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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47293
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2017 22:59

JayS, No one is denying HAL should be futuristic, but to divert attention to blue sky projects is not useful.

Tell me where this UAVTejas will be useful?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 22 Mar 2017 23:18

UAV Tejas will help in software, coding for developing Ghatak UCAV, thus will cut development time of Ghatak UCAV

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 22 Mar 2017 23:47

ramana wrote:JayS, No one is denying HAL should be futuristic, but to divert attention to blue sky projects is not useful.

Tell me where this UAVTejas will be useful?


Any company of the size of HAL has multitude of projects running in parallel. Doesn't necessarily mean one is hogging attention from the other. For all we know its a mere idea right now and they are doing feasibility study of sort. Even saying that its in conceptual design stage would be a stretch. On what basis we are saying it will divert attention from say LCA or LUH..??

I look at this kind of project as TD. Just like NLCA is a TD for Carrier Operation Compatibility technology, this would be a "Artificial Pilot" TD. It would give us a chance to explore the field of UCAV first hand. We don't really need to build it in numbers and deploy in operations. Maybe only a small number, like NLCA. But that could be decided upon later. Anything developed on this can straight away be ported to AMCA. There would be a lot of work on sensor fusion happening on this and we can potentially flight test sensor fusion much ahead of AMCA's first flight. A lot of things that Ghatak may not be able to do can be tried on LCA UCAV. There are many possibilities. We can Keep it low key initially but keep it going on steadily. I have previously advocated such project on MiG-21, precisely to develop such kind of tech. On LCA it will be even faster and easier since FBW and FCS is ready made, unlike on MiG21. Imagine converting our retiring M2k and Su30's into useful drones after 2030's...? We won't know until we actually try our hands at it. LCA is the closest thing to the final aim. And makes a lot of sense to use it for this project.
Last edited by JayS on 22 Mar 2017 23:56, edited 1 time in total.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ranjan.rao » 22 Mar 2017 23:55

We should not look at these things just from the perspective of PnL and R&D. These are the kind of projects that attract talent and enthuse people and can help us leapfrog the technological changes, else we will be perpetual followers

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 00:30

Developments of aerostats at ADRDE.

1. Akashdeep Aersotat: 2000 cu.m., 1 km attitude, tethered, 300 kg payload, 14 day endurance
2. Nakshtra Aerostat: no details provided other than 5 km altitude
3. Tactical Aerostat: 100 cu.m., 20 kg payload. User wants it now.
4. They are going to develop an airships. I had shared details earlier about their first endeavour in this field a few posts back.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 23 Mar 2017 00:42

As a FYI only:

2008 :: Unmanned Tejas in a decade?

Of relevance:

Just saw this interview of DRDO chief M Natarajan to Vayu Aerospace & Defence Review, where he says, “We can adapt the LCA into becoming an advanced UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle), not immediately, perhaps 10 years down the road.”

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 23 Mar 2017 00:47

Frankly speaking IMO, HAL should not do any civil airliner project. That should be given to private companies, with govt bankrolling the financial risk to start with. And we should not care much about ToT in that project. Just get the system ownership, get it manufactured as much as possible in India and have it MRO-ed in India fully. A private company can buy out bankrupt project (or may be whole company itself) and run the show. In fact letting HAL do civil airliner project would be a big diversion for its focus on military stuff due its huge scale, bigger than anything HAL has done so far. Its an ideal place where Private industry can pitch in.

Stuff like next gen AJT is bread and butter work for HAL, It will surely keep doing it as its mainstream activity along with LCA, AMCA, FGFA, HTT-40, LUH, LCA, ALH etc etc.

A project like LCA UCAV runs on a parallel line. My company launched a big multi-year multi-million $$ manufacturing related project just now. Top talent from manufacturing department will be working on it for next 4yrs. But that doesn't mean it will affect our regular production. There are always different depts/class of people who do such kind of jobs and those who do regular bread and butter job.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 01:56

Good arguments. Okay, let's say AL should limit itself to aerospace in defense aerospace (HAL won't agree, but let's say). Even then, there should financial reasons to take up a project. Your company is taking up a multi million $$ project, because it makes financial sense. I ask again: what is the niche role that only LCA UCAV can take?

If today HAL says, we are going to make a UCAV based on the HTT-40, or we will build a Hawk powered by F-125IN afterburning turbofan, I would be jumping up and down. For that matter, develop an Avenger equivalent using the HTFE-25 and HTT-40 parts. I think they are blue sky research and hey they have ready made markets, niche utilization.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 03:44

Indranil wrote: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

More details about this airship has emerged:
1. Payload: 37.5 kg
2. Top speed 75 kmph
3. Prop diameter: 1400 mm
4. Engine + prop weight: 33 kg X 2. I have a strong suspicion that they are going to use the 65 hp wankel engine designed for Panchi with 3 blade propellers. This is is a test set up for Panchi too.
5. Endurance: 5 hours with 154 kg of fuel.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 03:57

tsarkar wrote:...

Secondly, Tejas CLAW was developed by NAL National Control Law Team. Tejas was a multi-disciplinary multi agency development effort. For HAL to build all those competencies will take years.

And while ADA was the nodal agency coordinating effort, for HAL to define and divide workshare with all the agencies and subcontractors will require a complex management structure not present today.

...
Instead of focussing on its core function of production, HAL does not need to get into a turf war with ADA.


You are assuming that this is solely a HAL project ;) Agencies are collaborating all the time. Remember DRDO reorganized into Technological Clusters, in which Aeronautics is one cluster and comprises of the following labs:


  • Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Bangalore
  • Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE), Agra
  • Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), Bangalore
  • Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), Bangalore
  • Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), Bangalore
  • Center for Military Airworthiness & Certification (CEMILAC), Bangalore

So for entities like HAL, they just need to tap into this aeronautics cluster and work with the know-hows they provide. HAL is not an island.

This was a statement made by DRDO back in 2008 regarding unmanned Tejas. So this is not a HAL idea alone.
NRao wrote:As a FYI only:

2008 :: Unmanned Tejas in a decade?

Of relevance:

Just saw this interview of DRDO chief M Natarajan to Vayu Aerospace & Defence Review, where he says, “We can adapt the LCA into becoming an advanced UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle), not immediately, perhaps 10 years down the road.”


I see it as a TD, similar to JayS, for proving out technologies for Ghatak UCAV. Finally, DRDO/HAL have a test platform to do such things with. We on BR keep complaining India doesn't have test beds/platforms for doing R&D on engines etc; well for UCAV work, there is one in LCA ;)

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 23 Mar 2017 04:37

A large manned fighter plane is not a practical project for a UCAV or an engine test bed.

An engine testbed is build on a Il-76 type platform with the transporter's plane engines serving as a quick backup in the event things malfunction.

A UCAV has to have the ability to outmanuver and dogfight, not just fly to some way point and drop bombs which an ultra low cost cruise missile can do just as well. A UCAV has to have complex sensory input from 360 deg IR/daylight cameras for short range and the ability to understand incoming radar info - all of which means a human like algorithm (which again they probably haven't spent 1 minute thinking about before declaring the project will be easy).

The LCA's MK1A and MK2 timeline hangs by a thread and they are wasting valuable resources and time (i won't even include money) on these activities.

Either we have missed the point of this project or the HAL management is unable to understand its priorities.

They have to shut down this project asap before it gets out of control. Now is not the time for it. All efforts have to be focused on completing the MK1A and MK2. This is a big, poorly thought out project which will waste the time of skilled personel, waste resources and may well sink the LCA project with more delays.

Any more delays on Tejas and the project will be cancelled by the IAF. This time there will be NO supporters on here speaking up for HALs mismanagement.
Last edited by Neshant on 23 Mar 2017 04:43, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 04:43

^^^

I think you are taking it bit too extreme :wink:

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 23 Mar 2017 04:45

Dude, understand - the IAF already is fed up of waiting for the Tejas.

To start some other ridiculous side project when they cannot even deliver on what the IAF currently needs is criminal.

I hope the plan is just a joke. I can't believe HAL will do something that dumb.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 04:48

Why does it have to be either or or? Let's wait to hear more over the coming years. No harm in thinking about technologies that are in the process of being built anyways.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 06:14

If it a testbed for turbofan powered UCAV, let me suggest an alternative: the IJT! More benign handling qualities, lower landing and takeoff speeds, more efficient low altitude performance, cheaper to acquire, cheaper to maintain. For example, designed safe life period for LCA is 3000 hrs, whereas that of IJT is 7500 hrs. It will be cheaper to modify too. No need to remove any A2A equipments like radar etc.

Tell me one reason why I need a 1.6 Mach, 8-G capable* multirole high performance fighter as a strike UCAV?!!

*When you go to UCAV, you would drop your safety factor from 1.5 to 1.25. LCA UCAV will probably be able to pull even more Gs with no structural modifications at all.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 06:35

Is it only strike UCAV India wants to build?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 07:00

srai wrote:Is it only strike UCAV India wants to build?


Currently, we are at least 5 years away from decent slow flying strike UCAV. Right now, we can maintain a reliable LOS communication link to a slow flying UCAV. We are trying to reach the stage where we can have a fail safe satellite communication link for beyond LOS operations. When we get there, the UCAVs will have to have enough autonomy to maintain safe flight for the delay in roundtrip communication. That is the current state-of-art of UCAVs worldwide, when the UCAV is undertaking benign manuevers. To maintain this communication link in fail safe way, when the plane is tumbling every which way possible, is at least a good 15 years of good solid research away for us desis. And I am being optimistic here.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60181
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Mar 2017 07:13

either develop tech blocks now or do the usual bhookha nanga bhikari dance in 15 years, katora in hand outside the HQs of global majors.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 07:28

What do you think is the current bottleneck for building A2A UCAVs? Definitely, it is not for want of an A2A aircraft.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33287
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 23 Mar 2017 07:28

UCAVs doing air combat are a long loooooong way away. Only way we can get there soon is to name something "Wing Looong" like the Chinese did. Biggest problem will be IFF. If we get the sensors and communication right a Reaper like attack capability will be an easier goal. But a Tejas would be a good UAV technology test platform rather than a final product IMO. Especially if we could fit a Kaveri in it.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 07:48

Indranil wrote:What do you think is the current bottleneck for building A2A UCAVs? Definitely, it is not for want of an A2A aircraft.


True, next-Gen UCAV technology worldwide is at least couple of decades away. For countries like India, who don't have the luxury of its own high-performance platforms, LCA is a boon. It is going to be used for developing all sorts of indigenous aero-techs.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Mar 2017 08:30

Regular UAV program:
BRF jingo: Sharma ji ka beta can do this in 6th standard in his spare time while banging Megan fox. What the hell ij HAL doing, hain ji?

Tejas UAV:
BRF jingo: I can't believe HAL is doing this. Don't they have anything better to do.

:rotfl:

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2137
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 23 Mar 2017 09:17

Thakur_B wrote:Regular UAV program:
BRF jingo: Sharma ji ka beta can do this in 6th standard in his spare time while banging Megan fox. What the hell ij HAL doing, hain ji?

Tejas UAV:
BRF jingo: I can't believe HAL is doing this. Don't they have anything better to do.

:rotfl:

:rotfl:
Sahi pakda aapne Sir! We seem to forget the backyard UAV builders who claim to be able to do a better job than everyone in the research establishments, and then turn around and question such initiatives.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 24 Mar 2017 12:49

Indranil wrote:Jay,

Still the primary question remains unanswered: what is the utility exclusive to LCA UCAV.


I said already that I would see this project as a TD which can cross pollinate in multiple other projects such as Ghatak, AMCA, Tapas. All these platforms are immature and some of them will not be flying until few years. LCA UCAV can act as a test bed in such cases. Even without it being operationalized, I don't see why LCA UCAV is not very useful. The technology can flow into manned LCA as well to make its auto-pilot even more capable, reducing Pilot's workload, or to increase situational awareness of Pilots using the sensor fusion done on LCA UCAV. We always cry about delays on time-critical projects. But the delays happen because we try to invent new technology on the job. Ghatak or Tapas projects will be (and should be) focused on making operational drones first and foremost, with the limited intelligence that is relevant and required in near future. Per se they will not be focused on creating an "Artificial Pilot" which can actually take over a human pilot in entirety. But LCA UCAV can have a pinpoint focus on this one thing, right from the word Go. Yes they can do it with HTT-40, but its not a high performance jet, neither it has advanced sensors readily available, nor it has a lot of space. We will hit a roadblock on it soon enough (well not so soon but why go with HTT-40 at all when we have far better platform available in LCA). So if you ask me what's that LCA UCAV brings on the table, in one sentence - it can allow us to develop a true "Artificial Pilot" for a "Fighter" Jet with the flexibility to expand the work gradually for 2-3 decades at least without hitting a dead end and without having to spend a lot of time on building or upgrading the FCS, avionics, weapons system and basic sensor fusion since those things can be ported from the Manned LCA which is bound to get regular upgrades for quite a while in future.

And If LCA UCAV turns out good enough and we can work out things like data link, artificial pilot, super-agility on a satisfactory level in say 15yrs (not fully autonomous drone as good as a manned fighter, but say good enough for certain missions), we can actually deploy it as mud-moving drones doing bombing runs when we achieve decent aerial dominance in a war or even in point defence, letting pilots take a breather and concentrate on missions which are more complicated than what a drone can handle. As you mentioned, without much redesign LCA in a unmanned avatar can be a super-agility bird with may be 12G capability. Even Ghatak could not match the flight envelop that LCA has or the weapons load and variety that LCA can take with it. Plus the Artificial Pilot would be a generic program which when interfaced with any aircraft's FCS and sensors can fly any fighter with minor adjustments, just like a human being can fly multiple types of aircrafts. We could eventually convert our entire retiring Su-30 flight into drones in 2040s. Imagine the kind of punch 250 drone Su-30MKI could bring in for IAF even if used only for bombings. With stand off weapons like Brahmos/Nirbhay even in the initial days of war they can be deployed since they may not be needed to cross home airspace at all. Just fly nice and straight and launch missiles and come back.

The possibilities are unlimited. If we do the project may be a few of them will realise. But if we don't do it, none of them will realise. Here is our chance to leapfrog in unmanned systems and we need to start right now. I don't expect 1000s of Crs and 100s of engineers deployed on this project right from Day 1. A slow and steady start with a small team comprising of people from HAL/NAL and Academia would do with may be 100-200Cr per year funding. A bunch of MS/PhD students can work on this in our premier institutes to reduce the manpower requirement and costs.

PS: I don't think LCA UCAV is meant for new engine testing. I would rather have us first build a B747 based generic flight test bed and one MiG29/Su-30MKI based Fighter test bed. One new thing at a time.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 24 Mar 2017 21:21

This unmanned option also paves way for something like this without risking the pilot in the test phase, Indian scenario involves the Himalayas. Maybe they got bandwidth now.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Terrain-following_autopilot_capability_eyed_for_Rafale_fighters_999.html

"Integrated into the aircraft, this flight control mode allows it to fly at high speed and low level over the ground or sea, the French Air Force said. "In complete safety and under all weather conditions, the aircraft can operate at very low level by day and night thanks to its sophisticated advanced autopilot, which protects the crew by preventing the aircraft from impacting natural (terrain features) and artificial (antennas, bridges, cables, etc) obstacles. The crew is thus free to concentrate on the prosecution of its mission, on surviving in a hostile environment and on achieving its operational objectives."

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 24 Mar 2017 21:28

Jay,

A unmanned jetpowered strike aircraft I can understand. 12G maneuvering aircraft, I can't. I don't think that we can even maintain continuous communication link. Anyways, time will tell. I remain quite pessimistic and frankly disappointed in HAL's usage of folks with design capability.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5573
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 28 Mar 2017 01:25

I was wrong on the airship that ADRDE is developing for strategic purposes. It will not use NAL's engines. It has issued a tender for 30 hp engines + propellers. Total power available will by 550 N at 60 kmph.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 28 Mar 2017 01:32

Indranil wrote:Jay,

A unmanned jetpowered strike aircraft I can understand. 12G maneuvering aircraft, I can't. I don't think that we can even maintain continuous communication link. Anyways, time will tell. I remain quite pessimistic and frankly disappointed in HAL's usage of folks with design capability.


If we try to make it, we might find a solution to maintain datalink. Anyways expanding LCA's envelop would be far into the future.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 05:41

^^^

At least initially, unmanned LCA needs to remain pretty much un-altered and used as is. The only exception being replacing cockpit made for human with that of sensors required for unmanned flight and keeping weights within the same tolerances. LCA already provides a fully tested and integrated platform with weapons and sensors.

Most of the advances in unmanned flight needs to be done in a gradual manner. Start with something like autonomous takeoff/landing and autopilot with pre-programed routes and maneuvers. Add to that some limited man-in-the-loop using LCA cockpit simulator on the ground. Then progressively tackle more enhancements, such as more manual control, or less manual and more autonomous flying. It will be a long drawn out process with a lot of small victories over the years than one large one at one go.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19443
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2017 11:52

India all set to get missile armed drones from Israel

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 980098.cms

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 06 Apr 2017 02:23

Zynda wrote:JayS, I looked up FAR Chap 23 (to which Tapas is being complied with) and it mentions UL FoS as 1.5. I was not able to find to which spec defence UAVs are designed. I would be interested to find out which spec the ADE rep was alluding to which specifies 1.25 FoS.


OK found something interesting. Looks like USAR which was originally French proposal is being adopted for NATO under the name/treaty called "STANAG 4671"

Here is a draft of this regulation:

[url]itlims.meil.pw.edu.pl/zsis/pomoce/JAR/usar_edition_1.pdf[/url]

Page 36 has the info you are looking for:

USAR.303 Factor of Safety
303 The factor of safety shall not be lower than 1.5 for structure whose failure would lead to a Hazardous or more
serious failure condition. For other structure, the factor of safety shall not be lower than 1.25. For a factor of
safety less than 1.5, the Applicant must provide justification to be agreed to by the Certifying Authority.


A lot of other interesting stuff in there.

Looks like there is no widely accepted standard like FAR or MIL available still for UAVs. People are still figuring out what should the standard look like.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1189
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Zynda » 06 Apr 2017 02:32

^^Dude you got good research/Googling skills man. Thanks for the above spec. Wiki says that USAR (also called STANAG 4671) was used to design General Dynamics MQ-9 Reaper. I guess the spec is used by NATO countries.

Went through Edition 1. Most of the terms are quite well defined but not at the refined level that is seen in FARs. Edition 3.0 is the latest...at least it is a living document. Good find.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 09 Apr 2017 12:26

Delhi Defense Review DDR tweets that 7 Tapas prototypes have already joined tesr program already. Not clrea if all are in flight test or some are for ground testing such as GVT, STS etc..

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2291
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby JayS » 09 Apr 2017 13:51

JayS wrote:Delhi Defense Review DDR tweets that 7 Tapas prototypes have already joined tesr program already. Not clrea if all are in flight test or some are for ground testing such as GVT, STS etc..


So the update is from MoD annual Report. Here is the link. Please study it and post interesting info in relevant threads.

http://ddpmod.gov.in/sites/default/file ... 16-17..pdf

Here is the para about Rustom-2 MALE UAV

Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV
‘Rustom-II’: Rustom-II, a multi-mission
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is being
developed with an endurance of 24 hours to
carry out the intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) roles for the three Armed
Forces. It is capable of carrying different
payloads viz. EO/IR, SAR, ELINT/ COMINT to
perform missions during day and night. As on
date, seven airframes (AFs) have been realized.
During the year, taxi trials commenced w.e.f.
August 8, 2016 and a total of 75 taxi runs have
been conducted. DRDO also successfully
carried out the first design validation flight
(DVF) of Rustom-II from Aeronautical Test
Range (ATR), Chitradurga in the month of
November 2016. The flight accomplished the
main objectives of proving the flying platform,
such as take-off, bank, level flight and landing
etc. Development of indigenous payloads is
under progress at different DRDO labs.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Gyan » 10 Apr 2017 17:54

JayS wrote: As on
date, seven airframes (AFs) have been realized.
During the year, taxi trials commenced w.e.f.
August 8, 2016 and a total of 75 taxi runs have
been conducted. DRDO also successfully
carried out the first design validation flight
(DVF) of Rustom-II from Aeronautical Test
Range (ATR), Chitradurga in the month of
November 2016. The flight accomplished the
main objectives of proving the flying platform,
such as take-off, bank, level flight and landing
etc. Development of indigenous payloads is
under progress at different DRDO labs.


7 Air frames may not mean 7 UAV ready for flying or actually flying. It may just mean that 7 airframe skeletons are ready without equipping otherwise just one flight with 7 UAVs seem one too few?

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3479
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neela » 10 Apr 2017 18:25

With just the EO/IR payload, Tapas 201 could be useful for CRPF no?
For CRPF, the IR payload will be really helpful in the jungles where Maoists roam. Dont know much about terrain in Manipur but it could help tackle insurgency there too.

Not an expert ..hence the question. Is Tapas suitable for the police in encounter scenarios, where tracking and pursuit can last several hours or even days over large distances?
They will need an airstrip , associated maintainence infrastructure and funds for this though.

Another question: Where exactly does SAR come into play? I understand it can peek through clouds . Is this used to designate/illuminate targets under adverse / poor visibility conditions.
What happens during night time? Are the images from SAR and IR interlaced to build a new "combined" picture?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 15 Apr 2017 21:37

They had Searchers all this time, maybe its more to do with policy issues...anyways,

From the annual report,
Experimental Technology Modules for Directed
Energy Laser System:
DRDO is involved in
the development of 10kW proof-of-concept
directed energy system against UAVs like target
and establishment of critical technologies of
precision tracking/ pointing and laser beam
combination. During the year, 2 kW Brass Board
unit integrated on to a prototype tracking gimbal
mount was successfully tested/ demonstrated
for beam pointing/beam combination at a
range of 1km on ground moving and wire-rope
moving target. The 2kW Laser Beam Delivery
System (LBDS) was also tested/ demonstrated
for coarse & fine tracking of aerial target (Netra) and for physical destruction
of flying low cost quad copter at range of 1 km.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vasu raya » 11 May 2017 20:48

Image

They should solve the mobility issues of Daksh by replacing the golf cart type chassis with a quadcopter kind of base, the requirement is coming...

Now they got Li-ion batteries and the Manik engine, which ever engine type works including hybrids.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60181
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Singha » 17 May 2017 08:41


Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1485
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 17 May 2017 09:37

Singha wrote:http://idrw.org/iit-bombay-develops-first-indigenous-thermal-imaging-devices/


Was this funded by DRDO or MOD? Can anyone translate how it's different then stuff already produced by DRDO?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bala Vignesh, darshhan, marimuthu, Parikshit, uskumar, vmalik and 44 guests