Fixed & rotary wing aircraft already carry these payloads. A flying craft is not even needed to prove these systems as 99.9% of the development takes place on the ground.


PratikDas wrote:Neshant ji, I'm sorry to say that your entire contribution to this thread seems to.


Then you should stop reading it. You are wasting your time trolling me. Its not going to change the fact that India does not have an R&D program when it comes to UAV development. Have you been to AUVSI exhibitions? Or talked to people at aero-modelling shows? Do you have any connection to this industry?
Last edited by hnair on 16 Oct 2014 11:59, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: First warning. You are not desisting from trolling, despite an informal warning. You are disrupting the thread with opinions that are not adding any value, other than as put downs of Indian efforts

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neshant » 16 Oct 2014 12:01

Seems anyone who disagrees with the official line is trolling.

Why then even bother having a discussion?

This is my last post in this thread.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3732
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby hnair » 16 Oct 2014 12:20

Neshant, thanks. Will certainly look forward to interesting links et al from you, but "hobbyist opinions" should go to newbie/misc thread

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2014 13:12

Neshant wrote:You are wasting your time trolling and you ignorant of what is.


I am not trolling, but by now I do realize I am speaking to a troll who is talking through his hat and likes to project his lack of awareness as a virtue. For instance..

UAV flight control is old hat
..

yes which is why Sagem struggled to develop the Sperwer and only the US and Israel have successful long range UAVs. At least know something about the topic before mouthing off & then pretending others are ignorant when they don't buy your BS..

and survey grade INS + GPS is largely COTS with nothing developed under the UAV program.


More brilliance.. survey grade INS+GPS as versus weight optimized SOC packages when every gm counts & what happens when the GPS is denied? Thought of that, and as to why countries like India have developed their own RLG-INS and other INS types/own INS packages.

The development of satellite based GPS aided augmented nav is under the space program.


More brilliance. The Indian missile programs & space programs are different in that the space programs don't have to suffer GPS denial. IRNSS alone is not sufficient either.

And what do you know of any electronic payloads development in India? Pray tell.


I know none of it is happening as its being purchased off the shelf.

Which shows you know nothing. Continue reveling in your own ignorance, but spare us your bombast.

Flying a craft with a camera doing waypoint navigation is not a UAV program. Its a hobbyist program.


Yes, which is why Sagem, Elbit, Elop, IAI, Raytheon, NG all do "hobbyist programs". Yet to see you displace them all from the lofty halls of your garage.
Last edited by Karan M on 16 Oct 2014 13:46, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2014 13:28

Shreeman wrote:^^^ Karan,
Since I played a role in starting this, I better take my bitter medication as well.

The core argument here has the following analogy -- Kaveri is a good jet engine because it has flown on testbed for XXX hours and tested on the ground for XXXX hours. We are working on the hot section, and the cold section and the casting of this, and the prototyping of that. Everything has been indegenized.

See how quickly the statements start sounding silly?

Next up is XXX does not knowv YYY --- not everything in life is a richard measuring contest. Here it inevitably turns into one. So I stay away. Not that I know anything.

For all I know (having only touched a museum version) the space station, the shuttle, and the SR71 are all myths. There are some conspiracy videos that have been made and some obscure publications resulted in exotic science/tech journals. They are not what gave these prograns credibility. Something else did. The chinese mnay well have equivalent hardware today, but even they dont have the credibility.

Now if production versions are not to be assessed and evaluated from open source information, perhaps the technology visible in the prototypes or the prototype cycle could be an indicator of *something*. Here too I struggle.

It is not me. But there are indeed folks on the forum who do know a thing or two. Why doesnt this thread attract insightful commentary from them? May be there are hurdles, or mnay be there is not much to say.

The procurement is speaking the loudest right now. Small words mnay contain big insights (thoda kaha, bahut samajhana).


Shreeman, I have no issues with your honest queries. I don't care for conspiracy theories or worthless trolling like the kind Neshant excels in, in thread after thread.

Jet engines are a different matter altogether because they are far more complex and expensive. As far as optics go. My prior post has enough evidence above of the kind of procurement being done in sensor systems sourced locally from India. Every nut & screw is not manufactured in India. Some because of economics, some because of complexity eg the detectors (one may well argue latter is because of former, we aren't the US to throw money at the problem or the USSR which ran itself into a hole because of countless black programs). However, there is a wealth of evidence which shows

1. Items in development, giving the lie to folks (not you) who loudly insist "nothing is being done in sensors" - why, because they say so
2. Items in production thanks to 1, which give the lie to folks (not you) who deliberately ignore it or insist that "its all imported" (never mind the local value add in design or integration or components or software etc) or insist that its too simple and hence only their silly interpretation of what is " a proper program" comprises the reality.

MTCR and similar cartel games for instance make sure we cannot procure an Eitan, not merely because of sensors but because of its range and possible payload claims. So is an Eitan available to everyone else. After all, self declared experts would have us believe that any hobbyist can develop one ("hobbyist level"), navigation is no big deal (all COTS) and similar rubbish. In reality, the challenges in developing even moderately reliable, autonomous UAVs at the tactical level have been horrendous. Sagem's Sperwer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGEM_Sperwer when BTW, it is Sagem which is a worldwide leader in payloads (EO/TI et al). So tells us everything about the kind of claims that say "only sensors matter" UAVs are easy, garage level stuff.

Anyone with the slightest interest would do some research and figure out the amount of effort both DRDO and ISRO are going into to develop and manufacture all these items locally, starting from the components to entire packages and that there is a reason why they do so.

These items are not available off the shelf, merely because they are shown on some company websites. They come in at exorbitant costs and require diplomatic clearance, even when acquired. As a result of which India is steadily expanding its footprint in sensors & navigation items.

If you want a serious debate, that's fine. But the forum is degraded when other conspiracy theorists who one day babble about gold price conspiracies, then next day go on and on about how their definition of "UAV" is all that matters (some fancy sensor package which won't be fielded for several years) and then downplay all the other aspects that go into an UAV because it shoots down their rubbish.

This is the kind of stuff going into local UAVs
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/ind ... /view/5992

Its iterative development which takes time, effort & multiple programs to succeed. Nishant, then Rustom-1 and Rustom-2. Point is everything about mil-grade UAVs has to be top notch & compare well with what is procured from abroad, and only a handful of companies have their spurs in the field.
Unfortunately, the kind of trash posted by one poster degrades the entire discussion. Never mind that the vast majority of payloads on UAVs today are anything but super exotic Gorgon Stare or anything of the like. They are high resolution CCD/HDTV/ FLIR and ESM/ELINT packages tightly coupled to optimized jamproof network links to transmit the data, SATCOM for both NLOS flight control & data, plus long range flight control algorithms and highly optimized and reliable aircraft systems. All of these are denied at some level or the other to civilians. To compare them to hobbyist stuff is ridiculous. There is a good reason as well. The same compact navigation package that can guide an UAV, can also be jury rigged into a missile that is aimed at your own factory. Flight control algorithms and reliable hardware that can control a UAV for 100s of kms and keep it in the air without manual inputs, can also be used to make guided missiles. And so it goes.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 16 Oct 2014 23:27

Neshant wrote:Seems anyone who disagrees with the official line is trolling.

Why then even bother having a discussion?

This is my last post in this thread.

I agree with you. It will be a loss if you stop posting. Just not being as disparaging as you have lately been would be wonderful though. Just my thoughts (as a poster to another).

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Hobbes » 17 Oct 2014 05:05

Neshant wrote:Seems anyone who disagrees with the official line is trolling.

Why then even bother having a discussion?

This is my last post in this thread.


Thank you!

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Surya » 17 Oct 2014 05:54

no one is a loss

there are others who will come in

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22539 » 17 Oct 2014 07:27

Neshant wrote:Seems anyone who disagrees with the official line is trolling.

Why then even bother having a discussion?

This is my last post in this thread.



Can you please extend this to the rest of the forum?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3732
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby hnair » 17 Oct 2014 08:23

Enough on this, folks. Thanks

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Victor » 17 Oct 2014 08:54

brar_w wrote:http://bcove.me/ljl1zw8o

Very cool. These air-launched UAVS would also be useful with another Boeing product we will soon have--the Apache which can slave several of them to independently monitor targets over a much wider area than it can by itself. These look small enough to be carried by the Apache in an external pod but too small to be armed I think.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 17 Oct 2014 17:18

From what appears to be the case from recent contract activities Boeing has not been given the green light for this particular UAV design with the US Navy concentrating on something similar but smaller (same concept though)

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Oct 2014 15:24

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/10/hal-drdo-to-partner-in-rustom-uav.html

Navy has projected a requirement for a 10 ton class rotary UAV. DRDO is undecided whether to go for conversion of existing manned platform to unmanned or go for an ab initio effort. HAL is partnering with Israelis for their rotary UAV.

-HAL is partner for Rustom 1 and 2.
-A supersonic target drone as a follow up to Lakshya 2.
-A solar powered UAV.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e67uPCdWBkw[/youtube]

Ranjani Brow

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Ranjani Brow » 18 Oct 2014 16:22

Thakur_B wrote:http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/10/hal-drdo-to-partner-in-rustom-uav.html

Navy has projected a requirement for a 10 ton class rotary UAV. DRDO is undecided whether to go for conversion of existing manned platform to unmanned or go for an ab initio effort. HAL is partnering with Israelis for their rotary UAV.


OT: Is this your blog?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Oct 2014 17:22

hecky wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/10/hal-drdo-to-partner-in-rustom-uav.html

Navy has projected a requirement for a 10 ton class rotary UAV. DRDO is undecided whether to go for conversion of existing manned platform to unmanned or go for an ab initio effort. HAL is partnering with Israelis for their rotary UAV.


OT: Is this your blog?


Nyet hecky, that blog is run by an ex-IAF pilot, Vijender K Thakur.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neilz » 21 Oct 2014 11:35

Not sure where to post it.. but since few page back we were wondering about the hobby.. :)

Su-27 dron in india and a perfect landing

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=307185396139968

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 04 Nov 2014 06:08

Elop has developed alaser designation module that weighs 100 grams. It can be fit on mini and micro UAVs.
http://www.uasvision.com/2014/11/03/elo ... r-for-uas/

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Nov 2014 06:56

From the DRDO newsletter, Rustom-1 has started doing endurance flights.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby NRao » 05 Nov 2014 07:12

Neilz wrote:Not sure where to post it.. but since few page back we were wondering about the hobby.. :)

Su-27 dron in india and a perfect landing

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=307185396139968


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4926&p=1746166#p1746166

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 7647
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sachin » 06 Nov 2014 10:00

Drones sharpen focus on trouble spots
Seems to be a good idea, which I am sure other police forces have also tried. This was tested in Mumbai during the Ganesh Visarjan functions.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1159
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rkhanna » 10 Nov 2014 13:36

Has anybody here heard of or has any insights into a small indian start up making Micro UAV's called Asteria Aerospace?

http://www.asteria.co.in/


They were there at DeFExpo 14 apparently.

VikB
BRFite
Posts: 340
Joined: 29 Jun 2009 10:02
Location: Mumbai/Delhi
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby VikB » 11 Nov 2014 15:53


"The Navy has projected a requirement for a 10-t class RUAV. DRDO is developing technology for the RUAV but is yet undecided on whether to convert an existing unmanned platform (like Chetak) to a RUAV, or develop a RUAV from scratch."

dont know to laugh or cry.
1. there is no existing 10 t RUAV in the FREAKING world!!
2. Chetak is NOT a 10 t class. so what are we talking?
3. what extra capability does a RUAV get that a manned heli does not

There have been only two known uses of RUAVs of a normal size
a) prevent harm to pilots in hostile territory - K-max used by US in Iraq for transport of goods
b) where pilot fatigue is an issue - here RUAV is better ONLY if the endurance of the RUAV is greater than of a normal manned system. only one RUAV (trial) manages this

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sattili » 11 Nov 2014 16:56

^^^^^^^
could this be the motivation behind Navy's requirement projection?

Marines at Quantico successfully landed an unmanned K-MAX, as well as a Little Bird, autonomously using an Ipad-like mini-tablet. The helicopters were equipped with technology called the Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System (AACUS), which combines advanced algorithms with LIDAR and electro-optical/infrared sensors to enable a person holding a tablet to select a point to land the helicopter at an unprepared landing site. Autonomous landing without the need for remote control or tele-operation reduces operator burden and allows them be resupplied or conduct other missions like medical evacuation around the clock. The AACUS weighs 100 lb (45 kg), so it can be easily integrated onto other aircraft like the CH-53E Super Stallion and V-22 Osprey. Operational use of the system could be possible within two years.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_K-MAX
and http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/05/marines-fly-helicopters-with-mini-tablet/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 11 Nov 2014 18:52

WANTED: IDEAS FOR TRANSFORMING PLANES INTO “AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN THE SKY”

Military air operations typically rely on large, manned, robust aircraft, but such missions put these expensive assets—and their pilots—at risk. While small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) can reduce or eliminate such risks, they lack the speed, range and endurance of larger aircraft. These complementary traits suggest potential benefits in a blended approach—one in which larger aircraft would carry, launch and recover multiple small UAS. Such an approach could greatly extend the range of UAS operations, enhance overall safety, and cost-effectively enable groundbreaking capabilities for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and other missions.

To explore and expedite the possible development of these potential benefits, DARPA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) (http://go.usa.gov/AWpm) seeking technical, security and business insights addressing the feasibility and potential value of an ability to launch and recover multiple small unmanned air systems from one or more types of existing large manned aircraft, such as C-130 transport planes.

“We want to find ways to make smaller aircraft more effective, and one promising idea is enabling existing large aircraft, with minimal modification, to become ‘aircraft carriers in the sky’,” said Dan Patt, DARPA program manager. “We envision innovative launch and recovery concepts for new UAS designs that would couple with recent advances in small payload design and collaborative technologies.”

The new RFI invites short (8 pages or less) responses that must address three primary areas:

System-level technologies and concepts that would enable low-cost reusable small UAS platforms and airborne launch and recovery systems that would require minimal modification of existing large aircraft types. This area includes modeling and simulation as well as feasibility analysis, including substantiating preliminary data if available.
Potentially high-payoff operational concepts and mission applications for distributed airborne capabilities and architectures, as well as relative capability and affordability compared to conventional approaches (e.g., monolithic aircraft and payloads or missile-based approaches). DARPA hopes to leverage significant investments in the area of precision relative navigation, which seeks to enable extremely coordinated flight activities among aircraft, as well as recent and ongoing development of small payloads (100 pounds or less).
Proposed plans for achieving full-system flight demonstrations within four years, to assist in planning for a potential future DARPA program. DARPA is interested not only in what system functionality such plans could reasonably achieve within that timeframe, but also how to best demonstrate this functionality to potential users and transition partners. These notional plans should include rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost and schedule information, as well as interim risk reduction and demonstration events to evaluate program progress and validate system feasibility and interim capabilities.
Technology development beyond these three areas will be considered so long as it supports the RFI’s goals. DARPA is particularly interested in engaging nontraditional contributors to help develop leap-ahead technologies in the focus areas above, as well as other technologies that could potentially improve both the survivability and effectiveness of future manned and unmanned air systems.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Nov 2014 19:02

VikB wrote:dont know to laugh or cry.
1. there is no existing 10 t RUAV in the FREAKING world!!


According to IAI, their unmanned module tried out on Chetak is scalable, ie it can be fit on any helicopter. How long before an unmanned apache is tried out ? Umanned Dhruv got scrapped because of lack of enthusiasm from the user, who now wants a 10 ton class NRUAV.

2. Chetak is NOT a 10 t class. so what are we talking?



They say "like chetak" because of HAL-IAI project converting Chetak into an unmanned helicopter. So DRDO is looking at:
a. Converting a manned helicopter to unmanned.
b. Designing the NRUAV from scratch.

3. what extra capability does a RUAV get that a manned heli does not


Considering how tricky naval aviation is and how reliably technology can do take off and landings it's easy to see why navy would be interested. The automated landing system in superhornet is said to be too accurate, hitting the lading deck at exact same point during each landing.

Take a 10 ton class helicopter, say Mi-17 with an empty weight of 7.5 tons and max take off weight of 13 tons.
Strip away the cabin for passengers and cockpit and armour-> save two to three tons approximately and a lot of volume leading to a sleeker shape.
Replace lost weight with fuel and about a ton of armament and sensors.
You now have a high endurance sub hunter (compared to a manned platform).

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 12 Nov 2014 08:00

^^^
Can an Mi-17 or a Sea King be stripped down to this level, and the leftover cockpit houses the Mihir sonar?

Image

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 15 Nov 2014 21:14

if HAL is teeming with ALH, the Dhruv based NRUAV should be employed in a hurricane hunter role with endurance, conduct SAR operations in the most demanding conditions like bad weather in the mountains, recovering from auto rotation, have a 'Sarang team' so when the human team is doing acrobatics the software is ensuring proper timing and separation

and then move the proven system to the Mi-17

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby abhik » 15 Nov 2014 21:47

A system based on the ALH will probably be the heaviest unmanned helicopter by todays standards. 10 tons seems like a bit much, heck we are yet to develope a conventional helicopter that heavy.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 19 Nov 2014 07:32

Anantha Krishnan M
‏@writetake
Defence scientists making an attempt to fly #Rustom1, #Rustom2, #Nishant and #Panchi together on a demo swarm mission in January.
5:14 PM - 18 Nov 2014

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/534877447154454528

Damn hobbyists ;)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Viv S » 19 Nov 2014 15:02

Thakur_B wrote:Take a 10 ton class helicopter, say Mi-17 with an empty weight of 7.5 tons and max take off weight of 13 tons.
Strip away the cabin for passengers and cockpit and armour-> save two to three tons approximately and a lot of volume leading to a sleeker shape.
Replace lost weight with fuel and about a ton of armament and sensors.
You now have a high endurance sub hunter (compared to a manned platform).


All that can be removed is the benches/seats for passengers. If the helicopter is armoured, there's probably fair justification for armouring it. If not, then the armour can be removed for the manned variant as well. The fuselage cannot be modified without entirely rebuilding the helicopter. The unmanned flight systems will take up space equivalent to at least one pilot in the cockpit.

(^ This is for a converted air-frame. If we're planning to develop a new 10 ton helicopter from the ground up, that's a decade long exercise in itself. UCAV variants can come later.)

In effect, what you gain is volume occupied by one pilot. The larger the aircraft the more pointless its unmanned variant will be. An A380 could in theory be rigged to take off from New York and fly to London with a full complement of passengers, and no pilots. However, the net gain is two or three extra seats becoming available. Hardly worth the trade-off.

The downside to unmanned systems is that they will never have the flexibility of a trained human brain, while piloting the aircraft. And if the comm systems breakdown it could well become a danger to the vessels on the surface. That may be acceptable for a light aircraft like the Chetak, where the payload is so low that an unmanned variant could substantially increase its endurance. Its a waste of effort for a 10 ton aircraft.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5544
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vishvak » 19 Nov 2014 20:04

Thakur_B wrote:
Anantha Krishnan M
‏@writetake
Defence scientists making an attempt to fly #Rustom1, #Rustom2, #Nishant and #Panchi together on a demo swarm mission in January.
5:14 PM - 18 Nov 2014

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/534877447154454528

Damn hobbyists ;)

Is it about 4 UAVs flying altogether as a swarm for a photo op? Just a query.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2014 20:11

Viv S wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Take a 10 ton class helicopter, say Mi-17 with an empty weight of 7.5 tons and max take off weight of 13 tons.
Strip away the cabin for passengers and cockpit and armour-> save two to three tons approximately and a lot of volume leading to a sleeker shape.
Replace lost weight with fuel and about a ton of armament and sensors.
You now have a high endurance sub hunter (compared to a manned platform).


All that can be removed is the benches/seats for passengers. If the helicopter is armoured, there's probably fair justification for armouring it. If not, then the armour can be removed for the manned variant as well. The fuselage cannot be modified without entirely rebuilding the helicopter. The unmanned flight systems will take up space equivalent to at least one pilot in the cockpit.

(^ This is for a converted air-frame. If we're planning to develop a new 10 ton helicopter from the ground up, that's a decade long exercise in itself. UCAV variants can come later.)

In effect, what you gain is volume occupied by one pilot. The larger the aircraft the more pointless its unmanned variant will be. An A380 could in theory be rigged to take off from New York and fly to London with a full complement of passengers, and no pilots. However, the net gain is two or three extra seats becoming available. Hardly worth the trade-off.

The downside to unmanned systems is that they will never have the flexibility of a trained human brain, while piloting the aircraft. And if the comm systems breakdown it could well become a danger to the vessels on the surface. That may be acceptable for a light aircraft like the Chetak, where the payload is so low that an unmanned variant could substantially increase its endurance. Its a waste of effort for a 10 ton aircraft.



As a general rule, the larger the aircraft the less utility one gets from making it unmanned. Conversely, the larger the aircraft there is a little or no penalty for making it manned for the percentage of total weight or volume added to support the crew (1 , 2 or 3) is almost negligible. For a Predator or a fighter sized aircraft this could mean big difference but when you start getting into A380 territory you won't find much utility. The Airlines would save a lot given how many pilots and other officers per aircraft they need to employ on an annual basis.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2014 20:33

huh! lost a heron today!

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_28108 » 26 Nov 2014 21:26

Image

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_28108 » 26 Nov 2014 21:26

Image

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JTull » 26 Nov 2014 23:39

Seems to be in recoverable condition.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Manish_Sharma, MSN [Bot], srin and 76 guests