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 UAVshttp://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.