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.
Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 04 Apr 2015 06:55

Guys, can you please stop littering every thread in BRF with developments that are not Indian? You can hawk the wares for the country of your choice in the respective threads. Thank you.
Last edited by Thakur_B on 05 Apr 2015 05:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22539 » 04 Apr 2015 15:44

^+1

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 04 Apr 2015 18:52

Brar saab maybe you can pen your thoughts on LO/VLO stuff in some article in BR Monitor and also about the direction technology within US aviation is taking, funding issues aside.

Here are a couple of scenarios for the unmanned trainer,

1) Not sure if Choppers have 'MALD support' so if they need escort to mask their RCS, an UAV or unmanned trainer putting out a higher RCS and matching their speeds is useful. The primary threat of MANPADs would be redirected towards this escort. if CMDS is integrated with the UAV or the trainer it increases its own survival. In addition if Luneburg lenses were integrated then the RCS could be 'dialed' with the platform's original RCS at the lower end and all the way to a Mi-26 or a Chinook at the higher end. A low RCS UAV to start with makes much sense in that respect and even Panchi (wheeled version of Nishant) with a matching endurance to a chopper would be a good fit.

2) Afghan air force currently only has Mi-17's and any fixed wing aircraft are denied to them, a start could be made here by providing trainers to them. The difference is instructors (second seat) could be remote while the trainee is in the cockpit, how different is it from flying a Predator?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8759
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 08:03

vasu raya wrote:Brar saab maybe you can pen your thoughts on LO/VLO stuff in some article in BR Monitor and also about the direction technology within US aviation is taking, funding issues aside.

Here are a couple of scenarios for the unmanned trainer,

1) Not sure if Choppers have 'MALD support' so if they need escort to mask their RCS, an UAV or unmanned trainer putting out a higher RCS and matching their speeds is useful. The primary threat of MANPADs would be redirected towards this escort. if CMDS is integrated with the UAV or the trainer it increases its own survival. In addition if Luneburg lenses were integrated then the RCS could be 'dialed' with the platform's original RCS at the lower end and all the way to a Mi-26 or a Chinook at the higher end. A low RCS UAV to start with makes much sense in that respect and even Panchi (wheeled version of Nishant) with a matching endurance to a chopper would be a good fit.

2) Afghan air force currently only has Mi-17's and any fixed wing aircraft are denied to them, a start could be made here by providing trainers to them. The difference is instructors (second seat) could be remote while the trainee is in the cockpit, how different is it from flying a Predator?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1823052#p1823052

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby VikB » 28 Apr 2015 09:49

There was a Navy - 50 UAV RFI recently. Any word on that?

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby prabhug » 28 Apr 2015 10:33

Looks like nishant is used in nepal to map destruction. Looks like good development.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby dinesha » 06 May 2015 12:28

Image
Rustom-I is a medium altitude longer endurance (over 8 hrs) unmanned aerial vehicle #UAV developed by DRDO with ADE as the nodal laboratory. Its capability of long endurance maritime surveillance was recently demonstrated by flying it in the coastal region of South India.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=404807589698979

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby dinesha » 06 May 2015 13:25

http://corruptionindrdo.com/2015/04/09/ ... i-project/

Dr. K Tamilmani, DG (Aero) TD’s detail for your kind consideration, if you inquire the TD agenda vs output of each TD then you can judge the details of delay in Rustom – II and other ongoing projects.


In the light of above facts we request you to please restrict DRDO top scientists wasting poor tax payers money, Although in DRDO Hqrs TD business is drastically lower down after sacking of Sh Avinash Chander. Only comparing of Dr A K Singh’s DOP, DRDO TD details for last six month explained the scenario of DRDO.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 06 May 2015 23:10

They are upgrading the engines of Rustom-1, or coming up with a variant with a 160hp Lycoming O-320 B3B engine and 3 bladed props.

member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_28911 » 19 May 2015 19:38


member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_28911 » 23 May 2015 13:38

Image

DRDO's Rustom-I with two HELINA missiles during taxi trials.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22733 » 23 May 2015 13:44

I was wondering why one of them looks a little off in alignment? Does the whole wing shape change? Or is it an camera angle problem.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 23 May 2015 17:53

Jha's report
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 95842.html

now the equation would be
Ek Rustom == Do Al Khaleed

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 23 May 2015 18:51

Neshant wrote:And I was referring to his.

The slowness of wit is only matched
by the lack of any real UAV program.

Sadly so.


Now that Rustom-1 is armed....






Would you prefer your kauwa biryani hyderabadi style or awadhi style ;)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 24 May 2015 01:49

LokeshC wrote:I was wondering why one of them looks a little off in alignment? Does the whole wing shape change? Or is it an camera angle problem.


No, the alignment does seem off. May be its within tolerance.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby RamaY » 24 May 2015 06:41

From an observer

"There is no alignment problem. The front wheel is at an angle as the vehicle is about to turn"!

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10493
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Vayutuvan » 24 May 2015 09:47

indranilroy wrote:No, the alignment does seem off. May be its within tolerance.

But if alignment problems are visible in such a grainy low res picture, then would the alignment be within tolerance? I think it is either what ramaY pointed out or the camera angle.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby deejay » 24 May 2015 10:44

^^^ Alignments are with reference to objects or places in the background. Neither the UAV wing nor the ground behind or the runway below are exactly horizontal. RamaY ji is right, the UAV is turning and this is further accentuated with not so aligned reference points.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 24 May 2015 21:23

^^^ None of these should change the relative AoA between the two missiles. I think they are not aligned. But everybody is free to believe as they chose to.

Thakur_B wrote:
Neshant wrote:And I was referring to his.

The slowness of wit is only matched
by the lack of any real UAV program.

Sadly so.


Now that Rustom-1 is armed....

Would you prefer your kauwa biryani hyderabadi style or awadhi style ;)

Let's not get into this. Leads us nowhere!

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10493
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Vayutuvan » 25 May 2015 01:58

indranilroy ji: It would be interesting to know if the misalignment is by design. If not, there are only two possibilities - one which is already noted (camera angle, the vehicle is turning etc.). Another is it has been arranged that way to test the stability of the vehicle.

Recently I heard from somebody who has seen a test of an UAV at a school well-known for robotics. The test involved deliberately breaking off one of the wings in mid-flight and see if their control algorithms can stabilize the vehicle till such time that it can land at a safe place. The test where one of the Wing was broken oh at about 30 ft altitude. The UAV successfully landed after travelling approximately 1/2 KM on one wing.

In the heat of the battle, missiles might be mounted very quickly without time to check for alignment, all nuts and bolts are tightened to the spec., then it is worth testing the dynamics of such misalignments, IMHO.

Otherwise the question is why would one deliberately introduce a misalignment? Ideally there should not be any difference between left and right wings from ease of manufacturing POV and for the sake of part fungibility.

[snark]I am hoping that BRF is not just for a few pretty pictures.[/snark]

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 25 May 2015 02:29

finally I read some good news in oped about Kaveri.

IUSAV will be powered by a Single Dry variant of Kaveri engine and will make its first flight post-2020.
source idrw.org

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Pratyush » 25 May 2015 06:25

SaiK wrote:Jha's report
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 95842.html

now the equation would be
Ek Rustom == Do Al Khaleed



only if you assume that it won't come back to re arm. Or will exist alone on the battlefield. :P

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 25 May 2015 09:39

vayu tuvan wrote:indranilroy ji: It would be interesting to know if the misalignment is by design. If not, there are only two possibilities - one which is already noted (camera angle, the vehicle is turning etc.). Another is it has been arranged that way to test the stability of the vehicle.

No ji for me please. I don't know why they look misaligned. I don't think that they are misaligned on purpose. However, the explanations that others have provided do not sit well with me. If the wings are not twisted with respect to each other, the vertical displacement of the start and end points of the missile has to be the same, irrespective of whether the plane is turning or is not on level ground. The only explanation that I can come up with is that the wings flexed because of a bump, right at the moment the protograph was taken.

vayu tuvan wrote:Recently I heard from somebody who has seen a test of an UAV at a school well-known for robotics. The test involved deliberately breaking off one of the wings in mid-flight and see if their control algorithms can stabilize the vehicle till such time that it can land at a safe place. The test where one of the Wing was broken oh at about 30 ft altitude. The UAV successfully landed after travelling approximately 1/2 KM on one wing.


I am not aware of this test. I have read about control and recovery of quadcopters with one of their propellers deliberately blown off in mid flgiht. You can also check out the famous experience of the Israeli pilot in his F-15.
Image

vayu tuvan wrote:In the heat of the battle, missiles might be mounted very quickly without time to check for alignment, all nuts and bolts are tightened to the spec., then it is worth testing the dynamics of such misalignments, IMHO.

Otherwise the question is why would one deliberately introduce a misalignment? Ideally there should not be any difference between left and right wings from ease of manufacturing POV and for the sake of part fungibility.

[snark]I am hoping that BRF is not just for a few pretty pictures.[/snark]

I don't think it is deliberately misaligned. And all relative movements would be within provided tolerances. So don't worry.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22733 » 25 May 2015 10:03

deejay wrote:^^^ Alignments are with reference to objects or places in the background. Neither the UAV wing nor the ground behind or the runway below are exactly horizontal. RamaY ji is right, the UAV is turning and this is further accentuated with not so aligned reference points.


Took a closer look at the photo. It does look like the vehicle was turning. You can compare the back wing with the smaller front wing and it seems that the whole wing is tilted to one side. The whole vehicle seems to be "twisted".

So my refined guess would be turning at a speed high enough to twist the vehicle.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 25 May 2015 11:12

They might be trying out different alinments for options for all we know.

IMHO they should be looking a bit downwords so that sensor gets better field of view.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby deejay » 25 May 2015 17:06

LokeshC wrote:
deejay wrote:^^^ Alignments are with reference to objects or places in the background. Neither the UAV wing nor the ground behind or the runway below are exactly horizontal. RamaY ji is right, the UAV is turning and this is further accentuated with not so aligned reference points.


Took a closer look at the photo. It does look like the vehicle was turning. You can compare the back wing with the smaller front wing and it seems that the whole wing is tilted to one side. The whole vehicle seems to be "twisted".

So my refined guess would be turning at a speed high enough to twist the vehicle.


The "droop" of the starboard side wing is more apparent but there is a corresponding "droop" on the port side too which is not so discernible as port side front wing is both closer to the camera and is not easily distinguishable from the rear wing. It is because of this front port wings that missile may appear vertically displaced differently at the start and the end point. The start point merges in the photo with the front wing surface and rear wing on the port side of the aircraft. I am not sure if this is what Indranil was referring to.

The long hanging wings tend to hang / droop and there may be visible flexing while taxing on ground.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_22733 » 26 May 2015 03:16

Anyway, jingo is khush with that photu. What it means is that once the bird flies and is able to consistently launch those missiles, we would have collected enough data to scale it up to bigger missiles and bigger UAVs.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby RamaY » 26 May 2015 06:03

LokeshC wrote:Anyway, jingo is khush with that photu. What it means is that once the bird flies and is able to consistently launch those missiles, we would have collected enough data to scale it up to bigger missiles and bigger UAVs.



On Twitter I read that Rustom+Nag/Helina missile is the terrorist that parikkar was talking about :)

Abhay_S
BRFite
Posts: 295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Abhay_S » 26 May 2015 06:20

Is this weapon integration still part of R&D that will feed Rustom II or can this be used in current state? can this be used on the LOC to counter Infiltration?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 26 May 2015 19:38

Abhay_S wrote:Is this weapon integration still part of R&D that will feed Rustom II or can this be used in current state? can this be used on the LOC to counter Infiltration?

It is both. Rustom-1 is a technology feeder to Rustom-2. At the same time, the forces have evinced interest in Rustom-1 itself.

The alignment of the those two missiles are not important. There are competent people at work who know what they are doing. What I am really interested to know is the payload carrying capacity of each weapon-station. For example, can it take two missiles per station at the cost of some loiter time? This may be useful when the position of the enemy tanks are already known. Anyways, the range of Rustom-1 is limited by its communication link rather than its fuel capacity.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54397
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby ramana » 26 May 2015 22:26

Spinster thinks, in an e-mail, its the camera angle and its the wheel turning that gives the apparent mis-alignment.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10493
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Vayutuvan » 26 May 2015 23:27

indranilroy wrote:I am not aware of this test. I have read about control and recovery of quadcopters with one of their propellers deliberately blown off in mid flgiht.


You are right. The test was a of quad copter not a fixed wing drone. If it were to be fixed wing, then it would be ilke magic. Most probably can't be done.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 28 May 2015 07:04

It is entirely possible that both weapon stations are canted inwards like on super hornet and since it is turning, one appears straight and other appears super askew.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13884
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby pankajs » 17 Jun 2015 13:51

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago New Delhi, Delhi >>

* The Navy has asked for a few improvements on the Rustom MK-1. Work to integrate maritime boundary references with GCS underway.
* Weapon integration work on the Rustom-I is progressing steadily. Captive flight trials will begin soon.
* 'Get you home' has already been demonstrated successfully on Indian UAVs by DRDO. Alternate Airfield Recovery related work is underway.
* Work on weapons release from an internal bay at both subsonic and supersonic speeds is underway.
* Rustom-I recently flew with a new engine. This is something the Navy wants.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby deejay » 17 Jun 2015 15:22

pankajs wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago New Delhi, Delhi >>

...
* Work on weapons release from an internal bay at both subsonic and supersonic speeds is underway.
...


Which particular Indian UAV is this which has internal bay for weapons and operates at both subsonic and supersonic speeds?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22492
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby chetak » 17 Jun 2015 15:37

indranilroy wrote:
Abhay_S wrote:Is this weapon integration still part of R&D that will feed Rustom II or can this be used in current state? can this be used on the LOC to counter Infiltration?

It is both. Rustom-1 is a technology feeder to Rustom-2. At the same time, the forces have evinced interest in Rustom-1 itself.

The alignment of the those two missiles are not important. There are competent people at work who know what they are doing. What I am really interested to know is the payload carrying capacity of each weapon-station. For example, can it take two missiles per station at the cost of some loiter time? This may be useful when the position of the enemy tanks are already known. Anyways, the range of Rustom-1 is limited by its communication link rather than its fuel capacity.


In the Israeli UAV that the IN has the range can be increased by controlling the second UAV through the first UAV and the data link can also be established for the sensors

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby deejay » 17 Jun 2015 15:46

chetak wrote:
indranilroy wrote:...
It is both. Rustom-1 is a technology feeder to Rustom-2. At the same time, the forces have evinced interest in Rustom-1 itself.

The alignment of the those two missiles are not important. There are competent people at work who know what they are doing. What I am really interested to know is the payload carrying capacity of each weapon-station. For example, can it take two missiles per station at the cost of some loiter time? This may be useful when the position of the enemy tanks are already known. Anyways, the range of Rustom-1 is limited by its communication link rather than its fuel capacity.


In the Israeli UAV that the IN has the range can be increased by controlling the second UAV through the first UAV and the data link can also be established for the sensors


Chetak Sir, it is true for IAF and IA UAV's too. I am quoting my old post on this thread on the range of the UAV:

deejay wrote:
the Rustom HALE/MALE would slot in at a shorter radius of action.


Singha Ji, AFAIK UAV's can extend their range. This is done by using 'Relay' UAV's. A Relay UAV takes off and sets up a pattern at a set distance. Say if the range is 250 kms, then set up a pattern around 200 kms. Next, a mission UAV will take off and will be controlled through the Relay UAV which will work as the uplink and downlink center for the mission UAV. This will extend the range of the Mission UAV by 200 kms (the distance of the Relay UAV). UAV can also operate in Relay - Relay mode. I don't know how many Relay links can be added but definitely at at least two in the ones we bought from Israel earlier. Theoretically, at least the UAV's can be used for very large ranges if the endurance is good.

One Relay UAV may be used to control multiple mission UAVs. So what is critical is endurance in air. Since most of our UAVs can not fly fast, too deep in enemy territory will make the UAV a sitting duck for the enemy fighters. We do use our UAVs all over, even across border in peace time too. (One of ours was shot by Paki F16). Therefore, long range presently is not needed, but altitude to avoid shoulder fired or Short Range SAM's and helicopters mostly. To avoid fighters we will need UAV's to operate in the Mig 25, SR 71 kind off altitudes, at which height you would probably see Tehran from over Bareily (probably). Deep inside enemy territory, we need our Spy Sats IMO.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I am not sure if this was covered earlier. But this is how operationally UAV is utilised in most places.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22492
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby chetak » 17 Jun 2015 15:59

deejay wrote:
{quote="chetak"}

{
indranilroy"}...
It is both. Rustom-1 is a technology feeder to Rustom-2. At the same time, the forces have evinced interest in Rustom-1 itself.

The alignment of the those two missiles are not important. There are competent people at work who know what they are doing. What I am really interested to know is the payload carrying capacity of each weapon-station. For example, can it take two missiles per station at the cost of some loiter time? This may be useful when the position of the enemy tanks are already known. Anyways, the range of Rustom-1 is limited by its communication link rather than its fuel capacity.


In the Israeli UAV that the IN has the range can be increased by controlling the second UAV through the first UAV and the data link can also be established for the sensors{/quote}

Chetak Sir, it is true for IAF and IA UAV's too. I am quoting my old post on this thread on the range of the UAV:

[quote="deejay wrote:
the Rustom HALE/MALE would slot in at a shorter radius of action.


Singha Ji, AFAIK UAV's can extend their range. This is done by using 'Relay' UAV's. A Relay UAV takes off and sets up a pattern at a set distance. Say if the range is 250 kms, then set up a pattern around 200 kms. Next, a mission UAV will take off and will be controlled through the Relay UAV which will work as the uplink and downlink center for the mission UAV. This will extend the range of the Mission UAV by 200 kms (the distance of the Relay UAV). UAV can also operate in Relay - Relay mode. I don't know how many Relay links can be added but definitely at at least two in the ones we bought from Israel earlier. Theoretically, at least the UAV's can be used for very large ranges if the endurance is good.

One Relay UAV may be used to control multiple mission UAVs. So what is critical is endurance in air. Since most of our UAVs can not fly fast, too deep in enemy territory will make the UAV a sitting duck for the enemy fighters. We do use our UAVs all over, even across border in peace time too. (One of ours was shot by Paki F16). Therefore, long range presently is not needed, but altitude to avoid shoulder fired or Short Range SAM's and helicopters mostly. To avoid fighters we will need UAV's to operate in the Mig 25, SR 71 kind off altitudes, at which height you would probably see Tehran from over Bareily (probably). Deep inside enemy territory, we need our Spy Sats IMO.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I am not sure if this was covered earlier. But this is how operationally UAV is utilised in most places.
[/quote]

Sorry. That did not come out as intended. It was a Naval discussion and I just took that forward like that.

Of course, you are right.

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

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 17 Jun 2015 16:35

our first VLO UCAV need not fly far or fast, it just needs to be manufactured to fine tolerances for VLO, be reasonably priced with minimum of imported kit and have say the combat radius of a Jaguar only around 400km. with internal weapons like ngarm it could still play havoc with c3i networks and launch day1 strikes on hard targets.

we should look to develop a family of subsonic UCAVs using common engine and subsystems but increasingly greater range and payload.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9800
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Jun 2015 16:52

Mango question - Can't we control them via sat-communications. We have our own communication system up in space now and may be we can do it now?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: greatde, Nitesh, raghava, ravikr, samirdiw, schinnas, VickyAvinash and 76 guests