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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2015 09:52

Thakur_B wrote:ADE has put out couple of tenders for weapons bay teast rig and weapons bay door operating system. Does it mean they have started working on Ghatak/AURA/ISUAV?


You mean from RDE(E). Whatever it is for, it is very hush hush!

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Thakur_B » 06 Nov 2015 05:28

indranilroy wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:ADE has put out couple of tenders for weapons bay teast rig and weapons bay door operating system. Does it mean they have started working on Ghatak/AURA/ISUAV?


You mean from RDE(E). Whatever it is for, it is very hush hush!


Yes RDE(E). Very hush hush indeed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby shiv » 06 Nov 2015 05:50

Nitesh wrote:source: irdw, so please take it FWIW

http://idrw.org/all-out-effort-to-carry ... this-month



indranilroy wrote:Some other details:
1. A number of companies worldwide are engaged in the development and manufacture of small gas turbines for specific applications. The major companies like Garret of Allied Signals, Sundstrand of Solar Turbines, Turbomecca, Micro turbo, Williams, Saturn, etc., are manufacturing small engines for specific application. These engines are not available to India for Unmanned aerial vehicle application.

Both these posts show how the MTCR is simply designed to delay the entry of middle tech nations into a higher tech level and ensure that all exports to lower tech nations go from the top tech nations.

The only solution is to build in house. Initially our products will be heavier, less reliable and less efficient and may be laughed at the way we (by clubbing ourselves mentally with Amrika) laugh an Chinese tech. But that is the only way forward.

I keep hearing the name Moog for actuators. Moog always has a stall at Aero India but I do recall that there were some Indian built actuators on display after 1998 sanction? Are we still dependent on Moog for control surface actuators?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 06 Nov 2015 12:36

India’s Own MALE UAV To Fly Soon
by Neelam Mathews
- November 5, 2015, 11:23 AM

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... v-fly-soon

The Rustom-2 medium altitude long endurance (MALE) unmanned air vehicle (UAV) designed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) will make its first flight by early next month. Delayed by around two years, Rustom-2 “is at an advanced state of readiness,” according to Ashok Rangan, the program director at the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a DRDO laboratory that develops and transfers technology to a production agency. The project was first shown as a full-scale model at the Aero India show in 2010.

Rangan told AIN that Rustom-2 is benefiting from experience gained with the Rustom-1, also known as the Light Canard Research Aircraft (LCRA). This project of the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) developed a small UAV that resembled the Rutan Long-EZ manned sportplane. It flew 55 times and still has “enormous scope and potential,” according to Rangan.

Rustom-2 will be further developed and produced by a consortium comprising Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), DRDO and Bharat Electronics Ltd. They have jointly invested $46 million, Rangan told a UAV seminar held in New Delhi this week. The initial requirement is for 76 for the the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force.

Rangan explained the third and fourth airframes are going through a design validation phase that would end in January 2016. The fifth to eighth airframes for the user evaluation phase have been ordered. They will evaluate payloads including electro-optics, synthetic aperture radar, multifunction phased array radar, electronic intelligence and satcom. Rangan told AIN airframes 9 to 15 will follow from the production line by early 2017.

The biggest challenge being faced is an overweight airframe. “Today it weighs 2,400 kg [5,300 pounds]. We are looking to bring that down to 1,700 kg [3,700 pounds] after delivery of the first 24,” Rangan said. The military has set exacting qualitative requirements, he added, including multi-sensor payloads weighing no more than 360 kg (800 pounds) and an endurance of 25 hours. The added weight obliged ADE to fit larger powerplants: Austro Engine AE300 diesels rated at 170 hp.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Gyan » 07 Nov 2015 13:36

Austin wrote:India’s Own MALE UAV To Fly Soon
by Neelam Mathews
- November 5, 2015, 11:23 AM

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... v-fly-soon

The Rustom-2 medium altitude long endurance (MALE) unmanned air vehicle (UAV) designed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) will make its first flight by early next month. Delayed by around two years, Rustom-2 “is at an advanced state of readiness,” according to Ashok Rangan, the program director at the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a DRDO laboratory that develops and transfers technology to a production agency. The project was first shown as a full-scale model at the Aero India show in 2010.

Rangan told AIN that Rustom-2 is benefiting from experience gained with the Rustom-1, also known as the Light Canard Research Aircraft (LCRA). This project of the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) developed a small UAV that resembled the Rutan Long-EZ manned sportplane. It flew 55 times and still has “enormous scope and potential,” according to Rangan.

Rustom-2 will be further developed and produced by a consortium comprising Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), DRDO and Bharat Electronics Ltd. They have jointly invested $46 million, Rangan told a UAV seminar held in New Delhi this week. The initial requirement is for 76 for the the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force.

Rangan explained the third and fourth airframes are going through a design validation phase that would end in January 2016. The fifth to eighth airframes for the user evaluation phase have been ordered. They will evaluate payloads including electro-optics, synthetic aperture radar, multifunction phased array radar, electronic intelligence and satcom. Rangan told AIN airframes 9 to 15 will follow from the production line by early 2017.

The biggest challenge being faced is an overweight airframe. “Today it weighs 2,400 kg [5,300 pounds]. We are looking to bring that down to 1,700 kg [3,700 pounds] after delivery of the first 24,” Rangan said. The military has set exacting qualitative requirements, he added, including multi-sensor payloads weighing no more than 360 kg (800 pounds) and an endurance of 25 hours. The added weight obliged ADE to fit larger powerplants: Austro Engine AE300 diesels rated at 170 hp.


700kg weight addition to estimated 1700kg is a very serious overshoot of almost 50%. Assuming 2400kg is the empty weight then:-

Empty weight 2400kg
Payload 350kg
Fuel 600kg
MTOW would be 3300-3500kg

Which means that weight estimate were wrong by 700/1700kg ie around 41%.

Alternative is that 2400kg is the MTOW:-

then Empty weight would be 1550kg
Payload 350kg
Fuel 500kg
MTOW 2400kg

Which would mean that weight estimate was off by 700/(1550-700) ie around 100%

Having said this, Why don't we just go in for turboprop Garrett engines, it will increase the max altitude from 35000 feet to around 50,000 feet and speed from 250km to 550 km/hr but their would be fall in endurance to say, 8-12hours from 25-50 hours.

asgkhan
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 17:19
Location: Helping BRF research how to seduce somali women

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby asgkhan » 11 Nov 2015 11:45


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19858
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2015 11:58

>>700kg weight addition to estimated 1700kg is a very serious overshoot of almost 50%. Assuming 2400kg is the empty weight then:-

depends on whether that was estimated to begin with or is a stretch goal.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Vipul » 14 Nov 2015 16:51

Government set to clear Rs 3,000 crore plan to develop engine for India's first UCAV.

The Narendra Modi government is set to give the green light to a Rs 3,000­ crore plan to develop Ghatak, a new engine that will power India's first unmanned combat aircraft, or drones capable of delivering bombs as well as tackling aerial threats, as part of a project that envisages major participation of the private sector.

Ghatak will be a derivative of the abandoned Kaveri project that had been in the works for over two decades, officials said. The key difference in the current plan is the proposed participation of the private sector in a significant way.

"This is one project in which the private industry will be brought into the picture from the very start," said a senior official, who did not wish to be identified. "Very high­end technology is required for the UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) and several industry houses in India are capable of developing and absorbing this technology," he said.

The Indian UCAV project is tentatively called Autonomous Unmanned Research Aircraft (AURA). The target is to get the system operational within eight years once the funds are cleared by the government, officials said. The original Kaveri project was meant to power the light combat aircraft but it got shelved as the engine could not deliver sufficient thrust for the fighter aircraft. In its revived avatar, the engine will be modified and its afterburners will be removed to power the first Indian UCAV.

While a similar plan was mooted by the state­run Defence Research & Development Organisation ( DRDO) during the term of the previous United Progressive Alliance government, the body had pegged the project cost at close to Rs 800 crore at the time.

However, the then government did not clear funds for the project. The main challenge in getting AURA operational, according to experts, is its central theme of stealth. The drone is being designed to be invisible to radars with its radical 'flying wing design'.

The absence of a 'tail' to guide and manoeuvre the drone will require advanced programming and a cutting edge flight control system to keep it in the air. Besides AURA, India is currently working on at least one more futuristic combat aircraft programme — the Advanced Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, or AMCA, aimed at developing a manned fighter jet.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19858
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2015 07:27

Useful as a TD but the parachute landing system didn't work out..same issue as with other UAVs of the same type which also saw high attrition and were dropped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Phoenix

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 809095.cms

DRDO's two-decade-old Nishant UAV programme crashes; Indian Army cancels further orders
17 Nov, 2015, 04.00AM IST

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_24684 » 17 Nov 2015 08:06

.

and the DRDO's Made in India Nishant UAV

DRDO's two-decade-old Nishant UAV programme crashes; Indian Army cancels further orders

A two-decade-old Rs 90 cr Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) programme has proved a dud, with the Indian Army shelving the system and cancelling any further orders after three of the four systems supplied by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) ended up in crashes. As a result, DRDO may need to write off a Rs 5 crore overspend it incurred on the project in the hope of recovering the money from the maintenance and servicing of the systems.

The Nishant UAV programme, which has been in the works since 1995, was launched with the aim of providing the Army with indigenous systems for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. While four of the UAVs were inducted in 2011 after a long delay, at least three are confirmed to have crashed. The last one went down on November 4 in Jaisalmer.

According to documents accessed by ET, the Army has now told DRDO that it will not need any additional Nishant systems, junking phase II of the programme under which eight more UAVs were to be delivered. The first phase of the programme cost Rs 90 cr. "The user has stated that there is no requirement of additional Nishant UAV systems, therefore the phase 2 of the project is closed and no more funds are going to come for this project," a letter sent to the Aeronautical Development Establishment by DRDO headquarters reads.

While DRDO was hopeful of selling eight more aircraft and two more ground systems to the Army, with the cancellation of the order it will now have to write off at least Rs 5 cr of the development costs that it overspent. A blame game is on between the DRDO and the Army over the three crashes. In the past DRDO has blamed poor handling by the army for the loss of at least two systems. However, the army has contended that the system has failed to perform and has technical problems during the recovery phase that have not been sorted out. The latest crash of the system took place with a DRDO operator present and was clearly due to the failure of the parachute recovery system that resulted in the loss of the Rs 22 cr aircraft, people familiar with the matter said.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 809095.cms

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Gyan » 17 Nov 2015 08:08

Israeli lobby has successfully obstructed Indian UAV programme like they unsuccessfully tried to do with Akash.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19858
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2015 08:26

Well, in a sense yes, because the Searcher is easier to operate with a CTOL. This is a classic case of IA/DRDO asking for something that it later realized it didn't want - a truck launched UAV with a complex recovery system. If the CTOL version of Nishant replaces Searcher imports, then its all good.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2632
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 17 Nov 2015 11:01

I hope panchi is not canceled. A future UAV that can be rail launched could be quite useful for the navy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby SaiK » 18 Nov 2015 02:51

Doesn't it mean DRDO simply failed to assess IA requirements, politics and competitor offer & capabilities?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1654
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 18 Nov 2015 03:14

SaiK wrote:Doesn't it mean DRDO simply failed to assess IA requirements, politics and competitor offer & capabilities?


So DRDO thought IA meant rail-launched when they actually meant CTOL system? And they are no commercial arm either.

Its not a case of perception but evolving needs. IA in the beginning never thought of MALE UAV, instead short legged which might have to operate from fwd bases and that too in LOS communication. Back then UAVs were not reapers.

But cancelling the program because of 1 crash (in Service) and after it passed everything is a bummer.

Make in India sounds more and more farce as lot of local products are getting wrapped in favour of imports.
Last edited by Sid on 18 Nov 2015 03:21, edited 1 time in total.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby member_29172 » 18 Nov 2015 03:17

SaiK wrote:Doesn't it mean DRDO simply failed to assess IA requirements, politics and competitor offer & capabilities?


The same IA that sleeps till the project is completed and the prototype ready and then starts listing out it's requirements? :roll:

Either way, Nishant has been used in some capacity since 2009 atleast so I am not sure how it's a dud.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby John » 18 Nov 2015 04:14

Sid wrote:But cancelling the program because of 1 crash (in Service) and after it passed everything is a bumme

As per article 3 have crashed since they were inducted in 2011. No matter how its spun it is terrible track record. I know its trend to blame everything on IA for it being canned.

While ignoring the obvious; A16 year delay in which time the UAV segment had changed, high operating cost, outdated design and crash rate. Army did it's best to support this let's be thankful of that and assign blame where it belongs.
Last edited by John on 18 Nov 2015 04:31, edited 3 times in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2632
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 18 Nov 2015 04:14

I think IA operates so many different UAV systems now, that this is probably redundant and the crashes don't help either.

Panchi should be more effective IMO

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1654
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Sid » 18 Nov 2015 05:14

John wrote:
Sid wrote:But cancelling the program because of 1 crash (in Service) and after it passed everything is a bumme

As per article 3 have crashed since they were inducted in 2011. No matter how its spun it is terrible track record. I know its trend to blame everything on IA for it being canned.

While ignoring the obvious; A16 year delay in which time the UAV segment had changed, high operating cost, outdated design and crash rate. Army did it's best to support this let's be thankful of that and assign blame where it belongs.


Only other 2 crashes were during confirmatory trials in 2010. Its the first 'in service' crash as per Livefirst.

Its a paid FUD.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sum » 18 Nov 2015 06:34

^^ We now know what would have been the fate of LCA if even one crash had occurred during the 90s or early 2000s !!

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby John » 18 Nov 2015 06:54

Yes some where also reported damaged during takeoff. Crashes should not justify a cancellation of a program but considering one crashed with just handful in service it is not good sign and platform itself is quite expensive to maintain and operate. It's shame if drdo had delivered the product on time it would great stepping stone for more advanced uav platforms. But now we are playing catch up.

Army seems to have made the right move to save cost why the constant second guessing of decisions made by armed services.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1875
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby uddu » 18 Nov 2015 07:32

Today armed forces do have much more option. Newer technology is going into Panchi, Rustom-1 variants. Once Rustom-II starts to fly and India becomes self reliant in UAV technology, the imports of UAV's will stop.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby srin » 18 Nov 2015 10:40

It's a shame that it didn't work out. The para-drop landing was a very good idea. Could have been integral with army's mobile units. It would have helped the army when it is deployed far from airfields - in jungles, in valleys and after it has crossed the border.

For those roles the only viable alternative seems to be rotary UAVs - something like Firescout or a big quadcopter.

CTOL UAVs for all other cases.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19858
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 18 Nov 2015 13:15

While Nishant's cancellation would be disappointing, we have reports that there are 76 Rustoms on indent (though caution is warranted as these are not confirmed orders as is the usual practice from the services, so nothing new there) & the Ghatak program is also being cleared. There are also the NLGB and Nirbhay programs at ADE plus the MAVs. IMO, a lot exists for ADE to focus on and get into service with or without the Nishant.

The most important thing is that most of the tech developed via Nishant has matured, datalinks, Ground control centers, autopilots & onboard systems including actuators. The engines were also indigenized IIRC and a 120 hp derivative designed for Rustom, but its weight concerns meant that again, an import was required. At any rate, the program has done its best to give us the core technologies to run forward. What we need to do is ensure the services understand the industrial aspect and follow on programs progressed asap so these technologies (thankfully most are via large firms or DRDO so they won't be "lost" as would be the case if a small firm disappeared) still go into series production. ECIL did the actuators, ADE/L&T/BEL the onboard DFCC/OBC, DEAL/BEL the datalinks, IRDE/Alpha/BEL the payloads and ADE/BEL the Ground Control Stations. The structures IIRC were either by HAL or Taneja.

It must also be remembered that the overall Nishant order was just 12 systems, 4+8. The IA had no interest whatsoever in placing more orders, judging by my own interactions with IA and ADE folks and were definitely interested in cancelling it. Per se, its not just the crashes, because without automatic Take off and landing ATOL, many of our UAVs have had crashes. Its basically a UAV IA has decided does not fit into its doctrine anymore so would be ok without.

IMO, the DM needs to ensure Nishant orders or focus transfers to the CTOL variant (Panchi) or the Rustom-1 because that can supplant the Searcher series in IA service. Also the ADE microUAVs need to be ordered in bulk as well. For IA troops they would be invaluable at the section level. Hankering for the best of the best imports is all well, but they are far too expensive to be deployed in bulk.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4724
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby srai » 18 Nov 2015 13:34

^^^

I think it's the type of reporting that's the problem. They try to portray Nishant (or indigenous product) in bad-light for reasons of cancellation when the main reason seems to be that the IA has far-longer ranged Searcher-II UAVs and other indigenous UAVs in the pipeline. Nishant didn't fit into its picture anymore.

In any case, 12 Nishant systems project order is minuscule. The IA, if it were very supportive of indigenous effort, would have kept these around and found use for them. Cost is not much when compared to billions of dollars of other acquisitions in its plans. Maybe BSF or other paramilitaries can find use for them?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19858
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Karan M » 18 Nov 2015 13:36

Agree with both points. Issue is if IA doesnt order and it gets a bad name then even paramils may demur. Plus the landing system is basically only good for x-uses and then refurb if nothing goes wrong.. hopefully the Panchi is ready..

Lets see..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 18 Nov 2015 13:40

Nishant program has always been neglected by Armed Forces since its inception , When I met the project Dir of Nishant in 2005 AI he was a very disheartned person and mentioned the same that support is not available , they even changed the engine to fuel effecient iirc called Wankel engine and it was put to repeted trial at Kolar with no order in sight , They planned to increase it endurance from 4 hours then to twice or thrice of that. Nishant didnt need any pre-pared surface to take off so was very flexible in deployment were ever you could move the 4 wheeler truck it could be launched.

With the availability of more capable UAV from abroad , Armed Forces had little incentive to support Nishant which was any ways a neglected program since its inception , Sad to see it go.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2632
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Cybaru » 18 Nov 2015 13:47

Unless it's an cost issue of Panchi vs Rustom-1, I suspect that Rustom-1 will probably get ordered more than Panchi. Perhaps the 45kg Payload will be enough for BSF type roles. The 95KG payload of Rustom-1 is more flexible and configurable and it has longer range and ceiling as well.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 12:01

2nd Crash of Nishant UAV in 15 day

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 849121.cms

Army sources said the UAV, the last of the four inducted in 2011, crashed near Pokhran in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan.

The last crash took place in the same area on November 4. "Today's crash is due to a technical glitch," the sources said.

A blame game is on between the DRDO and the Army over the three earlier crashes.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sum » 20 Nov 2015 12:47

^^ Should be the final burial of the Nishant programme with all of them now down and out!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23968
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby chetak » 20 Nov 2015 13:34

sum wrote:^^ Should be the final burial of the Nishant programme with all of them now down and out!


if it has hit wires or power lines while landing, it is most probably pilot error.

unless it failed at the very instant it was in the vicinity of the power line / wires :)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sum » 20 Nov 2015 13:42

^^ Reprot says that it lost control while in flight and then hit the wires when out of control ( IIRC< another article posted in the other thread gave the detail)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 14:45

Dont UAV have higher crash rate , I recollect reading Searcher UAV crashes in the past.

Also we need to know how many hours of flying do failures for Nishant occur compared to other UAV IA operates.

Higher Crashes rate is a generic statement like higher crash rate of Mig-21

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby Neela » 20 Nov 2015 16:04

Saurav jha on Twitter.
No crashes when ADE demoed Nishant 30 times.
HHinting sabotage

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4724
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby srai » 20 Nov 2015 18:43

Neela wrote:Saurav jha on Twitter.
No crashes when ADE demoed Nishant 30 times.
HHinting sabotage


Arjun redux.

The amount of testing an indigenous product goes through prior to induction is much more rigorous than for imported ones. Multiple cycles of user testing in all Indian conditions--winter, summer, desert, high altitude, sea, humidity--seems to be norm for indigenous products. Only when all bugs and enhancements are addressed they get inducted (albeit it seems in low quantities). Then after all that when in service suddenly these very products start having issues and get highlighted by media in very biased negative light. Some blame can be attributed to production build quality but there are other issues that are related to poor management of spares by the user. This gets reported as most of the fleet grounded; it's an inferior desi product.

The whole timing of the crash, the article hit job, and cancellation of remaining order seem bit suspicious. Maybe a black box needs to be installed as well ;)

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1449
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby sooraj » 20 Nov 2015 19:37

Imagine if this happens to LCA

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4724
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby srai » 20 Nov 2015 19:48

Not hard to imagine.

The amount of negative press the LCA gets with quotes from "unnamed IAF official(s)" far outweighs whatever bits of positive news that comes from official IAF statements. More signs that point to a disinterested user than the one looking forward to its induction. Self-fulfilling prophecy?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby vishvak » 20 Nov 2015 22:11

srai wrote:<SNIP>
Arjun redux.

The amount of testing an indigenous product goes through prior to induction is much more rigorous than for imported ones. Multiple cycles of user testing in all Indian conditions--winter, summer, desert, high altitude, sea, humidity--seems to be norm for indigenous products. Only when all bugs and enhancements are addressed they get inducted (albeit it seems in low quantities). <SNIP>

This is just one but good enough reason for indigenous products to be supported continuously.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2015 00:05

srai wrote:The amount of testing an indigenous product goes through prior to induction is much more rigorous than for imported ones. Multiple cycles of user testing in all Indian conditions--winter, summer, desert, high altitude, sea, humidity--seems to be norm for indigenous products. Only when all bugs and enhancements are addressed they get inducted (albeit it seems in low quantities). Then after all that when in service suddenly these very products start having issues and get highlighted by media in very biased negative light. Some blame can be attributed to production build quality but there are other issues that are related to poor management of spares by the user. This gets reported as most of the fleet grounded; it's an inferior desi product.


srai, foreign or domestic, products are equally tested and vendors are penalized.

For example, INS Vikramaditya boiler lining came off during testing. The ship was sent back to the shipyard. After the lining was repaired, re-tested, only then was the ship commissioned.

Second example, INS Talwar. Trials in June 2002 revealed defects in underwater hull and in weapon system including missiles and rejected the ship. July 2002 Russian Government appointed a High Power Inter Disciplinary Committee to rectify all issues. The ship was again trialed in mid 2003 and commissioned June 2003.

Liquidated damages of 5% of contract for delay in delivery (approx. 170 odd crores) was levied, that Russia adjusted against the next batch of ships.

Recovering cash is difficult, whether municipal footpath constructor or shipyard, because materials have to be procured and workers & shareholders paid.

Its interesting to note that liquidated damages against Indian Shipyards for delay in delivery is waived off. All ships, Shivalik to Kolkata to Kamorta were significantly delayed. Reason cited is government cannot levy penalty on government.

Are Indian products tested more than foreign products? Here is the explanation.

I'll categorize testing in two parts for the purpose of this discussion, product testing and operational testing.

Product testing is whether the product works.

Operational testing is whether the product works under operational conditions.

For Indian products, both parts are required. For foreign products, only the second part is required.

For foreign products like C-130 or Mirage 2000, product testing data is available during certification by home country. Test Pilots like Prithi Singh or Philip Rajkumar can validate product performance data provided by home country in a few flights.

For Tejas, Test Pilots have to gradually open up the envelope. One cannot take Tejas to 24 degree AoA in a single flight. It has to be done gradually over multiple flights gradually increasing the AoA.

For Mirage 2000, an Indian test pilot can straight go to 24 degree AoA in a single flight. Because French test pilot have already done the work of testing the aircraft up to 24 degree AoA before India decided to evaluate & buy it.

For example, as a part of Tejas product testing, it had to undertake wake penetration trials for CEMILAC to certify the aircraft was safe.

For C-130, USAF has already tested & certified C-130 for wake penetration. Based on the USAF certification, ASTE does not need to conduct wake penetration trails for C-130 and CEMILAC does not need to re-certify it.

While testing operationally, the Apache would've already been tested in Alaska and kinks ironed out. So it performs well in cold weather trials in Leh. The LCH, while flying for the first time in Leh, might show kinks, that after rectification, may require second round of testing possible only next year in Leh.

This gives the impression to readers like you that foreign products are tested less.

Because we use home country certifications and performance parameters that for indigenous products have to be gradually tested, benchmarked & certified by CEMILAC.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech

Postby nachiket » 21 Nov 2015 02:42

tsarkar wrote:While testing operationally, the Apache would've already been tested in Alaska and kinks ironed out. So it performs well in cold weather trials in Leh. The LCH, while flying for the first time in Leh, might show kinks, that after rectification, may require second round of testing possible only next year in Leh.

How do we know? Maybe the home country never envisioned using the system in such circumstances. Also, Leh's hot and high conditions may not be present in Alaska. Recall what happened to T-90's French thermal sight in the Indian summer. Clearly, the Russians had never tested it in such weather. And we found out after the tanks were in IA service. Compared to that the Arjun was put through multiple trials in all conditions and IA still refused to order it until ALL recommended upgrades were carried out, to such an extent that it became a new tank with MkII designation.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests