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.
Post Reply
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Vips »

Eye on China, India goes for Heron tech upgrade, missile-firing Guardian drones.

India has decided in favour of the weaponised MQ-9B Sky Guardian drone from the US and to upgrade its existing Israeli Heron fleet with satellite communication capability in an attempt to enhance its range as well as surveillance capabilities in the midst of the Ladakh military standoff with China.

At the same time, the face-off between the Indian Army and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has spurred the Indian private sector and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to start manufacturing short-range tactical drones as well as anti-drone systems to boost border defences.

The three services have come to a conclusion that India should opt for a weaponised drone rather than the 22 reconnaissance and surveillance Sea Guardian drones approved in 2017 by the US administration for supply to India, according to authoritative government officials with knowledge of the matter.

The MQ-9B, manufactured by General Atomics, has a 40-hour endurance with a maximum altitude of 40,000 feet and payload or weapon carrying capacity of over 2.5 tonne, including air-to-surface missiles and laser-guided bombs. “We are in negotiations with the Trump administration, which is willing to provide India with the latest armed drone technology. In this, it is the prohibitive cost of the system that is a hurdle, not the Trump administration,” said a South Block official who requested anonymity.

Besides, India has asked Israel to upgrade its existing Heron medium-altitude, long-endurance surveillance drone by upgrading its communication links. Presently, due to lack of a satellite link in the Heron, two such unmanned aerial drones have to be flown in tandem with a time gap so that information is relayed back to base through the second drone in case of long-range surveillance.

The upgrade involves fitting the Heron drone with a satellite package so that the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) links with the satellite above and information is sent on a real-time basis. The upgrade will allow the Heron to conduct long-range surveillance without the fear of losing contact with the base or go into no contact zone. The Heron upgrade program was approved by the defence ministry last month.

The drone revolution in the Indian military has come after it was felt that India had no answer to Chinese armed drone and surveillance drone capabilities, with the PLA deploying the unmanned devices in significant capacities in the Ladakh theatre apart from sensors and surveillance cameras that provide advance warning on moves by the adversary.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by sanjaykumar »

Drones are employable against hill tribals with rifles and grenades or in the “ tribal areas” where the nominal Islamic government has been paid to permit a turkey shoot.

They are useless against a military deploying manpads, radar guided anti air guns, missile armed helos, medium range SAMS. India also seems to field microwave or laser anti drone assets.


Does one think India overlooked drone applications in high intensity conflicts?
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Manish_P »

sanjaykumar wrote:Drones are employable against hill tribals with rifles and grenades or in the “ tribal areas” where the nominal Islamic government has been paid to permit a turkey shoot.

They are useless against a military deploying manpads, radar guided anti air guns, missile armed helos, medium range SAMS. India also seems to field microwave or laser anti drone assets....
That statement can just as easily be flipped over to the other side.. why then is China building/has built (after buying/stealing/learning) a huge drone industry? Several of it's opponents have militaries with MANPADs, AAA, Armed Heptrs, SAMs...

Isn't it after seeing their progress, that we are at the following stage
sanjaykumar wrote:Does one think India overlooked drone applications in high intensity conflicts?
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Hiten »

ADE has initiated manufacturing plans of the Abhyas in the pvt sector

https://www.spansen.com/2020/10/confide ... arget.html
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:Drones are employable against hill tribals with rifles and grenades or in the “ tribal areas” where the nominal Islamic government has been paid to permit a turkey shoot.

They are useless against a military deploying manpads, radar guided anti air guns, missile armed helos, medium range SAMS. India also seems to field microwave or laser anti drone assets....
That statement can just as easily be flipped over to the other side.. why then is China building/has built (after buying/stealing/learning) a huge drone industry? Several of it's opponents have militaries with MANPADs, AAA, Armed Heptrs, SAMs...

Isn't it after seeing their progress, that we are at the following stage
sanjaykumar wrote:Does one think India overlooked drone applications in high intensity conflicts?
There are plenty of visuals of armor and air-defense being taken out via drone strikes. I assume those are legitimate military assets and not tribles with grenades and rifles. At the end of the day, drones are like any other military asset that has to balance survivability with cost and performance. They offer a whole host of ISR payloads, and battlefield persistence. The rest is up to those who employ them to figure out in terms of what payloads, and what concept of operations is and how they fit into the broader multi-faceted offensive and defensive kinetic, and non-kinetic (EW, Cyber and information warfare) campaign. You dismiss them (in a conventional mil-on-mil conflict) at your own peril. They can do things that few, if any, manned aircraft can replicate without a huge burden on cost, logistics and manpower. And they are pretty inexpensive for what they deliver (up to 85% of LCC is in the acquisition).

So you don't have to employ these for traditional tribal-hunting configuration (like a standard EO/IR and helfire payload). You can configure them for stand-off strike, anti-submarine warfare, and pretty easily into anti-surface warfare roles as well. And they can play a vital role in establishing an EW COP and extending your high-bandwidth tactical data-link nets (USN/USMC uses it to expand its TTNT high bandwidth airborne net) and for cyber. Just because they aren't stand-in assets (against a highly defended target/set-of-targets) doesn't mean they aren't useful.

ASW configuration -


https://i.postimg.cc/wvYdhMPS/Sea-Guard ... 0x1050.jpg

EW payloads -

https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... nt1024.jpg

Launch platform for attritable (and re-usable) drones -

https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/P ... 182607.jpg

And can be configured with Air to Air payloads (and have shot down air-air (UAS) targets in flight demonstrations)

https://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/up ... winder.jpg

Just because they have been used extensively in one type of war-time scenario (due to a need) doesn't mean that there aren't ways (or those aren't being developed, fielded, and refined) to make them useful in other types of combat scenarios. They will have different strengths and limitations in those scenarios, but I don't think there is much question that, if employed properly, they will have a tremendous effect in wars of the future.
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Oct 2020 04:44, edited 7 times in total.
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1242
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

sanjaykumar wrote:Drones are employable against hill tribals with rifles and grenades or in the “ tribal areas” where the nominal Islamic government has been paid to permit a turkey shoot.

They are useless against a military deploying manpads, radar guided anti air guns, missile armed helos, medium range SAMS. India also seems to field microwave or laser anti drone assets.


Does one think India overlooked drone applications in high intensity conflicts?
Sir, I would recommend the Armenia Azerbaijan Conflict - 2020 thread. Interesting use of UAV's in the conflict. Will be a learning experience for us given the Chinki mastery of commercial drone technology. Do check out the videos.

One of the key takeaways is the Pantsir AD system cannot see them, and it remains an essential component of our AD.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Manish_P »

brar_w wrote:
...At the end of the day, drones are like any other military asset that has to balance survivability with cost and performance. They offer a whole host of ISR payloads, and battlefield persistence. The rest is up to those who employ them to figure out in terms of what payloads, and what concept of operations is and how they fit into the broader multi-faceted offensive and defensive kinetic, and non-kinetic (EW, Cyber and information warfare) campaign. You dismiss them (in a conventional mil-on-mil conflict) at your own peril. They can do things that few, if any, manned aircraft can replicate without a huge burden on cost, logistics and manpower.
...
Just because they have been used extensively in one type of war-time scenario (due to a need) doesn't mean that there aren't ways (or those aren't being developed, fielded, and refined) to make them useful in other types of combat scenarios. They will have different strengths and limitations in those scenarios, but I don't think there is much question that, if employed properly, they will have a tremendous effect in wars of the future.
Absolutely

For India, the question is not whether we will ever need them against tribals but rather whether we try for the UAVs the crawl-walk-run process which we are doing for the manned LCA-MWF-AMCA or whether in a couple of decades we simply rant and rave about our Govt/babus trying to find funds to import the latest UCAVs from others while starving other important needs.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Hiten »

ADE to build full-scale prototypes of the Ghatak. Looking for mfg partners. Up to 14 to be built.

https://www.spansen.com/2020/10/the-gha ... ia-as.html
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Prem Kumar »

Question for ADE; what's going on with Rustom? Why aren't even non-weaponized versions flying?

Given that countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey are deploying armed drones in battle, its a shame that we don't have even 1 home-grown UAV in service. Especially considering that Nishant & Lakshya are being used for 2+ decades!
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Indranil »

Prem Kumar wrote:Question for ADE; what's going on with Rustom? Why aren't even non-weaponized versions flying?
They are very much flying sirjee.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by nam »

The drone-o-mania! All the turkish drone drama will work in a environment where there is hardly any airpower involved. Azeris are using drone as they hardly have a powerful airforce. Soon they will realize suicide drones are very expensive flying dumb bombs.

People thinking that propeller drones can win wars is akin to expecting spitfires in this century.

If only 155MM rounds had a camera..
venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by venkat_r »

We need around 200 of these Desi UAVs in the force,

So in that regard happy with MQ-9 purchase as that will set the bench mark and our forces will ask for all the bells and whistles for the platforms in the future. US has been developing and upgrading the command and controls and have a whole generation of pilots who it in its mainland and fly the drones everywhere in the world. It will take another 5 to 10 years to develop for INdian services and use these extensively in the western and eastern sectors and anything flying with 40 hour loitering capability is going to be huge for all three services.

More indigenous capabilities, the better. Already did it in Missiles, Radars, guns, and few more sectors still developing..., UAV tech is one that India needs to catch up soon.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by nachiket »

Prem Kumar wrote:Question for ADE; what's going on with Rustom? Why aren't even non-weaponized versions flying?
We had this post just on the previous page with some discussion about it after that.
Raghunathgb wrote:https://www.onmanorama.com/news/columns ... ssion=true
Rustom Rises

Rustom-II (Tapas), the medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from Aeronautical Development Establishment flew in the Satellite Communication (SATCOM) mode for the first time.

rustom-rises
Sources at DRDO headquarters confirm that the UAV also flew with the long range electro optical payload. They claim that these two capabilities are not available on the Heron and Searcher UAVs being operated by the tri-Services now.


The future of this UAV programme is still unclear, with the Services yet to give any firm commitment. Sources say the Tapas team is determined to prove several new capabilities during the next set of trials.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Hiten »

the Rustom-H, modified with it's EO sensor

Image

via https://www.spansen.com/2020/10/first-p ... h-uav.html
Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Raghunathgb »

Although it's old article, this article gives exact picture of tapas drone, where it stands and what's the way forward

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... -soon.html

Some of the important points mentioned are

Total 15 prototypes are planned with last 5 prototypes in productionised version and will be provided for user evaluation. Last 5 prototypes will be built at hal.

Currently 7th prototype is the latest one flying in skies.

There is a weight reduction and design improvements planned from 8th prototype onwards. It's planned to reduce atleast 260 KGS of weight to enable higher payload.

Total requirement is 60 platforms for army, 12 for airforce and 4 for navy.

The state-of-the-art ground control station (GCS) and image exploitation system have been appreciated by uav operators of army.

From 5th prototype onwards higher powered 180 HP engine was placed which replaced older indigenous 115 HP engine.
Last edited by Raghunathgb on 09 Oct 2020 18:24, edited 4 times in total.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Thakur_B »

:rotfl:
12 for workforce
Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Raghunathgb »

Thakur_B wrote::rotfl:
12 for workforce
Autocorrect issue. :(
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by m_saini »

First Images Of The Indian Ghatak Stealth UCAV Surface In An Academic Video

Image
Images of a scale model of the Indian Air Force Ghatak UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle) surfaced for the first time in a recent video of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IIT-Kanpur).

The UAV design lecture was posted on the institute’s YouTube channel on September 28 and the model, which is reportedly the first to feature also a landing gear, was seen in the background in the laboratory where the lecture was recorded.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Prem Kumar »

Some forward movement on Rustom-2. DRDO is on a roll!

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... HOpmM.html
Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) on Friday flight tested the Rustom-2 medium altitude long endurance indigenous prototype drone and achieved eight hours of flying at an altitude of 16000 feet at Chitradurga, Karnataka. The prototype is expected to achieve a height of 26000 feet and endurance of 18 hours by 2020 end.
If Rustom-2 can do 16K feet & 8 hrs of endurance, with a proven long-range EO payload and satcom (Heron can do neither), we should induct a few with as-is capabilities and get some real life experience going in the Ladakh LAC region. Take them through their paces, get operational experience, setup ground stations, refine doctrine, give feedback to DRDO & even use these birds if conflict breaks out. Also gather useful intel right now.

When the better bird comes along in December, those can be inducted.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Thakur_B »

Prem ji, Rustom 2 will eventually be capable of 24-28 hours of endurance.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by k prasad »

The 1800 kg empty weight puts Rustom-2 in the same class as the MQ-9 Reaper. We're still a ways off from the Reaper's endurance (42 hrs, 14 hrs when fully loaded) and service ceiling of 50-60k ft.

8 hrs endurance is on the lower end, but passable. however, ceiling of 16k ft wont be enough in hot and high conditions in Ladakh, considering many of our positions themselves are above 16k ft. I mean, Khardung La is at 17,800 ft! Practically, operations in Ladakh will require certification at at least 35k ft, to allow at least 10-15k ft of ground clearance.

Hopefully we can ramp up the certified envelope soon!
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Aditya_V »

You need to crawl before we run, we can use them in Punjab to Gujarat border, anti Maoist, BD before we get versions which can cover LOC and LAC.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by fanne »

My only crib is that Rustum is in development for over 15 years!! and still in development. (First flight of earlier version was 2009). Other countries (and not counting China, by that yardstick this program is nowhere), are developing and deploying the third or forth generation of their UAV in this time fram. This looks just like Kaveri program - going no where fast. Before everyone starts objecting and giving gyan on physics of it, we are not building a LCA here. We are building a Heron equivalent, that the Israelis developed in 1990s, there is nothing cutting edge here. This is a project that gives employment to many people and they want to just retire with it. There is no mission mode or rush or anything. All these feel good articles mean nothing. At 16,000 feet flight limit, it is useless for Northern and North western border, where 90% of the action is currently. This also on top of when we had 100s of Heron to be inspired by. It may have SATCOM, or even French leather innards or German precision screw that Heron does not have, but that one flies and this one is forever in development.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by darshan »

@fanne, all valid points. When one doesn't have goals in mind and are just there to collect paychecks, not much can be built. Pride factor, desire to serve the nation, and self respect are missing from many of these Indian teams. chinese put their engineers to build anything and everything. It didn't have to be hard, sexy, gratifying, cutting edge, etc. For them and many others work is work. It doesn't take that much to build some of this.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by brar_w »

k prasad wrote:The 1800 kg empty weight puts Rustom-2 in the same class as the MQ-9 Reaper. We're still a ways off from the Reaper's endurance (42 hrs, 14 hrs when fully loaded) and service ceiling of 50-60k ft.
MQ-9B has exceeded 48 hrs endurance in max endurance demonstrations done a few years ago. The Avenger (turbofan) has just about a 23 hr endurance. While max endurance is a popular metric it probably will only be sparingly used. What it does showcase is the design and is often used as a proxy to measure how easy it is to put the said vehicle in orbits as in, how many orbits can your fleet sustain at any given time as you need to turn around aircraft at a fairly tight schedule to maintain efficient orbits 24x7 around points of interest. Interestingly, first few decades of operations with long endurance MALE UAV's points to mission-system (MTBF and down-times) being a limiter to efficient operations as opposed to flight critical system which were designed for very long endurance. This is why the transition from re-purposing manned aircraft mission-systems was quite quickly abandoned and UAV specific payloads became fashionable.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Prem Kumar »

Agree with fanne:

1) We have built complex, world-class flying machines like the Tejas
2) We have cutting edge electro-optical payloads, thanks to advances by ISRO in Cartosat, plus DRDO's efforts in LORROS etc
3) We had a 2 decade head-start with Nishant & Lakshya
4) Tech for Satcoms, ODLs etc have all been finetuned by our Netra AEW&C project

Yet, countries which have had none of the above, like Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey etc are fielding loitering drones, which seem to do a better job of busting air-defence radars than even ARMs!! While we are still 2 - 3 prototypes away from IOC'ing a non-weaponized MALE drone.

Its a people-problem. Whatever ADE touched has turned into a long-drawn, painful affair: Nirbhay & Rustom.

What ADE needs is a thorough top-to-bottom shake-up, plus an active industry collaboration from day 1. Putting all our UAV effort into the ADE basket is a fool's errand. There is enough DRDO tech that can be transferred to the private sector for them to come up with indigenous drones of multiple varieties/mission-profiles. The only expectation to be set with them is that it has to be IDDM and not buy some Chinese junk off the shelf & pass it on with a markup.

Lets hope that, given the adrenaline boost that DRDO seems to be demonstrating these days, some of it will spillover into the UAV & loitering-munition domain.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Rony »

X-post
wig wrote:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comme ... ger-155904

In drone era, tanks must adapt to last longer
Even the well intentioned good general has not a single word for Ghatak or Rustom but advocating in favor of Valkryie. If cost is the issue, what better way than to produce it within the country .
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Rony »

X-post
wig wrote:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comme ... ger-155904

In drone era, tanks must adapt to last longer
The Chinese military has a large number of sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV). There is a mix of medium- and high-altitude long-endurance UAVs and several UCAV models, including the GJ-11 stealth drone that was unveiled at the 2019 National Day parade. It is estimated that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has more than 20 variants of military drones in service.

The PLA has also invested heavily in electronic warfare. The Network Systems Department of the Strategic Support Force, raised in 2016, combines cyber and electronic warfare under one organisational umbrella. In a conflict, cyber and electronic attacks would be employed to degrade command and control and fire support networks, including air defence radars.

In these battle conditions, weapon platforms like tanks must adapt to become more survivable. This will require a change in tactics and greater integration of different types of capabilities. With a plethora of sensors on the battlefield, it has become almost impossible to hide. Tanks will have to operate widely dispersed, accompanied by electronic warfare units to detect and jam aerial platforms, and short-range air defence units capable of bringing down UAVs/UCAVs.

We also cannot fight these battles in a defensive mode and must acquire a formidable unmanned aerial attack capability. In a recent interview, the Indian Air Force chief pointed out the limitations of attack drones and the issue with the costs of acquiring this capability. He was referring to the ongoing discussions with the US to procure 20 armed MQ-9 UAVs for an estimated cost of $3 billion.

Every piece of military equipment has some limitations, and it is in the integration of systems that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. As far as the cost is concerned, we must choose wisely. The Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie stealth drone is currently under development in collaboration with the US Air Force. With a range of almost 4,000 km and a weapon payload of 250 kg, the Valkyrie comes with a $2 million apiece price tag. That translates to 50 drones for the cost of one Rafale aircraft.
Even the well intentioned good general hooda has not a single word for Ghatak or Rustom but advocating in favor of Valkryie. If cost is the issue, then what better way than to boost Ghatak and Rustom inductions.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by brar_w »

Rony wrote:Even the well intentioned good general hooda has not a single word for Ghatak or Rustom but advocating in favor of Valkryie. If cost is the issue, then what better way than to boost Ghatak and Rustom inductions.
I don't think he is "advocating" for Valkryie which is a proof-of-concept demonstrator and something leading the path towards an end product (as opposed to the end product itself). What he is saying is that the price point and cost-capability balance is shifting. Folks with real world operational experience and the ability to think through the application of this technology at scale from an operator's perspective, know what a C-ISR nightmare these things will be when they proliferate (and in a modern conflict if you have inadequate C-ISR you better be prepared for lots of hardware losses (and casualties) across the board). That itself is a significant dilemma for the enemy and a source of a pretty significant operational advantage for those who possess these systems and employ them wisely.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Karan M »

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:One of the key takeaways is the Pantsir AD system cannot see them, and it remains an essential component of our AD.
We dont field the Pantsir. We do field a large variety of radars that can detect these drones. Taking them down depends on the kind of drone - larger ones are invariably easier than the shorter range ones. The SR ones can be a PITA for troops in the FEBA.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:
Mukesh.Kumar wrote:One of the key takeaways is the Pantsir AD system cannot see them, and it remains an essential component of our AD.
We dont field the Pantsir. We do field a large variety of radars that can detect these drones. Taking them down depends on the kind of drone - larger ones are invariably easier than the shorter range ones. The SR ones can be a PITA for troops in the FEBA.
What kind of platforms do our neighbors have that can carry these SR types? Can units embedded with Akash take out the platform itself? Air superiority is an ABSOLUTE must in this situation. Possibly truck mounted CIWS as well. Any reason for the Pantsir being so ineffective? Was the acquisition range too short?
Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Kakarat »

In my view pantsit types are having a blind spot over the radar as they are facing the front and all systems are on a single vehicle, in case of our Akash/QRSAM type systems we have a tracking radar, a FCS radar and missile TEL all on different vehicles so should have better survival chances and if a couple of mobile CIWS gun is added to all types then it could be even better
I am not a expert and would be happy to be corrected
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by ParGha »

Rony wrote:X-post
wig wrote:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comme ... ger-155904 In drone era, tanks must adapt to last longer
Even the well intentioned good General Hooda has not a single word for Ghatak or Rustom but advocating in favor of Valkryie. If cost is the issue, then what better way than to boost Ghatak and Rustom inductions.
LTG Hooda is comparing Valkyrie's cost and capability with Rafale.

That said, the Army also needs to re-think its organization and employment of tanks. Make no mistake, at the end of the day, tanks are absolutely needed to punch though defenses and get the infantry "there". But tanks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to cheap UCAVs, VBIEDs, ATGMs, etc. So the organization and equipment of "armoured regiments" and "mechanized battalions" need to change to counter these threats. I don't want to go too off-topic on the UAV thread, so I will just say that the Recce Troop must be expanded to a Recce Squadron and it should include short-range UAVs; we can model alternate TOEs and employment tactics in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7818
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by brar_w »

Kakarat wrote:In my view pantsit types are having a blind spot over the radar as they are facing the front and all systems are on a single vehicle, in case of our Akash/QRSAM type systems we have a tracking radar, a FCS radar and missile TEL all on different vehicles so should have better survival chances and if a couple of mobile CIWS gun is added to all types then it could be even better
I am not a expert and would be happy to be corrected
Traditional air-defense systems are engineered with a varying degree of quite challenging requirements. You need a volume search sensor that can see your objective RCS at your objective range requirement (as a start) and needs to do it within a requisite time across a designated airspace. Your fire-control system needs to be able to be handle a set number of combined targets and perform discrimination and sometimes missile communication. When you layer logistics, and mobility requirements you often ask them to combine these tasks into one sensor (hence S-C bands are really popular across a host of naval and land based multi-functional sensors). It needs to be able to survive both active and passive denial measures across a wide range of potential targets. So you have very large RCS targets at very long ranges, high and fast targets and low and slow targets all sort of feeding into the combined search, tracking and fire control requirements. These are challenging requirements requiring real world trades (you can't have it all, all the time). So the fact that they may have struggled with a certain target set isn't all that surprising.

If you filter your requirements to just one or two target sets like, for example, providing short-medium range surveillance and fire-control against say Group 1 to Group 3 classes of UAS then you can optimize your systems so that all their engineering (in design and system trades) is being focused on detecting small to medium sized drones, in large quantity, often flying close to each other at low altitudes. This leads you down a UAS optimized sensor that has the capability to handle the target set, and has higher rate of success in finding all the targets at your desired ranges, desired altitudes and with the desired discrimination capability. When you get right down to Group 1 UAS, discriminating whether there is a group of 6 flying bunched up or 10 can mean life or death. C-UAS sensors cuing directed energy weapons, or even CRAM, need to be able to tell the C2 whether Kill-Option A can neutralize the given threat or they need to go to other options. If you make the wrong call there based on incorrect sensor input then the loitering munitions that get through could be enough to kill troops on the ground. If you claim more targets then actual then you may end up depleting your magazine faster than desired.

Here's a Group 1 - 3 optimized Counter UAS sensor. Notice that it is not a rotator and operates in a band that may otherwise not meet volume search requirements if you had to optimize for a larger and broader target set. But is great for detecting and tracking really small objects, often close to each other, at short-medium ranges. Objects like RAM and G 1-3 UASs. You don't need a 300 km sensor for this threat. You need one that picks up nearly everything, all the time, at just enough of a range to be out of the EO/IR and targeting window of these UAV's. When you work with those requirements you can optimize sensors for it. And as these systems proliferate, C-UAS optimized sensors (RF, IR, Acoustic, and RF-passive) will be the way everyone goes. When a particular threat advances beyond just being a nuisance most operators begin demanding highly optimized solutions to combat it. This is not too different from TBM proliferation forcing operators to demand BMD specific sensors and shooter solutions. A higher fidelity (to the threat) threat specific sensor that is more accurate and has the requisite discrimination abilities takes the requirements "pressure" off of the interceptor and allows you to design extremely low cost interceptors. Ultimately, when DEW's become real (in numbers) the ability to pin point a target (for EO/IR handoff) is going to be critical and may in fact influence the range and dwell times of your HEL.

Folks in the media who are getting alarmed at these AD's being destroyed by loitering munitions are just not staying up with the times. They would react very differently if these systems failed against a hypothetical SR-71 for example and would be quick to point to the speed and altitude challenges associated with that target. Loitering munitions come in a lot of shapes and sizes ranging from 3 kg systems to 500 kg systems. A half a dozen 20 kg loitering munitions flying at 500 ft might not be as fancy as an SR-71 but it does pose a significant sensor and shooter challenge. And remember, only one of these things has to sneak past. Some of these warheads on sub 50 lb systems are getting really capable against even moderately armored targets. Against larger loitering munitions and UAV's, you need to get every one of them, all the time.
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Larry Walker »

If İraq had same kind of UAV's that Armenia/Azerbaijan have today, would it have defeated American Abrams in their dash to Baghdad?
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by nam »

No. it might have caused more causalities among US forces, but won't change the result. The Azer UAVs are good against those who cannot field strong airpower.

Having said that if Iraq was able to fire say thousands of loitering killer drones towards incoming US armor divisions, it would have caused substantial destruction.

However US wouldn't be US, if they hadn't applied a solution to "swarm drones" before going to war. Ultimately the result wouldn't change.
Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Kakarat »

brar_w wrote:
Kakarat wrote:...
Traditional air-defense systems are engineered with a varying degree of quite challenging requirements. You need a volume search sensor that can see your objective RCS at your objective range requirement (as a start) and needs to do it within a requisite time across a designated airspace. Your fire-control system needs to be able to be handle a set number of combined targets and perform discrimination and sometimes missile communication. When you layer logistics, and mobility requirements you often ask them to combine these tasks into one sensor (hence S-C bands are really popular across a host of naval and land based multi-functional sensors). It needs to be able to survive both active and passive denial measures across a wide range of potential targets. So you have very large RCS targets at very long ranges, high and fast targets and low and slow targets all sort of feeding into the combined search, tracking and fire control requirements. These are challenging requirements requiring real world trades (you can't have it all, all the time). So the fact that they may have struggled with a certain target set isn't all that surprising.

If you filter your requirements to just one or two target sets like, for example, providing short-medium range surveillance and fire-control against say Group 1 to Group 3 classes of UAS then you can optimize your systems so that all their engineering (in design and system trades) is being focused on detecting small to medium sized drones, in large quantity, often flying close to each other at low altitudes. This leads you down a UAS optimized sensor that has the capability to handle the target set, and has higher rate of success in finding all the targets at your desired ranges, desired altitudes and with the desired discrimination capability. When you get right down to Group 1 UAS, discriminating whether there is a group of 6 flying bunched up or 10 can mean life or death. C-UAS sensors cuing directed energy weapons, or even CRAM, need to be able to tell the C2 whether Kill-Option A can neutralize the given threat or they need to go to other options. If you make the wrong call there based on incorrect sensor input then the loitering munitions that get through could be enough to kill troops on the ground. If you claim more targets then actual then you may end up depleting your magazine faster than desired.

Here's a Group 1 - 3 optimized Counter UAS sensor. Notice that it is not a rotator and operates in a band that may otherwise not meet volume search requirements if you had to optimize for a larger and broader target set. But is great for detecting and tracking really small objects, often close to each other, at short-medium ranges. Objects like RAM and G 1-3 UASs. You don't need a 300 km sensor for this threat. You need one that picks up nearly everything, all the time, at just enough of a range to be out of the EO/IR and targeting window of these UAV's. When you work with those requirements you can optimize sensors for it. And as these systems proliferate, C-UAS optimized sensors (RF, IR, Acoustic, and RF-passive) will be the way everyone goes. When a particular threat advances beyond just being a nuisance most operators begin demanding highly optimized solutions to combat it. This is not too different from TBM proliferation forcing operators to demand BMD specific sensors and shooter solutions. A higher fidelity (to the threat) threat specific sensor that is more accurate and has the requisite discrimination abilities takes the requirements "pressure" off of the interceptor and allows you to design extremely low cost interceptors. Ultimately, when DEW's become real (in numbers) the ability to pin point a target (for EO/IR handoff) is going to be critical and may in fact influence the range and dwell times of your HEL.

Folks in the media who are getting alarmed at these AD's being destroyed by loitering munitions are just not staying up with the times. They would react very differently if these systems failed against a hypothetical SR-71 for example and would be quick to point to the speed and altitude challenges associated with that target. Loitering munitions come in a lot of shapes and sizes ranging from 3 kg systems to 500 kg systems. A half a dozen 20 kg loitering munitions flying at 500 ft might not be as fancy as an SR-71 but it does pose a significant sensor and shooter challenge. And remember, only one of these things has to sneak past. Some of these warheads on sub 50 lb systems are getting really capable against even moderately armored targets. Against larger loitering munitions and UAV's, you need to get every one of them, all the time.
Thank You for the detailed explanation
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by brar_w »

Larry Walker wrote:If İraq had same kind of UAV's that Armenia/Azerbaijan have today, would it have defeated American Abrams in their dash to Baghdad?
No but it would have likely resulted in a redistribution of resources from SEAD to C-ISR and required them to do that first before moving in ground troops at scale. Early 2000s was also when the US Army had fairly decent SHORAD capability. The Avenger force IIRC was divested later in favor of more pressing budget commitments at the time (like MRAPS and Counter IED systems) so a fair number of systems remained in the active army units (which were pushed out to the ANG later to make budget room for other stuff). Given where technology was at the time, an IED was more effective than loitering munitions at the time because against an enemy like the US mass employment of these systems requires a survivable layer of ISR and C2. Something that can withstand the type of air power that can be unleashed.
nam wrote:Having said that if Iraq was able to fire say thousands of loitering killer drones towards incoming US armor divisions, it would have caused substantial destruction.

However US wouldn't be US, if they hadn't applied a solution to "swarm drones" before going to war. Ultimately the result wouldn't change.
If Iraq could field thousands of swarming loitering munitions, a technology which the US itself is trying to develop right now (in 2020), then this would have been a major national security policy and Science and technology industrial base failure. Possibly second only to Sputnik. The entire reason that DARPA exists is to precisely prevent this sort of strategic surprise and gut punch like what Sputnik did which led to the creation of ARPA about a year later. Such a technological surprise is probably more likely to come from China than from an Iraq or Iran IMHO.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by nam »

True. Most of the UAV based solutions require huge numbers to make an effect. When you need something in large numbers, you cannot hide them. So it will not be a surprise.

Moreover for a nation like US, a surprise will be only during the initial phase of an offensive by the adversary. It can bring in a counter fairly soon and continue the war.

In case of Azeris, one thing you have to give credit is that they took an asymmetric path. Instead of investing in to manned fighters, who are susceptible to ground based SAM, which Armenia has (like S300), they invested in to UCAV & loitering drones.

Fundamentally loitering airforce. Produced the loitering drones locally. The drones are getting through the Armenian AD net. The drones may or may not win the war for Azeris, but it allow them to break through the Armenian lines.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Post by Rony »

Raising a swarm
The armed forces, behind the curve on weaponized drones, are rushing to fill the gap through imports. The tougher ask, though, is to develop an indigenous ecosystem for these must-have platforms.
Image
India’s military standoff with China in Ladakh, now in its sixth month, has resulted in an increased focus on equipping the armed forces. One piece of hardware has topped the acquisition wishlist of all three branches of the armed forces, drones. The urgency with which these weapons systems are now being acquired, via fast-track purchases and deliveries in months, not years, speaks of the growing importance being attached to these force multipliers.

The army is looking for man-portable surveillance drones that can operate at the rarefied altitudes of its northern theatre. It also wants bigger, armed drones that can target terrorist camps across the Pakistani border with precision missiles. The navy hopes to close a fast-track contract to acquire 10 UASes (unmanned aerial systems) that can operate off its warships, before the end of the financial year. The three services will get their first weaponised drones in an off-the-shelf purchase of six MQ-9B Sky Guardians from the United States. The deal is worth over Rs 4,000 crore, with an option to buy 18 more over the next few years. The contract closest to being signed, however, is the Rs 5,500 crore Project Cheetah, to upgrade the ‘Heron’ medium-altitude long-endurance drone fleet with all three services. The defence ministry has finished price negotiations with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for the upgrade, this will convert the fleet of primarily ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) drones, acquired over a decade ago, into weapons platforms. The project, which will equip them with satellite navigation, air-to-ground missiles and precision weapons, is awaiting sanction from the cabinet committee on security (see Drones on the Horizon). These proposals will see the armed forces collectively spending close to Rs 36,000 crore ($5 billion) over the next few years.
In India, along the tense frontiers of the subcontinent, both Pakistan and China are using drones with increased frequency. Over the past 13 months, security forces in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir have intercepted five drone ‘mules’, operated by Pakistan’s ISI (Inter Services Intelligence), ferrying weapons and ammunition to Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists. The Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) has an array of tactical surveillance drones for snooping on Indian positions in Ladakh. Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces routinely publish propaganda videos of their new unmanned helicopter drones, optimised for high-altitude operations, performing mundane tasks, such as delivering hot food to troops.
The Indian armed forces’ drone acquisitions have been long in the pipeline. With indigenous programmes slow to materialise, foreign firms have captured India’s market for these weapons platforms. Even so, progress has been slow. Project Cheetah was approved by the defence acquisition council (DAC) nearly a decade ago, in 2011. And in 2015, the navy had put out a request for information (the first step in an acquisition) for naval shipborne UASes. These are urgently required, especially for non-combat missions. Platforms like the MQ-9B Guardian will allow the armed forces to reduce running costs on tasks like distant maritime surveillance and patrolling the land borders. “The MQ-9B is satellite-steered, can float above the target at 45,000 feet and stay on task for 35 hours, using radar and electronic support measures to locate the enemy. It [can be used] anywhere, the Gulf of Aden or the Malacca Straits or in Ladakh,” a senior defence official says. Each one costs close to Rs 900 crore, the reason at least one of the three services is believed to have had second thoughts on acquiring them. But these off-the-shelf imports, with zero transfer of technology, come with other costs. They ensure continued import dependency on Israel, and now, the United States.

It is in the category of HALE and MALE (high-altitude and medium-altitude long-endurance) UASes that the voids are most glaring (see Handheld to High Altitude). There are currently no indigenously designed or built short- or medium-range surveillance drones in the Indian armed forces’ inventory. The DRDO’s (Defence Research and Development Organisation’s) Rustom 1 has no orders. The Rustom 2, meant to be an alternative to the Israeli MALE Heron, is still in development. The platform has had two successful flights this year and the DRDO is hopeful of a breakthrough by next year.
India’s fledgling group of drone developers can only watch these developments with dismay. As one developer says, India’s R&D spending on drone technologies is not even equal to the annual maintenance costs of the fleet of imported systems. For the armed forces, indigenous drones hold out not only the potential of becoming force multipliers, but with budgetary cuts, as a low-cost solution to meet operational requirements. “Military aviation comes at a huge cost, the navy, the Cinderella service (its 15 per cent share is the smallest of the defence budget), has to be extremely thrifty. Unmanned surveillance gives us a huge tactical advantage on the seas, which satellite and aircraft-based surveillance don’t give us,” says Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai, former Flag Officer Naval Aviation. While there are domestic joint ventures to build such platforms, for instance, Adani Defence has teamed up with Israel’s Elbit to build drones within the country, these will not be indigenously designed or developed. “We are drone assemblers, not UAS developers,” says a private sector drone maker.

The DRDO has been slow to meet the requirements of the armed forces. It has succeeded in fielding pilotless target aircraft like the Lakshya but products like the Nishant short-ranged surveillance drone have had a tardy record with the services.

The DRDO has had more success in developing mini and micro UAVs.
It says it has transferred dronetechnology to industry partners for various systems and established them as aerospace industries for supplying sub systems and components. In 2010, the DRDO and the Department of Science and Technology funded the National Programme for Micro Air Vehicles (NP-MICAV) to promote R&D in mini and micro UAVs. The organisation says it has left the development of these small UAVs to industries and academia while it focuses on MALE, HALE and weaponised UAVS.

A 2019 FICCI and EY report projects the Indian civilian UAS market to touch $885.7 million (Rs 6,500 crore) by 2021 on the back of their utility in infrastructure, photography and agriculture. There are no estimates for the military and security forces, but this would be larger. The lack of a long-term acquisition plan or a roadmap, a version of the integrated guided missile development programme for drones, means there is virtually no indigenous ecosystem for UASes. Worse, all the major components for lightweight drones, the auto-pilot or the brain of the machine, the battery pack, the motherboard and the propellers and motors, are imported, the majority from the world leader in drones, China.

“There is a need for an integrated development program, but before that it is essential to identify their role and how they fit into future war fighting tactics,” says Lt General D.S. Hooda, former Northern Army Commander. “Right now we are buying what is available rather than what could be needed, for example, the Guardian. Initially it was proposed for the Navy and then all three services wanted it. We need to procure based on the operational requirements.” Future war is based on electronics, software and sensors. The combat drone, developers say, is all of that. “Why just drones, the technology that would be developed can be used in a range of situations, from unmanned ground vehicles to naval applications,” says a drone developer, who requested anonymity.


There is exactly one project which currently holds out a glimmer of hope for futuristic military projects, the Mehar Baba Swarm Drone Competition, an IAF-funded project for creating swarm drones. The winner of the contest to build a fleet of 50 drones to deliver humanitarian assistance and disaster relief will bag a Rs 100 crore IAF contract.

But such projects, which bring in the brightest in Indian industry, are few and far between. The question, as always, is who will fund these projects. “Our systems are process-oriented and not goal-oriented,” says Sameer Joshi, a former IAF fighter pilot who is part of a team of developers who are in the contest for the project.
Developers point to Turkey, which has built up an ecosystem over the past 15 years and is now a world leader in armed drones. Turkish armed drones have tipped the scales in virtually every recent conflict in its extended neighbourhood, from Syria and Libya to Nagorno Karabakh. It might only be a matter of time before drones appear in our neighbourhood too, as a wake-up call.
Post Reply