Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2016 20:08

Rustom2 looks big enough but too weak engines for anything but surveillance payload. It can at best supplement the heron

The americans as is their trademark have fitted a huge engine to backside of their reaper relative to weight and size

The cheen as is their trademark have copied the american products layout

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2016 20:09

Maybe the large crude engine bays indicate more powerful engine is proposed. Give it 300 x 2 and kit it up 8 atgms and we would get a useful product

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2016 20:12

Singha wrote:Rustom2 looks big enough but too weak engines for anything but surveillance payload. It can at best supplement the heron

The americans as is their trademark have fitted a huge engine to backside of their reaper relative to weight and size

The cheen as is their trademark have copied the american products layout

If the runway is long enough and the wings broad enough even underpowered planes will take off and fly - but the low power engine is probably fuel sipping only - good for long endurance. If it flies 24 hours it will needs shifts of people to operate/surveil.

But first they must get the damn thing ready for service...

Like Tejas and Dhruv I expect these guys will do a good job - and it will definitely be as good if not score over similar tech - but the damn time factor is agonizing

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1117
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Zynda » 16 Nov 2016 20:41

Singha wrote:The cheen as is their trademark have copied the american products layout


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1470
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 16 Nov 2016 20:56

Singha wrote:Maybe the large crude engine bays indicate more powerful engine is proposed. Give it 300 x 2 and kit it up 8 atgms and we would get a useful product


Is it possible more powerful engines were denied when their purpose was known? Same issue was with Moog actuators as well, which we have on LCA but denied on UAVs.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2016 21:07

@Shiv ji- The Rustom is supposed to be a Medium Altitude Long Endurance UCAV. To do both roles well (good range and armed payload) it would need a powerful engine(s) with both power and economy. One can off course argue that on most missions, like during non-war times, it will need to primarily do the recon role.

@Zynda - Sir we may well laugh at the cheens (even i do) but we will be well advised to remember the old saying 'Nakal main bhi akal ki jaroorat hoti hai' :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2016 21:15

Manish_P wrote:@Shiv ji- The Rustom is supposed to be a Medium Altitude Long Endurance UCAV. To do both roles well (good range and armed payload) it would need a powerful engine(s) with both power and economy. One can off course argue that on most missions, like during non-war times, it will need to primarily do the recon role.

Today is the first day i am hearing of Rustom as being UCAV. It was always - to my knowledge - for surveillance only - right from the time the first stupid looking mock up was put in Aero India. Today an Indian Express article says it will have weapons. I think DDM is at work. My testimonial is up for grabs again - I bet it is UAV not UCAV

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2016 21:19

:oops: Oh dear. Could well be my mistake or being lead astray by DDM (or my own wish list). I thought Rustam 1 was to be the UAV and Rustom 2 the UCAV

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2016 21:30

The UCAV is another longterm mystery - the AURA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_AURA

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2016 21:36

I see your wiki and i raise you my wiki*

DRDO Rustom

There will be three variants of the Rustom UAV.

Rustom-I: Tactical UAV with endurance of 12 hours (based on NAL's LCRA which was inspired by Burt Rutan's Long-EZ)
Rustom-H: Larger UAV with flight endurance of over 24 hours (completely different design from Rustom-1), higher range and service ceiling than Rustom-1.
Rustom-II: An unmanned combat air vehicle based on Rustom-H model. It is often compared with Predator drones by Indian scientists and media


*Note - Standard disclaimer about wiki articles as a source applies :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2016 21:47

Manish_P wrote:I see your wiki and i raise you my wiki*

DRDO Rustom

There will be three variants of the Rustom UAV.

Rustom-I: Tactical UAV with endurance of 12 hours (based on NAL's LCRA which was inspired by Burt Rutan's Long-EZ)
Rustom-H: Larger UAV with flight endurance of over 24 hours (completely different design from Rustom-1), higher range and service ceiling than Rustom-1.
Rustom-II: An unmanned combat air vehicle based on Rustom-H model. It is often compared with Predator drones by Indian scientists and media


*Note - Standard disclaimer about wiki articles as a source applies :)


Wiki has its uses so long as supplemented by other info

Please follow all the links to "Armed Rustom 2" from "Your" wiki page. One is defunct, one is in Chinese and the other is below. Please read;
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 111115.htm

The armed Rustom 2 is called Rustom "H". Folowing the links we come to LiveFist from 2011 referring to Rustom H with an "artists impression"
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/02/ ... ndias.html
Image

In fact I recall reading the possibility of arming Rustom 1 and the last discussion on BR was a tender for undercarriage manufacture. So arming this underpowered Rustom is IMO quite unlikely - given that the proposed armament was an "extended Helina" of 20 km range.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2016 22:19

the engines are where typically the weapons would hang. so I concur the design was for UAV role only.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2016 22:27

Singha wrote:the engines are where typically the weapons would hang. so I concur the design was for UAV role only.

I don't want to sound too nasty - but the surveillance role is still in the future - Rustom has to get past the time-pass/chai biskoot role. It makes ONE sedate flight and everyone is talking about UCAV role

I have always been a person who objects to comparisons with Pakistan and Iran - both of who claim to have made UAVs and UCAVs. But when DRDO comes up with fancy ideas and does not say what the heck is the delay all about it gets suspicious. At least Tejas had a 100 excuses. technology, FCS and whatnot

OK I am willing to say that Iran/Pak claims may be fraudulent claims of success for a half baked product. But if Rustom is going to be a "full baked" product one wants to know what happened between 2011 and 2016? In 201 they were to fly it "shortly" IIRC

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neela » 16 Nov 2016 22:32

Manish_P wrote:@Zynda - Sir we may well laugh at the cheens (even i do) but we will be well advised to remember the old saying 'Nakal main bhi akal ki jaroorat hoti hai' :)


They copy steal whatever ...but they are willing to put in money, invest in R&D, create meaningful academic, scientific,production and labor jobs, develop, put in their own engine and components, get a version out and test. And quickly at that. They also are starting to market worldwide. I am sure they will have a full fledged UAV industry in 10 years from now employing 1000s, creating quality products and selling. They did the same with their space program.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1117
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Zynda » 16 Nov 2016 22:44

^^Complete OT. I have never mocked Chinese for their attempts/efforts. In fact, I have a grudging admiration of their aerospace & defense industry. They trying to catch up which ever its possible; ethics be damned. I just laughed at the typical remark made by Singha Sir. I don't know how good CH-5 is or will be...but it is one admirable product and kudos to Chinese.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2016 23:33

Shiv ji - I did see those before posting. The point I wanted to make is just that more powerful engines are needed for a significant arms load out. So i agree with your statement about this probably being DDM.

shiv wrote:
Manish_P wrote:I see your wiki and i raise you my wiki*

DRDO Rustom



*Note - Standard disclaimer about wiki articles as a source applies :)


Wiki has its uses so long as supplemented by other info

Please follow all the links to "Armed Rustom 2" from "Your" wiki page. One is defunct, one is in Chinese and the other is below. Please read;
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 111115.htm

The armed Rustom 2 is called Rustom "H". Folowing the links we come to LiveFist from 2011 referring to Rustom H with an "artists impression"
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/02/ ... ndias.html
Image

In fact I recall reading the possibility of arming Rustom 1 and the last discussion on BR was a tender for undercarriage manufacture. So arming this underpowered Rustom is IMO quite unlikely - given that the proposed armament was an "extended Helina" of 20 km range.

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2878
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby suryag » 16 Nov 2016 23:54

Nice lazy takeoff of rustom 2, reminds me of u2

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46743
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby ramana » 17 Nov 2016 01:27

What compelled the DRDO/ADA to name this UAV Rustom?
Rustom is a tragic character in Persian mythology.
Rustom and Shorab

I guess he is drone who for a horse has a son Shorab and ends up killing him.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3286
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: India/US

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby hnair » 17 Nov 2016 01:38

Named after Prof Rustom Damania

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1106
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby A Sharma » 17 Nov 2016 01:42

Made In India Rustom-2 Drone Flies High In First Test

The Rustom-2 has been renamed Tapas 201. The Rustom-1, which flew for the first time in 2009, had been named after the late Rustom Damania, who helped develop the aircraft that had been used as a prototype.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5336
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2016 01:54

Ah! What a great day!

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

First dispelling a bit of confusion:
Rustom 1 is a modified LongEZ.
Rustom 2 (Tapas) is a very old design by Dr. Rustom Damania.
Although, both of these were meant for ISR (unarmed roles) only, Rustom 1 has been seen with two Helinas.
Image
AURA/IUSAV/Ghatak is a stealth UCAV in development with ADA (with very limited funding).
Image

Now some layman analysis:
1. I have always struggled with ADE's capability to design state-of-art UAVs. For example, the Hermes 900 weighs half as much as the Tapas, is half as powerful, but can carry the same payload for roughly the same duration. Another example, Hermes 450 weighs almost the same as Panchi, but carries 100 kg more payload and can stay aloft for 20 hours. I don't think that materials is the problem. Nishant/Panchi uses the best in class materials. I think the airframes are over designed, and the desi LRUs are much more heavier. Weight gain is additive: 350 kg of extra airframe will double the overall weight: more fuel, more wings, more engine, sturdier LGs.
2. The airframe looks simple, and I mean this as compliment. I am pretty sure there is a reason for the eyesore of an engine-cum-MLG fairing. Most probably, it is just an universal fairing till they finalize the engine. Otherwise they look circa 1920. However, I have a feeling they will change.
3. Two engines is not a bad thing. In the last year alone, we have lost a few large UAVs to engine failure. These UAVs are expensive, and can do some damage at the crash site.
4. The longest road to cover is actually the transmission range.

All in all, I think ADE has been very slow as an UAV designer in the past two decades:
1. I think that Tapas is double engine because this is how Dr. Damania designed it two decades ago.
2. Nishant had size limitations and sturdiness requirements owing to its mode of launch and recovery. But none of these exist for Panchi. Hence I expected them to go for elongated fuselage and much longer wings. Panchi has slightly longer wings, more payload and fuel capacity, and is powered by an uprated 65hp (Wankel engine from NAL). However, its specs will not get anywhere near the Hermes 450.
3. Lakhsya does not always work and many a times Marichs have to be used instead.
4. I have no idea what happened to Abhyas.

The private sector is close on the heels of ADE with collaboration with international partners. ADE probably has another 5 years at max as an UAV designer if it doesn't pull its socks up.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5336
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2016 01:56

JayS wrote:
Singha wrote:
we have no piston, turboprop or turboshaft engine in development at all.


HAL developing HTFE-25. Same core will be used for HTSE-1200. Another version for UAV is also in plans. There was tender few months ago which was looking for partners for manufacturing.

True. I am very sure the unveil of a turboprop engine based on the HTSE-1200 will come out soon. Enough has already got out. But are you sure that the HTFE-25 and HTSE-1200 use the same core?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46743
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby ramana » 17 Nov 2016 04:09

Indranil and hnair thanks for clarifying the name origin.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20087
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Prem » 17 Nov 2016 05:32


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2016 07:23

OK people I am willing to take flak about this and I am inviting people to call out my post as bullshit. Please pardon the digression

We see three different "viewpoints/perspectives" about western sourced items, China source items and Indian origin items based on the information we are given

We have often, in retrospect, criticized some Western sourced item as having attractive brochure specs that hide the real truth

On the other hand China items - from the day they are made public are always reported as being equal to or ahead of their western counterparts - and the Chinese make it easy to make one-on-one comparisons by making their products look similar to the western ones so no one is confused. So the general impression created is that China did in 20 years what the West took 60-70 years to achieve. China advertises a new "light tank" - an no one asks how that light tank is going to stand up against routine anti-tank weapons. Until 2016 the J-20 had already equalled and surpassed the F-35/F-22 in the lay media and less informed minds

As for Indian stuff - our maal looks different - sometimes "crude" (scooter helmet-y, non-TFTA) to our eyes and our specs are possibly both conservative and honest and we spend time making minute comparisons to show how we are nowhere near the west (and China) . To an extent we encourage the attitudes that buy is better than make because this is done across the board for all items by some Indian group or the other. Today we claim that the Tejas and Arjun are as good as any, but others, some in the armed forces, MoD and media disagree for the same set of reasons that I have listed above. INSAS is bad, Excalibur has wrong caliber and ammo etc. Shekhar Gupta does not ask if Astra is being integrated. He asks if Meteor is being fitted. He probably has not even heard of Astra. But the bugger knows Meteor. How?

Anyone who buys Vayu Aerospace (or any other mil related mag) will see advertorials and articles that use beautiful descriptive language to praise western items - often after factory visits. A missile will be described as having "high" offbore capability, "twin seeker", "ECM resistant", "lock on after or before launch", a deadly "No escape zone" "high kill probability" These are today's buzzwords. Most of the real important data is missing from this language. The F-35 - which has still not gone past attacks from its detractors - is actually being sent on PR flights so that mango people in countries that induct the aircraft can see the latest wise acquisition. Dutch F-35s did a chukker around various cities in the Netherlands in an unrefueled sortie lasting X hours. Wah wah.

I am talking like a Paki. I am claiming that PR is a substitute for competence but to an extent PR plays a role in Western brochures, all Chinese products and only self effacing apology in Indian products. Sorry for the digression

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby prashanth » 17 Nov 2016 11:29

A layman question to gurus here. How stealthy are these drones UAV or UCAV? I am aware that US uses predators/reapers in Af-pak. But this was after an agreement with Af government and TSP military. If India wants to use a UCAV against terror camps in pak, will the aircraft survive their SAMs and AAMs, considering it is a slow moving target?

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby alexis » 17 Nov 2016 12:02

^^
These drones are not stealthy (in shaping) but has benefits over fighters due to their lower sizes. Hence they are relatively difficult to detect.

There are stealth UAVs but not the ones being discussed.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neela » 17 Nov 2016 12:11

@SJha1618

DRDO was working with Tech Mahindra to create 200 HP class engines for the Rustom-2 to replace imported ones from Lycoming.


3:55 PM - 16 Nov 2016

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby rohiths » 17 Nov 2016 12:20

We should develop them cheap and deploy them in thousands. They can be sacrificed to deplete enemy SAMs and AAMs in the beginning of any conflict. It can also be used for non-stop surveillance of Kashmir and LoC

MaverickV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 18:45

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby MaverickV » 17 Nov 2016 12:25

I don't think that materials is the problem. Nishant/Panchi uses the best in class materials. I think the airframes are over designed, and the desi LRUs are much more heavier.


We have been designing our airframes for about 20 years now and still every single airframed designed is over-designed. I understand that there should be some safety margin but 20-25% over-designed is too much. An over-weight airframe either means more efficient engines or lack of performance further leading to inordinate delays or performance compromises or worst infinite testing since each airframe has some weight reductions thus changing the entire airframe. Instead of testing avionics and other parts during testing, we need to re-test the entire airframe since it is so different from the previous one.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby prashanth » 17 Nov 2016 12:53

rohiths wrote:We should develop them cheap and deploy them in thousands. They can be sacrificed to deplete enemy SAMs and AAMs in the beginning of any conflict. It can also be used for non-stop surveillance of Kashmir and LoC


Agreed. You could send in swarms of UCAVs loaded with ARMs to neutralize air defence before manned aircraft take over.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7287
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Pratyush » 17 Nov 2016 12:58

Maverick, it is good that Indian designs are over designed. Imagine what will the Media and the services do when and if one failed in flight.

Currently in the Indian context, it is better to fail on the safe side. Once the poor self esteem related issues are taken care off, we can afford to be on the budget for tolerances.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 17 Nov 2016 13:00

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote:
HAL developing HTFE-25. Same core will be used for HTSE-1200. Another version for UAV is also in plans. There was tender few months ago which was looking for partners for manufacturing.

True. I am very sure the unveil of a turboprop engine based on the HTSE-1200 will come out soon. Enough has already got out. But are you sure that the HTFE-25 and HTSE-1200 use the same core?

This is embarrassing :oops:, for some reason I had that thing in my mind for quite some time now. I don't know from where I picked it up, perhaps I was thinking of Propeller application for HTSE. But I rechecked the HAL tender now. The HTSE version that HAL is planning is specifically for Helis and it does not have the same core. Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. HTSE actually uses centrifugal compressor as HPC unlike the axial type in HTFE.

For the records I will put the text here:

a) Turbo Fan Engine - The gas turbine engine (turbofan version) consisting of
modules such as 3 stage fan or low pressure axial compressor, 5 stage high pressure
axial compressor, intermediate casing, by-pass casing, combustion chamber, single
stage high pressure turbine, single stage low pressure turbine, Convergent nozzle and
engine gear box. It also includes a number of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) like
electronic control unit, fuel control and supply systems, lubrication system, heat
exchanger, etc. The approx. dimensions of the engine are 565 mm dia and 1730 mm
length.
b) Turbo Shaft Engine - The gas turbine engine (turboshaft version)
consisting of modules such as 2-stage centrifugal compressor, reverse flow
combustion chamber, single stage gas generator turbine, two stage free power turbine
(P/T) and P/T shaft. It also includes a number of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) like
electronic control units, fuel control and supply systems, lubrication system, heat
exchanger, etc. The approx. dimensions of the engine are 485 mm dia and 1300 mm
length.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Rishi Verma » 17 Nov 2016 13:23

shiv wrote:
I am talking like a Paki. I am claiming that PR is a substitute for competence but to an extent PR plays a role in Western brochures, all Chinese products and only self effacing apology in Indian products. Sorry for the digression


Sir astute observation but wrong claim.

PR / Brochures / Professional PR videos are part and parcel for a product to be noticed, appreciated, and sold (both monetarily and psychologically). As much as western PR efforts more polished and professional, all the same DRDO Etc "PR" material is lacking.

Not that the gov can't do it. The "make in india" ad is quite sleek. How often we complain about Isro video quality, on-board HD cameras ETC.

And PR targeting is audience specific, the manufacturer shows what's here now and what we are capable of (showing roadmap products).

Looking at Rustom-2 take off gives an "impression" that DRDO doesn't believe in the product, doesn't know who the target audience is, what is the roadmap product.

some top minds and cream of the class from top biz schools are hired by ad agencies. because creating the right impression in the mind of right audience is critical. I don't think DRDO has a single rupee designated for PR/Promotion/Marketing.

That's why there are crowds of kids with cash flocking to MacDonald, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut than to Amma's Kitchen.. Although food is cheaper and healthier at the latter.

Besides, PR is like soft power, it costs comparatively much less than actually making Arjuns and LCAs but forms and essential component of the marketing effort.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby tsarkar » 17 Nov 2016 13:34

Indranil wrote:1. I have always struggled with ADE's capability to design state-of-art UAVs. For example, the Hermes 900 weighs half as much as the Tapas, is half as powerful, but can carry the same payload for roughly the same duration. Another example, Hermes 450 weighs almost the same as Panchi, but carries 100 kg more payload and can stay aloft for 20 hours. I don't think that materials is the problem. Nishant/Panchi uses the best in class materials. I think the airframes are over designed, and the desi LRUs are much more heavier. Weight gain is additive: 350 kg of extra airframe will double the overall weight: more fuel, more wings, more engine, sturdier LGs.

As my understanding goes, greater tolerances to play safe - we're paranoid in this case - and also because designs are not optimized - despite computerised design tools. Both these will be addressed once designers keep doing more and more iterations and gain experience & confidence.

Indranil wrote:2. The airframe looks simple, and I mean this as compliment. I am pretty sure there is a reason for the eyesore of an engine-cum-MLG fairing. Most probably, it is just an universal fairing till they finalize the engine. Otherwise they look circa 1920. However, I have a feeling they will change.

The best design feature IMO is moving the MLG to engine pods. This is a feature of transport aircraft like HS748 and An-32. Widely spaced landing gear make takeoff and landing easier - which is the reason for many UAV crashes.

Engines - why cant we use what HAL is already manufacturing and using for Do228 and an uprated & new version for HTT-40? http://www.hal-india.com/Product_Detail ... y=&CKey=29

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby tsarkar » 17 Nov 2016 13:42

Rishi Verma wrote:
shiv wrote:I am talking like a Paki. I am claiming that PR is a substitute for competence but to an extent PR plays a role in Western brochures, all Chinese products and only self effacing apology in Indian products. Sorry for the digression
Besides, PR is like soft power, it costs comparatively much less than actually making Arjuns and LCAs but forms and essential component of the marketing effort.

OT - but emphasizes the power of PR - one PR officer in Air Headquarters published photos of training drop at Agra - many planes and many more paratroopers - as Tangail Drop in 1971 - that was printed widely in Indian and foreign newspapers & media. The Americans and Pakistanis were fooled & demoralized that despite three thrusts from east, west & north, India has resources & ability for a fourth large scale air assault. Which one will they stop?

The officer was later hired by Ram Nath Kao.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4830
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby jamwal » 17 Nov 2016 15:43

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618
19h19 hours ago India
DRDO was working with Tech Mahindra to create 200 HP class engines for the Rustom-2 to replace imported ones from Lycoming.

2 x 210 HP. Targeted payload is only 350 kgs. Engine up-rating , fuselage weight reduction will happen over time.

MaverickV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 18:45

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby MaverickV » 17 Nov 2016 17:13

Maverick, it is good that Indian designs are over designed. Imagine what will the Media and the services do when and if one failed in flight.
Currently in the Indian context, it is better to fail on the safe side. Once the poor self esteem related issues are taken care off, we can afford to be on the budget for tolerances.


@Pratyush: While I agree with the reason you have mentioned,for the poor self-esteem to be taken care of, the best way is for your product to be used finally. This playing safe leads to unending delays, change of requirements in some cases as technology and situation have changed. Thus, our domestic products become science projects with limited learning as they never crossed the practical use threshold.

People give the example of our missile technology becoming better over time to make us self reliant but that was because we agreed to whatever was available to us. No one was willing to sell us ballistic missiles. Thus, we got a chance to learn. Here, you face nimble overseas competitor as well a non co-operative user at times. We never get the first iteration on time and hence struggle to catch up. I agree with the challenges faced by our scientists but our careful attitude does not help us as well. What use would be a Rustom-2 UAV when it is inducted 10 years down the line?

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby adityadange » 17 Nov 2016 18:31

suryag wrote:Nice lazy takeoff of rustom 2, reminds me of u2

the video is captured at 60fps. if i am right usual video is done at 24fps. that can be reason behind slow takeoff. this is just a possibility i think to capture maximum details.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 17 Nov 2016 19:02

adityadange wrote:
suryag wrote:Nice lazy takeoff of rustom 2, reminds me of u2

the video is captured at 60fps. if i am right usual video is done at 24fps. that can be reason behind slow takeoff. this is just a possibility i think to capture maximum details.


24fps is the movie format, usually cameras will run at 30fps and recent ones can have 60fps. But this is totally irrelevant as long as you are playing back the video at the same rate. :P Expect pakis n chinis to use such tricks though.. :lol:

It is expected to have that kind of TO.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Thakur_B, Zynda and 48 guests