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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2016 19:24

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

There is one problem in this tactic if we are fighting a powerful enemy. If we keep sending drones for fear of their anti-aircraft defences we will not be doing what we should be doing in the first week of the war - that is to achieve air dominance so land forces can operate without fear of air attack. A "scared/overcautious" air force that sends in jihadis/proxies/drones will be faced with multiple attacks on their own air bases and radars which will gradually be taken out leaving no ability to hit back

I think we need to quit imagining that clouds of drones will play anything but a niche role. Our best planes and best pilots will be out there pounding the shit out of the enemy taking out their air bases, radars and massed forces, C&C systems and logistics lines

Sanju
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 01:00
Location: North of 49

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sanju » 17 Nov 2016 19:39

tsarkar wrote: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.


Tsarkar ji, thank you for that anecdote.

PR is the "advance party" in Information war.

IMHO, 2 np etc...

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JTull » 17 Nov 2016 20:24

JayS wrote:
adityadange wrote: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.


If the film was slowed down then you'd see propellers in slow-mo too.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2016 20:41

Many have suggested that there is something wrong with the take off. I see nothing. It was a very smooth one!

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1341
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby manjgu » 17 Nov 2016 20:42

i think people are seeing too much star wars type movies...imagining swarms of UAV;s etc. still some time away...

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 17 Nov 2016 20:44

shiv wrote:
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

There is one problem in this tactic if we are fighting a powerful enemy. If we keep sending drones for fear of their anti-aircraft defences we will not be doing what we should be doing in the first week of the war - that is to achieve air dominance so land forces can operate without fear of air attack. A "scared/overcautious" air force that sends in jihadis/proxies/drones will be faced with multiple attacks on their own air bases and radars which will gradually be taken out leaving no ability to hit back

I think we need to quit imagining that clouds of drones will play anything but a niche role. Our best planes and best pilots will be out there pounding the shit out of the enemy taking out their air bases, radars and massed forces, C&C systems and logistics lines


Don't think anyone in right mind would suggest sending only drones and seat tight with other aircrafts. The aim with large number of drones would be to saturate enemy AD so our attacking fighters/strike aircrafts get a breather in the initial few days, until those AD are taken out. Say if we send 10 fighter in one scenario and 10 fighters and 50 cheap decoys in another, the later one will give better chance for our fighters by distracting the AD.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 18 Nov 2016 06:44

JayS wrote:Don't think anyone in right mind would suggest sending only drones and seat tight with other aircrafts. The aim with large number of drones would be to saturate enemy AD so our attacking fighters/strike aircrafts get a breather in the initial few days, until those AD are taken out. Say if we send 10 fighter in one scenario and 10 fighters and 50 cheap decoys in another, the later one will give better chance for our fighters by distracting the AD.

That is the theory. I would be happy to hear the theory being fleshed out in practice. For example - if 4 Jaguars are tasked with attacking Sargodha going in at 100 feet at 800 kmph what drones would be sent in and when?

Sending in drones early would alert defences. Sending them simultaneously would be useless unless you have drones that can match Jags in speed. Sending them in afterwards is pointless, Sending them over some other target would again alert all targets to the possibility of attack. So I would be happy to learn more about this massed drone idea. Even Paki radars can distinguish between small targets flying at 150 kmph versus something see approaching at 8-900 kmph

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5803
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby nachiket » 18 Nov 2016 06:52

Drones attacking Sargodha? I doubt even the US has drones that can attack a well-defended airbase and succeed. That doesn't mean that UCAV's don't have their uses though.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 18 Nov 2016 10:16

At the current moment drones work where air dominance has been acquired. That's why Pakistan keeps going back to USA saying that "we let you use our airspace".

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1486
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 18 Nov 2016 12:12

USN UCLASS (X47B) system will have all such capabilities. 2020 onward we should see more mature unmanned strike platforms.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 18 Nov 2016 15:51

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:Don't think anyone in right mind would suggest sending only drones and seat tight with other aircrafts. The aim with large number of drones would be to saturate enemy AD so our attacking fighters/strike aircrafts get a breather in the initial few days, until those AD are taken out. Say if we send 10 fighter in one scenario and 10 fighters and 50 cheap decoys in another, the later one will give better chance for our fighters by distracting the AD.

That is the theory. I would be happy to hear the theory being fleshed out in practice. For example - if 4 Jaguars are tasked with attacking Sargodha going in at 100 feet at 800 kmph what drones would be sent in and when?

Sending in drones early would alert defences. Sending them simultaneously would be useless unless you have drones that can match Jags in speed. Sending them in afterwards is pointless, Sending them over some other target would again alert all targets to the possibility of attack. So I would be happy to learn more about this massed drone idea. Even Paki radars can distinguish between small targets flying at 150 kmph versus something see approaching at 8-900 kmph


Yes, its a theory. But theory has to come first, then solution will follow. Right now we seems to have no particular solution. But something could be designed according to the given specs. May not be possible to use anywhere and everywhere, but to some extent it could help. Surely Rustom-2 is not the one for this application.

I had floated an idea to drone-fy retiring MiG21 in the newbie thread, precisely because they can fly at high speeds and in almost entire flght envelop to keep company to almost all our fighters at short range.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5705
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2016 16:14

Sid wrote:USN UCLASS (X47B) system will have all such capabilities. 2020 onward we should see more mature unmanned strike platforms.


Ex-UCLASS (MQ-25) is not a penetrating strike aircraft but primarily a refueling recovery tanker with secondary ISR and strike roles. Designing survivable penetrating aircraft is hard enough, doing so on something that is unmanned and not expendable brings unique mission system challenges. Unlike the X-45C, the X-47B was not a stealth design but a stealth representative design. It will not be suitable for the new role so expect design changes in support of the MQ-25 proposal since it is still competitive since practically all of the X-47 unique capability (the aircraft carrier landing and handling) was shared with Boeing and Lockheed as was the requirement.

@JayS, Regarding using unmanned decoys, you don't need to outfit a fighter or make it unmanned to get the desired affects. The MALD and MALD-J's replicate performance, enhance signature and even have emissions that try to pass them on as actual fighters through a decoy payload. Their envelope overlaps the high subsonic envelope of a 4th generation strike fighter - Top speed Mach 0.93, altitude 35,000+ ft.

"In decoy function MALD can replicate US and allied [aircraft] by radar cross-section...to look like a fighter or a bomber. When you add the jamming function we can have the payload jam, jam certain frequencies or have it do the decoy function," MALD is pre-programmed on the ground prior to flight. "You can put eight missions into a MALD and each mission can have a hundred waypoints and at each waypoint MALD can climb or dive, turn right or left, speed up or slow down. You can programme it to do whatever kind of scenario you want to develop to confuse the enemy," White said. "It has a very large operating envelope. It will fly from 2,000 ft to 35,000 ft and from Mach 0.4 to Mach 0.9. It is basically a pre-guided jet"

Up to 100 waypoints can be programmed into the mission flight profile. Time-of-arrival control is designed to be accurate to ±20 seconds at each waypoint.

The Signature Augmentation System (SAS) payload carried by MALD contains active radar repeaters, across three frequency bands, to stimulate a range of relative radar cross section (RCS) sizes. "So the MALD can mimic a cruise missile, a fighter, or a bomber depending on characteristics [magnitude and scintillation] of the return," explained Jim Long, Raytheon's MALD business development lead. "The intent is to stimulate and saturate advanced IADS so that they have to 'honour the threat'. So you want a [radar] response of sufficient fidelity that the IADS won't be able to distinguish the difference."

Like MALD, the MALD-J is an expendable UAV deployed from an F-16 fighter or B-52 bomber aircraft at stand-off ranges to penetrate enemy airspace and enhance aircrew survivability in the face of the IADS threat. Where it differs is in its capability to perform as either a decoy (as it retains the original SAS payload), or as a stand-in jammer.

Stand-in jamming is a combination of tactics and techniques whereby an UAV, equipped with a jammer payload, is deployed in close proximity to the threat radar, and within the lethal engagement envelope of associated SAMs. In this way, it provides screening for other platforms.

"With MALD-J you have a system that can be either a decoy or a jammer," Long said. "You can't be both at the same time, but you do have the ability to go from decoy to jammer, or jammer to decoy, at every waypoint in the mission plan."

Following the delivery of three MALD production lots to the USAF, the programme office converted the procurement line to MALD-J from Lot 4 onwards. Raytheon is continuing series production of MALD-J to meet a USAF inventory goal of 3,000 systems: the delivery of the 1,000th MALD-J, as part of production Lot 5, was marked in May 2014. The company is currently delivering production Lot 8, and was brought under contract for Lot 9 (with options for Lot 10/11) in June 2016.

The ability to accommodate and interchange alternative payloads was proved in 2015 under the CERBERUS [Countermeasure Expendable with Replaceable Block Elements for Reactive Unmanned Systems Multi-Mission Jammer] Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) jointly conducted by the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and Raytheon. A Military Utility Assessment, conducted in June during the biannual 'Northern Edge' exercise in Alaska, demonstrated successful captive flights of a modular, rapid replacement architecture for alternative MALD-J payloads.

Conceived to address emerging threats in the Pacific Command area of responsibility, the precept of CERBERUS is to deliver a net-enabled modular expendable jamming system. The enabler for this is the introduction of reconfigurable, flexible, and rapidly replaceable nosecone payloads hosted by the MALD air vehicle.

The CERBERUS JCTD design solution was engineered as a cost effective means to grow the capabilities of MALD to address new missions and target sets, and mitigate the impacts of payload obsolescence. Evolved over a four-year programme in collaboration with the US Pacific Command and the Naval Air Systems Command (the Airborne Electronic Attack Systems and EA-6B Program Office [PMA-234]), the project developed a payload system architecture integrated with a quick interchange structural connection.

The critical technology for the quick-attachment technique was in fact borrowed from IndyCar racing technology. In this case Dallara adapted and repurposed a proprietary half-turn quick lock to meet aerospace form factors and environmental requirements.

For the purposes of the Military Utility Assessment, the CERBERUS-adapted MALD vehicle was carried beneath an SAI-operated Sabreliner 40 flight test asset, with the payload controlled from within the aircraft cabin. This allowed for real-time control and data analysis/performance evaluation during flight testing.

According to Long, four different EW payloads - separately developed by NRL, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon - were used in 12 operationally relevant missions. "The interchangeable payloads, each customised for a specific mission and threat, were swapped onto the captive carry vehicle in less than one minute," he said. "It really demonstrated the concept of MALD as a 'truck' able to carry various different kinds of payload."

Raytheon sees that payload flexibility going beyond a jammer: other options could include a kinetic warhead, a cyber payload, or an RF pulse device. "It is a relatively easy integration," Long said. "What's more you can deploy these different payloads in the [MALD] vehicle which the enemy can't distinguish between."



Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 18 Nov 2016 17:53

^^
Beautiful - but here's a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZyL-zEoMfM

In the depicted scenario attacking US fighters accompanied by are approaching from well beyond the radar coverage with ISR platforms being placed "at the edge of the threat defences" and the decoys are launched to be the first to enter "contested" airspace where they get the radars to turn on and those are then classified by the ISR platforms jammed if need be and taken out by networked platforms.

I think one thing that is repeatedly shown in such US tactics (which I keep stressing) is something that does not get mentioned when fancy new US technology is discussed on BRF as a desirable solution

The US has structured its aerial attack forces to work as a networked team with sensors, communication and weaponry from different platforms if need be spread over sea,land, air and space. This is true for the SDBs that we discussed months ago. It is true for the F-35 and it is true again for MALD.

In the absence of such networked infrastructure spread over multiple land, sea, air and space platforms India has three choices
1. Pretend that everything has been developed in house like China
2. Buy everything from the US and join US "coalitions" and act as one more US satrap
3. Do something else

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 18 Nov 2016 18:11

brar_w wrote:@JayS, Regarding using unmanned decoys, you don't need to outfit a fighter or make it unmanned to get the desired affects. The MALD and MALD-J's replicate performance, enhance signature and even have emissions that try to pass them on as actual fighters through a decoy payload. Their envelope overlaps the high subsonic envelope of a 4th generation strike fighter - Top speed Mach 0.93, altitude 35,000+ ft.


Thanks for the info Brar. Didn't know that. But decoy is not the only thing I had in my mind. I was thinking from a perspective of tech demo project a la QF16. We could have tried a lot of things for UCAV. And MiG21 could have actually performed test flights over almost full envelop of a fighter, and with phasing out we would have free airframes available, plus IAF and HAL both have quite good experience with it inside out. So it would have made sense. But It could be done with LCA too.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60188
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 18 Nov 2016 18:12

4. build these networks - the networking or individual node is not a big deal if taken in isolation. the cost will pay off in network effects where 2+2 = 5

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 18 Nov 2016 19:03

Singha wrote:4. build these networks - the networking or individual node is not a big deal if taken in isolation. the cost will pay off in network effects where 2+2 = 5

Current weak points are large platforms - for AEW and refuelling.

But I forgot to mention something in my previous post. In the video above the US forces are flying in from outside radar coverage and can make it seem like 5 decoy aircraft are attacking. The US fights its wars far enough away for that to work.

But Paki and Chinese radars can see well into Indian territory so they can "see" takeoffs and approaching aircraft.

Technically this means that we can simply launch decoys to look like attacking aircraft or even launch real aircraft (not decoys) that approach the border to make them turn on their radars and hit their radars from within our territory. So our tactics and hardware could be substantially different

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5705
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2016 19:09

The US has structured its aerial attack forces to work as a networked team with sensors, communication and weaponry from different platforms if need be spread over sea,land, air and space. This is true for the SDBs that we discussed months ago. It is true for the F-35 and it is true again for MALD.

In the absence of such networked infrastructure spread over multiple land, sea, air and space platforms India has three choices
1. Pretend that everything has been developed in house like China
2. Buy everything from the US and join US "coalitions" and act as one more US satrap
3. Do something else


Yes, networks are very important. We must also account for the qualitative difference in waveform instead of generically clubbing everything under 'data-links' and 'weapons-link'. There is great deal of a difference between a legacy Standard Link-16 terminal and data pipe and a modern wide band SDR that can manage multiple waveforms across platforms (including those that are based on or also utilize L-16). Similarly, there are data link latency and other performance metrics that vary across the various data links. One example was the considerable capability degradation ( three orders of magnitude lower bit rate) when the SM2 and ESSM were given a secondary data link to make it compliant with foreign ships out of band with AEGIS. Not all weapons links are equally as capable and not all networking has redundancy or high level of capability built in.

The level of networking on the MALD is kept to a minimum since it is expendable so cost is important but in this is going to change when they go for the next generation, recoverable system that they are developing through the GREMLINS program. Another thing to look at from a networking point of view is the AARGM, ARM. It has a weapon to platform data link (much like A2A missiles), a weapon to third party platform data link, and a terminal Impact Assessment SATCOM link. A user that can't support all this capability will essentially have a slightly better HARM but in proper hands, with a proper infrastructure its a totally different weapon, transformational in many ways over what the legacy HARM delivers.

In short, networked weapons require robust networks which in return require investment to protect them. Long range networking, survivable networks, and wideband operations are conflicting requirements so you can't really have ONE network do all but technology is allowing you to seamlessly enter and exit these network bubbles to accomplish missions without considerably impacting the CSWaP that comes with carrying multiple systems on-board weapons or platforms. As the space to maneuver within the RF spectrum shrinks (higher power radars, and higher power jammers) network agility gains incredible importance and we enter into the world of cognitive radars, cognitive networks and also cognitive EW. It's almost come down to having the ability to create bespoke survivable networks that are agile enough to adapt to very agile threat. Gone are the days when you are aware of where your opponent's strengths lie in the RF spectrum and which portion of the spectrum is virtually free to maneuver in. With RF components getting more powerful, and cheaper there is unlikely to be any uncontested space going into the future.
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Nov 2016 22:48, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5705
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2016 22:02

DARPA is placing order for a second TERN demonstrator -


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Manish_P » 19 Nov 2016 11:54

we can simply launch decoys to look like attacking aircraft or even launch real aircraft (not decoys) that approach the border to make them turn on their radars and hit their radars from within our territory. So our tactics and hardware could be substantially different


+1

Decoys, real aircraft... and old aircraft converted into basic drones

The chinese have been rumored/reported to have converted a number of their old J-6/MiG 19s into unmanned drones (some with rudimentary bombing capability). Possibly kamikaze, probably one-time use, but useful in numbers

Pros - Units available, flying dynamics known, enemy radar might not be able to distinguish if it is a manned fighter or a decoy...
Cons - Economics ? Endurance ? Spares ? ...

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7411
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Pratyush » 19 Nov 2016 20:57

It looks like an old USSR air launch cm.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 13 Feb 2017 22:26

Hmmm. The NRUAV has been resurrected. That's good news. But why on the Chetak? It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep these aircraft in the air.

Image

Photo credit: Prasun Sengupta

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neilz » 14 Feb 2017 14:42

x-post from helicopter thread

It was discussed here about converting existing Chetak into unmanned vehicles.
Well looks like the plan is indeed is part of serious consideration....

From the detritus of the failed IAI-HAL naval rotory UAV (NRUAV) rises a valiant attempt to do what Israel couldn’t. Livefist reports for the first time that DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) has unveiled its R-UAV, which will unman the Chetak helicopter platform for multi-service use. Frankly, we can’t wait to see where this goes.



ref::
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/6-stand-out-india-stories-on-aeroindia2017-day-1.html

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 14 Feb 2017 14:47

Indranil wrote:Hmmm. The NRUAV has been resurrected. That's good news. But why on the Chetak? It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep these aircraft in the air.

Image

Photo credit: Prasun Sengupta


I like the plan. Airframes are already available and mods would be easy given available expertise in MRO. Even if we lose some prototypes it would not be hard on the pocket. Once the autonomous system is ready it would be easy to adapt it for something like LUH. We should do the same with MiG-21.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 16 Feb 2017 00:50

Happy to see ADE Abhyas back. Photo credit: Livefist

Image

Image
Livefist does mistakenly report ADE's "Indian Eagle" UAV as "Suchan". The latter is NAL's mini-UAV derived from Slybird.

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 16 Feb 2017 01:03

Meanwhile, in other news the uprated 65hp engine has been supplied to ADE. ADE is going to mate this engine with new props on Panchi. The prop diameter will be increased by 20% to 1.2 mtrs and they will evaluate both two and three bladed props.

Meanwhile the development to two cylinder IC engine for UAVs was stopped last year because of changes in user-spec.


arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby arshyam » 17 Feb 2017 07:36

The Rustom II is now called Tapas. This guy was standing forlorn in the static display:

Image

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby arshyam » 17 Feb 2017 07:39

The Tethered Autonomous Multi-copter:
Image

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:39

Aero India 2017: Is India shifting gears with UAVs to snoop on Pakistan and China?
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/aero-india-2017-india-shifting-gears-uavs-snoop-pakistan-china-716062

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:57

Arshyam,

Any chance you took a pic of the TAMP info board?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60188
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 17 Feb 2017 08:28

the TAMP frame looks like a joke with those huge crude metal pipes...the thrust will go in lifting itself alone ...who comes up with these designs ? even cheap 5000/= quadcopters have better designs ..and that metal box on top ugh *shudder*

it looks like a 8th semester student project made out of whatever resources the mech deptt had , not a state agency product

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2017 08:55

Singha wrote:the TAMP frame looks like a joke with those huge crude metal pipes...the thrust will go in lifting itself alone ...who comes up with these designs ? even cheap 5000/= quadcopters have better designs ..and that metal box on top ugh *shudder*

it looks like a 8th semester student project made out of whatever resources the mech deptt had , not a state agency product

Let me say why this is comment is both true and unfair.

Yes your observations are correct IMO. Unfair because our colleges have been ahead of our DRDO labs and the same college graduates are right now getting employed to design these things in our DRDO set up. Let us not be scathing. Both you and I have been on BRF long enough to note that just 4-5 years ago - no state run agency knew what UAV meant but colleges were doing them. It is those young graduates who are just cutting their teeth having got jobs. Give them time.

We tend to judge them like experienced people who have "seen it all" in Amreeka, Farnborough, Paris, Zhuhai etc and get all snooty. As we get older we must realize that the junior and mid level people are younger and less experienced than us. In my case even the seniors are younger.

Was talking to a young chap at a stall with some UAV. There wwere so many UAV stalls that I did not bother reading any names - and was anyway dog tired having been on my feet for 6 plus hours.

Was told that the critical areas where we lack tech are in communication with UAVs and in the gimbal stabilizers for the optics. If that TAMP jugaadus is helping us to develop at least one of these - its non-prettiness would be worth it
Last edited by shiv on 17 Feb 2017 08:59, edited 2 times in total.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby arshyam » 17 Feb 2017 08:57

Cybaru wrote:Arshyam,

Any chance you took a pic of the TAMP info board?

You mean the one behind the model on my pic? Not particularly, though I have a higher res pic, so might be to zoom in. Let me take a look at it over the weekend...

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 08:59

Yeah,. Thanks

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60188
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 17 Feb 2017 09:02

in the interest of seeding the tech, DRDO could open src to indian OEMs the tech it had developed for the nishant UAV. most of these are tactical short duration types so very high security and robustness are not a hard requirement.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2017 09:25

Singha wrote:in the interest of seeding the tech, DRDO could open src to indian OEMs the tech it had developed for the nishant UAV. most of these are tactical short duration types so very high security and robustness are not a hard requirement.

Many Indian OEMs are (I am told) import and assemble by screwdriver given that no one in India makes most of the stuff. The motors are imported, the EO units are imported, the avionics to communicate with te UAV are imported. I think even the propeller blades are imported. If everything can be done here - I would excuse the use of locally made aluminium pipes.

Here is a close up of the power unit of a "locally built" UAV. Make in India will be like this - I am Ok with that as long as people get jobs. But DRDO labs will have to develop critical tech even if local built off the shelf stuff looks ugly
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 17 Feb 2017 09:36

Singha wrote:the TAMP frame looks like a joke with those huge crude metal pipes...the thrust will go in lifting itself alone ...who comes up with these designs ? even cheap 5000/= quadcopters have better designs ..and that metal box on top ugh *shudder*

it looks like a 8th semester student project made out of whatever resources the mech deptt had , not a state agency product

I think that octacopter is off the shelf.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 20 Feb 2017 03:43

ADRDE has come up with a bunch of tenders for an autonomous maneuvering mini airship. Salient features:

1. Internal volume: 590 cu. m.
2. AUW: 200 kgs
3. length: 26.2 m
4. Diameter (max.) = 6.55 m
5. Thrust: 2 X 750 N engines (already chosen)
6. Control: 4 fins with movable control surfaces + TVC engines.
7. Landing gear capable of landing at 40 kmph

Image

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 433
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby aditp » 20 Feb 2017 21:42

VRDE and Tech Mahindra were jointly developing 200hp class aerodiesel engine for Rustom 2 UAV.

Other forums report that the project has been canceled. Anyone has any leads on this?

I wonder why all engine development projects are squashed in Desh. Beyond initial announcement, nothing heard of the Bharat Powerpack for Arjun Tank either!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5582
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 20 Feb 2017 21:58

The Rotary UAV project based on the Chetak is becoming more clear. HAL's ARDC is the lead design agency. ADE is collaborating. HAL has now issued an EOI for RISK SHARING PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RUAV.

Basically, it is looking for an experienced partner for development of Automatic Flight Control System.

While conversion of a manned aircraft to an UAV is not ideal, it is definitely a start. The airframe is proven and HAL must have lots of data on the flight characteristics.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand and 35 guests