India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

[Victor]

I very much doubt these guys who post about model air crafts Being that easy, have even touched one.

Just in case that was aimed at me, I've designed, built and flown model aircraft since I was 12 years old while I was in India. But coming back to the landing and takeoff discussion on Nishant, radio control of a model is a counter intuitive process and the first few tries are almost always disasters. This is why nowadays they strongly recommend a computer based RC simulator linked to an actual RC console so you don't break your hard work. It's completely different from a computer based flight simulator which is more like actually flying a plane. Some passable simulators are available for Android, just enter "RC simulator". In RC, left, right, up and down controls will produce entirely different results depending on the model's position, flight path and attitude relative to the flyer which is constantly changing. The number of channels and actuators adds to the confusion at first. It's like learning to ride a bike--if you explain the process to someone, they'll think you're nuts but once you get it, it becomes 2nd nature. At the local RC field, there are kids flying models as well and sometimes better (must be the video game practice) than the old guys.

Now the UAV--controlling it on the ground (taxi), takeoff and landing by a ground controller are almost 100% identical to an RC model plane. It's when the UAV is handed over to the technically trained remote pilot, maybe miles away, that the difference begins. The remote pilot 'sees' through the UAV's 'eyes' and its GPS or other guidance and flight system. He can then take pictures, designate a target, release a weapon etc. With larger advanced RPVs like Predator or Global Hawk, there is only one pilot with no need for the ground controller. In this case, the controller can, depending on mission, even be a trained pilot who has specialized in the craft, taking off and landing remotely in Iraq while sitting in Virginia. He may have a weapons guy sitting next to him. Nishant (or Searcher or Heron) doesn't have this capability if the report I quoted is accurate, though we hope that Rustom will. Nobody is claiming that a RC model is the same thing as a UAV. The question I had was why is controlling it during takeoff and landing such a big deal as the report claims because by my understanding it shouldn't be. There may very well be a valid reason for this, who knows. It was a question.

[chetak]

PM scraps DRDO’s 'retirement benefits' committee

ABHINANDAN MISHRA New Delhi | 20th Sep 2014


Illustration: Sandeep Adhwaryu

rime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to scrap the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) in an attempt to revamp the outfit. The main job of this committee of DRDO scientists is to grant extensions to fellow scientists. The committee has come under scrutiny after complaints that all that these scientists do is to park retiring and retired colleagues in important posts year after year. "The PM has ordered the scrapping of the committee that reviews cases to grant extension of service to scientists who are superannuating. Giving repeated extensions to scientists, whose capabilities could be questioned, is one of the major problems with the DRDO," a DRDO official said.

Sources said that 15 top scientists in DRDO, including Director General (DG) Avinash Chander, are on extension. After getting two extensions, Chander is now on contract. "What should have been an exception, has become a norm here. Every year, six to eight senior people in DRDO get extensions. This has led to an alarming attrition rate in the organisation," said a scientist who has been working with DRDO for the last 12 years. In the seven years between 2007 and 2013, at least 687 scientists left the organisation, which comes to a rate of 100 scientists leaving the organisation every year.

The DRDO, best known for missing manufacturing deadlines, is gearing up for a hard time after PM Modi told its scientists and officials that their lackadaisical approach would not be tolerated anymore. Last month, while addressing the annual award function of the organisation in the national capital, the PM expressed his unhappiness over the way things were working in the organisation.

"The Prime Minister is clearly unhappy with the way the DRDO has been functioning, as most of our projects are running years behind schedule, resulting in cost overruns and compromising of national security. During the event, he made sure that that senior officials were made aware of his views on the subject and the fact that such lackadaisical approach would not work anymore. With the government approving 49% FDI in defence, we need to start performing now," said a senior DRDO official. Modi, while commenting on DRDO said that the organisation "should not say in 2014 that a project conceived in 1992 will take some more time".

DRDO, founded in 1958, has a network of 54 laboratories, employs close to 35,000 employees including 7,500 scientists. In July this year, the BJP-led NDA government increased DRDO's budget from Rs 5,985 crore — as provided by the UPA's interim Budget in February — to Rs 9,298 crore, the largest ever increase in the organisation's history.

However, despite being treated with extreme care by successive governments, DRDO has still not been able to shake off the negative image associated with it. Most of its projects, ranging from Tejas light combat aircraft and long-range su rface-to-air missile systems to NAG missiles are running years behind schedule.

According to officials, at least ten major projects that are being worked on by the DRDO have exceeded their stipulated date. "The major ones among these are the light combat aircraft, naval light combat aircraft, aero engine Kaveri, airborne early warning and control aircraft, long range surface-to-air missile, air-to-air missile Astra, advanced lightweight torpedo, dual colour missile approach warning system for fighter aircraft. If you include the minor ones, like the NAG missile system, then the number of incomplete projects will become even more," the official stated.

According to a former bureaucrat, who had worked in the Ministry of Defence, the government has been always generous when it came to funding the DRDO. "The DRDO has never suffered from any paucity of funds. The main problem with the organisation is at the top. No accountability is fixed on them. There is no other place where you will find senior officials being given repeated extensions despite doing nothing."

The former bureaucrat added that he had come across instances where the country's defence preparedness suffered because the DRDO first made a commitment that it would manufacture the product, but when the deadline arrived, it did not have the product. And in cases where the product was there, the quality was not acceptable. "It is a shame that due to DRDO's inefficiency the country has to import more than half of its defence requirements," he said.

Even the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has time and again come down heavily on the DRDO. "Year after year, the CAG has revealed the kind of mismanagement that has been happening in the DRDO. In February this year, CAG audits revealed that the DRDO spent Rs 52 crore to buy a cooling substance, which was to be used in the NAG missile system in 2007. The interesting part is that the NAG was not operational at the time and it is still not operational. Can you expect such kind of mismanagement from any other defence organisation in the world elsewhere?" an official with the DRDO said.

According to him, the onus of revamping the DRDO is with the Defence Minister. "The DRDO officials and the defence ministry bureaucrats will not take the bull by the horn; no one wants to disturb the status quo. It is the Defence Minister who needs to do it. The minister needs to implement the recommendation of the first-ever external review report of the DRDO, which was prepared by an independent committee of experts headed by P. Rama Rao, former secretary, Department of Science & Technology, and former ISRO man Dr Brahm Prakash. It had recommended a massive restructuring of the 50-year-old body to make it more effective," the official said.

However, Ravi Kumar Gupta, Director, Directorate of Public Interface, DRDO, said that the PM was very appreciative of the work being done by the organisation during his interaction with the officials last month. "He has positive views about the organisation and said that the organisation had a lot of potential and whatever we were doing, we were doing it in a professional way. He also said that just as it holds true for any other organisation, we too should not lose focus and follow the chalta hai attitude," Gupta said.

[member_20317]

Jaane bhi do yaaron. Why for, this green on green. Let us solve this with love and respect .

Shreeman ji et al, while you started out with a Civilian UAV vs. Military UAV debate, IMHO the debate itself is defined from the debaters perspective or from the perspective of somebody who wants to throw you into a lot of debate, most likely enjoying himself as you guys go down fighting each other. The debate first of all has to be designed from the vantage point of a truth finding mission.

Part of the problem is that UAVs and UCAVs are right now, only an evolving breed with a limited number of engineers working on many different problems/platforms. The situation is entirely different from what we are used to seeing in a matured industry like aircraft building where a rich country gets a large number of engineers working on only a few products. Each of the engineering group handling only a limited part of the whole product. See how one single base designed airframes have so many variants in the military jets, with each variant industrially designated, technically designed and operationally employed in distinct manners. OTOH we have all of the wish list of the currently manned vehicles classified simply as UAV/UCAV. Probably because everybody nowadays wishes for multiple capabilities within one platform (gharwali+kaamwali+baharwali+officewali+mazewali). During the last decades there used to be a debate about multi-role vs. specialized aircrafts. Well both sides won the debate. The former side won the manned jet side of the continuum and the later side evolved into the unmanned side of the continuum.

From a deployment perspective the UAVs and UCAVs wishlist is congruent with the current capabilities of military jets. Only more acutely defined then manned military jets, all the while being in addition to manned military jets. In such a case you will have to proof test your unmanned vehicle to at least the same standards as your friendly neighborhood military jet and in the chosen role, it obviously has to exceed the manned aircraft standards.

Besides you would like to employ your unmanned vehicles in places where you would not want your manned jets to expose themselves. That means, the form-factor would be a bigger consideration than it is for a manned aircrafts. For example in the obvious case of employing Electro Optical Sensors the military jets could provide both on board and off board underslung options, with copious space for dampening of vibrations and cooling requirements. Now with UAVs where the deployment is obviously perceived a much bigger challenge the sensors invariably have to be kept inside the airframe and you can guess your designing challenges and testing criteria after that. How to cram in the cooling? or Use even more complex sensors that would not require cooling? Then the dampening (all in box or separate for each component)? and then there is still the normal manned aircraft level requirement for the ultimate usage of these sensors which too needs to be crammed in. Off course the power supply (less efficient solar/battery/capacitors arrangements for UAVs vs. more efficient APU for aircarfts).

With the UAV the pilot has merely changed position, he is still there but now the auto-pilot, at the least needs to have detect-see-avoid capabilities to prevent collisions or OTOH allow for formation flying independent of the human factor, better still have assistive auto pilot that is faster than the pilot (as in manned aircrafts FBWs) but with comparatively much faster coordination with the far away ground based pilot who cannot even see if there's something wrong with the craft. Or go for the full autonomous controls which would be faster but would be even more complex to develop.

Ultimately it is the mission challenges and not the engineers infatuation that will determine the degree of complexity. Amazon can deliver its books to your neighbour and still hope that your neighbour would be kind enough to hand over the package to you. But in military requirements even a last minute confirmation of the target may be a valid requirement before you launch a missile at it.

[shiv]

Just in case that was aimed at me, I've designed, built and flown model aircraft since I was 12 years old while I was in India.

Ever crashland one and had to repair something? I did aeromodelling as a boy starting before and going on to RC days. But crash landings were never an issue because we could repair stuff. With models one crash in ten landings (or even more frequent) is fine. A chipped, bent or cracked component was no big deal. That is not so for a UAV. Like an aircraft it must take off and land perfectly every time under a variety of conditions with different operating personnel. Someone from ISRO once pointed out that rockets can be tested by simply firing them. There is no need for safe return or re-use, like aircraft. I have personally shot off more rockets per diwali than ISRO has done in 40 years - but that means bullshit. It does not mean that I am more capable than ISRO.

The other issue for UAVs is some kind of autonomous "head home" or "seek control signal" ability for UAVs that lose contact with the pilot.

i am not saying that our UAV designers are not being very slow - but comparing their work with RC modelers and the image of a man with a giant size 747 RC model is only an attempt to win an argument with rhetoric. That is unfair.

[chetak]

Just in case that was aimed at me, I've designed, built and flown model aircraft since I was 12 years old while I was in India.

Ever crashland one and had to repair something? I did aeromodelling as a boy starting before and going on to RC days. But crash landings were never an issue because we could repair stuff. With models one crash in ten landings (or even more frequent) is fine. A chipped, bent or cracked component was no big deal. That is not so for a UAV. Like an aircraft it must take off and land perfectly every time under a variety of conditions with different operating personnel. Someone from ISRO once pointed out that rockets can be tested by simply firing them. There is no need for safe return or re-use, like aircraft. I have personally shot off more rockets per diwali than ISRO has done in 40 years - but that means bullshit. It does not mean that I am more capable than ISRO.

The other issue for UAVs is some kind of autonomous "head home" or "seek control signal" ability for UAVs that lose contact with the pilot.

i am not saying that our UAV designers are not being very slow - but comparing their work with RC modelers and the image of a man with a giant size 747 RC model is only an attempt to win an argument with rhetoric. That is unfair.

It seems that it took some lab 23 years to design and successfully fly its first UAV. This project was presented at some international conference by one of the biggest DRDO "tope" where in an incredulous audience had erupted in derisive laughter after the initial pin drop stunned silence.

I was present in the gathering where the DRDO worthy was regaling a local audience some years ago with anecdotes from his charmed career where it seemed that no deliverable was ever specified in any project that he had handled.

Same worthy was raided and charged by the CBI a few short weeks after his retirement.

At some Aeronautical society meetings, engineering college students bring in some very sophisticated flying models of UAVs with very innovative control solutions and payloads. They are basically looking for financial sponsorship. Not one of these guys ask for technical help or guidance.

[Shreeman]

Just in case that was aimed at me, I've designed, built and flown model aircraft since I was 12 years old while I was in India.

Ever crashland one and had to repair something? I did aeromodelling as a boy starting before and going on to RC days. But crash landings were never an issue because we could repair stuff. With models one crash in ten landings (or even more frequent) is fine. A chipped, bent or cracked component was no big deal. That is not so for a UAV. Like an aircraft it must take off and land perfectly every time under a variety of conditions with different operating personnel. Someone from ISRO once pointed out that rockets can be tested by simply firing them. There is no need for safe return or re-use, like aircraft. I have personally shot off more rockets per diwali than ISRO has done in 40 years - but that means bullshit. It does not mean that I am more capable than ISRO.

The other issue for UAVs is some kind of autonomous "head home" or "seek control signal" ability for UAVs that lose contact with the pilot.

i am not saying that our UAV designers are not being very slow - but comparing their work with RC modelers and the image of a man with a giant size 747 RC model is only an attempt to win an argument with rhetoric. That is unfair.

shiv, take a peek at the tarmak blog drone/uav posts. The US folks have been excfessively generous in shoving UAV technology down the throats of multiple indian universities. At least two credible programs resulted that have taken to the air in proitotype form. Not cutting edge but a generation ahead of current indian fielded systems.

The fielded systems hgave a role, they are sorely needed. But this is a disruptive technology offering unique business/private sector opportunities. COTS components without restrictions are far beyond deployed systems. The bureaucracy is stuck in a production plan of 4 more nishant this decade as approved.

This is where recent advances in modular and new manufacturing methods really shine. You no longer repair a broken phone screen, or at least not the same screen. Replacement vs repair and the short design to prototype cycle means you can focus on mission systems at a generic high enough level to build up fleet wide deployment capability. everything from relay mesh systems, to planning, archival, analysis (heck crowd analysis) has burgeoning development.

There is no point in gettijng left behind. The chinese are exporting MQ-X class systems to whoever wsnts to buy. You want comparable systrms deployed in 1,xxx and not 1,xx with restrictive flying regimes and availability beholden to foreign msintenance.

2p.

[Shreeman]

I am not sure whether you were questioning or ridiculing. Nobody holds up an amateur enthusiasts' work in the face of many man-years of work and then say, 'but, I am just trying to learn'!

I can certainly see this stonewalling being worthwhile if someone's job was on the line. That is not the case, as far as I can tell. So why the insecurity?

By the same token, why do you feel stonewalled if your comments are scrutinized. Certainly, your job is not at risk?

The problem was automatic take-off and landing, was it not? If Rustom-I can serve as a platform to test Rustom-Ii which is several times larger, what fundamental problem prevents testing of indoividual tools like automatic take-off and landing with simpler system?That never even entered the thought process, did it?

What else are they doing with Rustom-1? (Click). Because a much smaller UAV does not need assisted take off and landing! With Panchee, they are developing assisted take-off-and-landing. With Rustom-1, they are developing full automatic takeoff and landing. If this is not step-by-step progress, then I don't know what is!

You could question how much time, each step is taking for a program of national importance, and I will stand with you on that. But if you trivialize these steps to model building and say enthusiasts could have done better, then I will have no problems ridiculing such comments. And please don't complain if your mere comments are questioned. Because you are questioning other people's work!

indranil,

I am as close (provably, and proven to members of this forum) to a person who has no dog in any fight.
except one. And this is not it.

Rustom-I/Rustom-II analogy applies to Rustom-II/smaller scale RCA directly. autonomous take off landing is even in the realm of open source/simulators. Yet instead of supplying this information, you responded with ridicule and still refuse to face the facts.

It is not than enthusiasts cant do better, it is that they have already demonstrated this. Buring your head in sand and ridiculing people wins the race to ignore lists. May be people are trying to help you and you are too stubburn for your own good/bad.

My best wishes on your endeavors, I will not learn anything from this communication approach.

[negi]

It is needless to say that a UAV made by amateurs cannot be compared to that made by state funded institutions who are in the first place being paid for doing exactly that i.e. making a UAV , having said that I personally believe that it will in fact benefit both the Govt. and PSUs in question when we reach a stage when amateurs will be able to actively participate and contribute in the MIL side of the economy . UAVs are still high tech take an example of a simple handgun how many here think that stuff which OFB makes can be bettered by an amateur ? (I will put my 1 month's salary on a bunch of hand gun enthusiast's in India provided they get that frigging clearance from the GOI ). We have a lot of red tape and old license raj system in place for an argument's sake even if someone were to make a damn good UAV it won't matter for the Govt. will only buy it from a PSU or would rather import it. It is like existing fatwa given to all executive class in the GOI to fly Air India or via IR nothing else will do.

[member_20317]

Shreeman ji, I am not being addressed to but pls bear with me if its not too much. Rest assured there would hardly be any BRF member not visiting Tarmak007.

What DRDO has achieved seemed quite reasonable for their goals/resources and what the children have developed is also a reasonable achievement for their goals/resources. And what both these groups are doing to take their project to the next level is also quite understandable. Both groups are making the right noises to attract the investments. The children are studying the laws and regulations governing UAVs (probably the testing routine adopted was skeletal) and the DRDO oldies are creating a noise about EW warfare and testing competence. Both need more investments for us to be able to get an environment going.

But comparing one against the other is not convincing enough. First thing nobody is going to give you anything worthwhile in the military usage. You can buy off the shelf items and basically operate the product and you will also get some components but you will not get the really cool stuff. Esp. the tech that require any kind of signal processing and on-board computing. Most of these things will have multiple usages in different areas hence denied and besides it would make sense for us to do it all ourselves so we too can have something distinctive about our technology.

The simple GPS based navigation is not going to cut it for serious military usages. The navigational needs for a serious UAV based SAR in Indian context would probably require G3OM+RLG based INS. The ground station would probably be some 100s of kilometers away and the commands would get relayed via satellites and other military jets on a jam resistant backbone. The requirement to drop ordnance would be much more serious then just dropping egg shaped payloads. Remember that video where the dumb iron bomb simply came back up and took out the wing after the release. The principles are same but the applications are much more demanding with what the DRDO is trying to achieve. Probably in time these engineering students will work on even more advanced ideas and what they have done is just their start.

In fact even the DRDO took the same route of LCRA and then onwards to more complex Rustom prototypes. Even today they do some side business like Kapotak, Netra and Lakshaya etc.

Chill maaro yaar. Things are moving in the right direction in this area. You can wish for a faster pace if you wish - I am.

[sattili]

Let me add my nerdy 2 cents to the building RC plane vs building UAV discussion:

A decade ago when I was young & cocky (and bit foolish) I had a face off at work on a project. I was in a meeting room with 2 senior guys- one of them an operations guy (MBA type) and another one is Engineering head. The operations guy goes all hysteric shouting at my team "you can't build that god damn simple thing in 6 months!!!". So i retort saying "what makes you think it is simple, it might look so from your position". So this guy blew a fuse and shouted "so you are telling me what you do is more complex than building the microprocessors that we do?". I coolly said "Yeah! I know nothing about building a microprocessor so I will say why it takes 3 years to build one?". So this ops guy is down right threatening, I will talk to your manager blah blah. However the engineering head who is quite all this while intervened and calmly said "No it wont take 3 years to build the microprocessor, it takes 6 months to build and 2.5 years to test. We cant afford to have a field bug as it costs our reputation".

So the question that begs to be answered is how come this company introduces a new product every quarter (3months for you non-nerds) if it takes 3 years to build and test one. Simple answer- it runs so many projects in parallel with a roadmap to future on when they come into market, many of those projects wont succeed. If we have to apply the above analogy to DRDO (and PSUs as some members would like to bring that term into discussion) - they need to be running so many projects in house with huge R&D budgets. Not everyone of them sees the light of the day, not everyone of that succeeds. And obviously we cannot be asking ROI as every CAG report says XX crores spent on a project but no end product realized etc. Many of those x series planes built by NASA and many prototypes built TsaGi of Russia never had ROI, they were built to learn things. And that doesn't mean DRDO (and PSU) folks will get a blank check to do whatever they want without any accountability. Enforcing accountability while giving freedom to experiment and invent should go hand in hand. Soviets did it so did USA and numerous other countries.

So coming to back to the original discussion - why can't folks at DRDO(and PSUs) build UAVs quickly if bunch of amateurs can build RC planes so quick (did I read weekend)??? - well.....

[Shreeman]

So many good points in the responses. Yet, all so contradictory within themselves. Development cycles are not new inventions, neither are manufacturing processes. The first flight was in 1995, there are 4 systerms functional going by that news report. The program is not larger than it was in 1990s (for nishant class alone). The rustams are at Nishant-1995 manurity program wise. And we choose to defend this state of affairs.

The thread title says R&D. There is a separate thread for UAVs themselves (presume that is where production versions go). So what is the R&D -- algorithms, sensors (imported), materials, design, manufacturing, maintenance and training, mission management -- which ones have matured?

Each and every response hides behind "complexity" and "development times" and "experience" and "military UAVs".

Arent two decades enough? This ius not tejas, and it is not such a grand secret technology. Has no one heard of divide and conquer? Just why is the one or two prototypes of Rustam I and the 4 fielded Nishant sufficient if all of this is so complex? Dont have enough resources or people? But still want to stifle the R&D outside of PSU. Why?

The original discussion was not why whole systems have long development times but why (as an example) automatic take off and landing must be tackled this way.

Neither of the fielded systems are 100% raw materials/processes indigeous. What is so special about take of and landing that you cant integrate imported COTS while domestic ones come along.

I will go out on a limb and rile a few more people, during this time -- imported systems=hundreds; domestic production=5 or 6 of which 4 may be getting some use. This is not about technology or R&D. But even that is also NOT the question here. Better late and despite mischief than never.

Farm out parts of the projects without creating a dependency on delivery, create competitions in India so Indian students dont have to go to the US if they have a ready entry. Evaulate the prototype results and push that knowledge back into the education program. And most of all, open up what works, what doesnt, and why it doesnt to a research doscussion. This can be done very easily without disclosing even your hardware specs, especially for something like take off/landing. Is any of this happenning?

Decades late, in these times, is inexcusable. And CAG wont let us, is not an excuse. Who has, ever, said high risk high reward programs need to be CAG immune. ATV was, why not UAV?

[P Chitkara]

One more thing, most of the people must've seen the R/C landings. They are far from smooth and quit jumpy - if it can be put that way.

Try similar landings with a UAV slinging expensive payloads and then see the magic.

[deejay]

^^^ Shreemanji, agree with your point on the 'slowness' of the whole scheme of things. One wonders if there is a road map on UAV development or it is just another self motivated effort?

Unless, the whole project has some defined doctrine to fill, which will be military in nature, I do not see how, the speed on such programmes will increase. Without being there I know that if amateurs can do things than so can DRDO folks. Then the reason they are not doing it already is that the UAV programmes need better management focus - either from DRDO, ADA, Forces or the MOD or from all of these. Looks as if the Services are slow in adopting the UAV's or have plans other than the Nishant. Why else would there be only 04 since 1995.

[chetak]

Victor, Shreeman ji, et al: The UAV and an RC plane are different. In many ways but let us focus on one: Payload. A single SAR type of payload is often more expensive than the UAV. It is true for the Searcher and Heron too. Hence, the systems handling the UAV's need to be very sturdy, no hang ups and should be able to operate under not so good weather conditions.

Panchi is being readied for being operational from even semi prepared airfields. That would need a very sturdy undercarriage.

Secondly, UAV's will be Taken off and Landed by External Pilots (EP's) but in flight the EP will handover to the Internal Pilot (IP). The IP is the one in control mostly and operates the aircraft and the payload. The UAV has real time data links and requires a very robust software and hardware system along with very smooth integration. This takes a long time to develop. Because first you make the UAV similar to the RC model and then develop the system with it. If it was just a remote controlled flying machine, then their are a few companies in Chandigarh which sell the half-scale fly worthy models to the IAF for EP training.

The EP training is a long and complicated process for UAV's, specially for the ones which will carry costly payloads. Small, battlefield UAVs are different from the Panchi types. Panchi types, will generally have a proper pilot trained for EP role. And it is a long training.

Military EPs are generally experienced but grounded pilots who are unable to take up active flying for various reasons, generally medical. Companies doing serious development use retired Mil pilots as does DRDO.

[chetak]

^^^ Shreemanji, agree with your point on the 'slowness' of the whole scheme of things. One wonders if there is a road map on UAV development or it is just another self motivated effort?

Unless, the whole project has some defined doctrine to fill, which will be military in nature, I do not see how, the speed on such programmes will increase. Without being there I know that if amateurs can do things than so can DRDO folks. Then the reason they are not doing it already is that the UAV programmes need better management focus - either from DRDO, ADA, Forces or the MOD or from all of these. Looks as if the Services are slow in adopting the UAV's or have plans other than the Nishant. Why else would there be only 04 since 1995.

Military UAVs are a very serious business. Unfortunately, we have various chotu guys who have left DRDO, ADA etc and who seem to have jumped into projects and are working out of garages on shoe string budgets, promising you the moon. Any moron can code in Bangalore and you can hire coders at real low salaries. The problem is that there are competing interests like military, home ministry, central police forces, anti naxal units from various states who have whose specs are varying widely. Money is to be made meeting all customers' requirements. More money in non military requirements because generally the company gets the AMC as well as the chance to supply (body shop) hastily trained, half baked young maintenance + UAV operators, make some quick money and get out fast. There are really shady business operators selling such half baked products and even shadier middlemen to broker all kinds of deals with big cuts. Plus its very risky to operate in naxal infested areas because one can very easily be identified and targeted for keeps.

I was repeatedly approached when I was handling some big vendors supplying some really heavy duty stuff. Got a glimpse into the filthy cess pool that has been created by the middlemen supplying various police and intelligence services. Any thing is available for the right price and the right cut.

re designers and manufacturers. No one in India can make or supply products in the category of Heron and Searcher. No one.

[Karan M]

Deejay ji, Nishant was developed for a then "new" concept of UAVs accompanying strike corps and providing recon for FBA. Truck launched, recovery via parachute+airbag, high mobility etc.

IA then decided it wanted wheeled UAVs as they come with greater range, payload and life (Nishant airframe has lesser life thanks to harder landing profile), hence the Panchi. After changing the requirements, IA agreed to take 12 Nishants with their GCS. The system was upgraded further, with better FLIR/CCD/LRF/gimbal combo, better recovery system and the GCS could handle two UAVs at a time. The Nishant has also been picked up by the central paramils against the Maoists IIRC but I don't recall whether they got the systems yet and the numbers.

The other UAVs on the roadmap are the Rustom-1 (formerly a TD for Rustom-2 but now available as a Searcher-2 class UAV) whereas the Rustom-2 is for a triservice requirement of a Heron class UAV (MALE) - Medium Alt, Long Endurance. The reason for putting an ATOL is because WW most UAVs are not lost due to enemy action in peacetime, but take off and landing accidents as you'd know. The IN/IAF themselves had a couple with airframe losses/damage. Rustom-1 was to be merely a TD, but its proven pretty decent in trials so far so it offers a good option to supplant the Searcher class platforms. Thanks to the Rustom-2 and Nishant experience, we now have a set of proven systems which are the building blocks, actuators, sensors, datalinks etc, though Rustom 2 will require more comprehensive packages for which work is underway (wideband ELINT/SAR/EO).

[vaibhav.n]

Karan,

The IA has begun retiring its Searcher fleet due to endurance and payload shortfalls, so the IA wants to replace them all with Herons for its Corps. The Rustom 2 should be able to fill that gap nicely.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/army ... 08694.html

[Karan M]

Thanks Vaibhav, interesting news. Are we doing the same with TSP side as well?

[vaibhav.n]

Thanks Vaibhav, interesting news. Are we doing the same with TSP side as well?

Yes we are doing the same on both fronts. FYI...Newer Accretions down the road.

The UAVs provide services to the Army at a fraction of time and cost. The rugged terrain of high altitude Line of Actual Control on the Sino-Indian border requires the army to send its units for patrolling duties on foot. The patrolling parties could only have a chance encounter with the rival forces and report their activities to the Indian commanders through wireless transmission. However, the UAVs with one flight oversee the entire length and breadth of the LAC can transmit live the video of the intruding troops. Considering these extraordinary qualities the UAVs have become a must item for all the modern armed forces.
The Indian Army Headquarter has approved a plan to equip each infantry battalion with three mini-UAVs. For this and other services, the MoD is expected to release five additional tenders for the purchase of over 600 mini UAS systems to be operated by the air force, infantry and artillery units and also for the State Police forces. The demand for these systems is expected to be over US$ 1.25 billion with plans to produce them in India. Considering the huge requirement of UAVs for the armed forces in the coming years, the Indian DRDO and its associated organizations besides the private sector has chalked out ambitious plans to produce latest technology equipped UAVs.

The Indian Army is considering providing eight aerial systems with each divisional artillery brigade. The Army Headquarter is also considering provision to equip each corps of a Loitering Missile Battery comprising of eight missiles with associated ground systems. It has been felt that there is a need for hand launched Mini UAVs which would have an endurance of two hours and a range of 10kms, with a payload capable of giving good eye view of the area surveyed.

[Karan M]

Brilliant news!

[rohitvats]

<SNIP> The Indian Army is considering providing eight aerial systems with each divisional artillery brigade. The Army Headquarter is also considering provision to equip each corps of a Loitering Missile Battery comprising of eight missiles with associated ground systems. It has been felt that there is a need for hand launched Mini UAVs which would have an endurance of two hours and a range of 10kms, with a payload capable of giving good eye view of the area surveyed.

You're carrier of good news!

So, are we finally looking at SATA Regiment per Division? Something like 1 x WLR Battery + 2 x UAV flights? Also, what type of 'aerial systems' are we talking here? Something in Searcher Class?

As for the 'loitering missile' - well, what can one say! I just said in another thread that each Corps HQ needs to have 2 x Prahaar MSL Regiments. Well, lets just add another regiment with this 'Loitering MSL' - but I wonder what kind would it be? And it seems idea is to have a cheaper alternative to Brahmos which can be given to all Corps to take out high value targets.

[suryag]

UAVs are good but am curious what are all those SAT images that IA gets from Delhi doing? I thought they would get a daily update on troop concentrations; am curious if the battalion commanders on field get the SAT images routed to them(automatically after mosaicking) so that they can focus more on the areas where there could be intrusions(watch out for chinkis where they are building up and put forces in that sector). Mini-UAV is good but the logistic chain for the data processing of UAV images is similar to that received from SATs so better have both, may be this is already happening in that case shutting up

[vaibhav.n]

Barak 8 Test Firing

[Indranil]

^^^ Thank you fr sharing that. HEMRL also recently issued tenders for Supply of Casting Fixtures for LRSAM Pulse-I Motor and Mandrel and Casting Fixtures.

[Indranil]

For all those who thought designing and manufacturing Panchi airframe is easy (and I still maintain that it is the easier than integrating the components that it will carry) please go through a tender for Workpackage: Composite Airframe Design.

It is estimated to be 7-8 man years of work (to be finished in about 1 year). Let me know if you guys think that it can be done faster.

[vaibhav.n]

Rohit,

I am lost on the Loitering Missile part, even the US Army has cancelled its LAM as part of the NLOS. Probably the lower cost Jumper Class Missile is what they are looking at. However the concept of a 40 Km Range launch from anywhere missile especially in our Mountain terrain is very appealing!!

Do you mean the Composite Missile Brigades with the Arty Divs? That is what the Prahaar/Shaurya are going to be restricted to. As it is, these would be primarily used to target critical fixed assets in the enemy rear and cannot provide actual bread and butter fire support. With the PLA fetish for tunneling up everything, even that is going to be a tall order.

Yes, for Divisional Tasking something in the Searcher Class should do fine. They just might shift existing Searchers to these units. Remains to be seen whether this can be implemented on an Army wide scale. Correct me, Brigade SATA Bty have 4 Troops?

AFAIK, an UAV Troop has 8 UAV's. Could be otherwise.

[Karan M]

Loitering missiles like the FireShadow with the British Army are very powerful systems. They can offer area denial, weapon suppression capabilities plus recon and destruction of assets.

[Karan M]

Video of Ukrainian separatists/Russian supplied types mortaring Donetsk airport. Shows how useful the Nethra type Quadcopter type UAV can be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2mVGQz6MNg#t=73

[Karan M]

http://www.janes.com/article/42796/bhar ... w-radar-jv

Bharat Electronics and Thales incorporate new radar JV
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
04 September 2014

State-owned Indian company Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and French group Thales have established a joint venture in India to design, develop and manufacture radar systems for defence and civilian applications.

BEL said in a statement to the Bombay Stock Exchange on 3 September that the JV - named BEL-Thales Systems Limited - was incorporated in late August.

The JV is expected to support India's purchase of the Dassault Rafale, which was selected to fulfil the country's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) requirement in January 2012.

The JV will be Thales's fourth in the Indian market. Thales has existing JVs with Samtel to produce helmet-mounted sight and display systems, and with Rolta to develop C4ISR systems.

Should also be supporting existing Thales radars in the IAF inventory, some of which have been supplied via BEL, including the recent Thales Flair AESA LLTRs - some 13 of the 19 ordered are being assembled at BEL.

[chetak]

Looks like some free food and accomodations

Two top DRDO scientists awarded jail term by Madras high court for contempt of court

CHENNAI: While the science community behind Mangalyaan's success is still basking in glory, the Madras high court on Thursday awarded a three-week jail term to the nation's two top scientists for contempt of court. The court also imposed a fine on them and directed the Centre to initiate stringent action against the duo.

V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to the minister of defence and director general of research & development, DRDO, and G Malakondaiah, director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) in Hyderabad, have to surrender to police in a week and start their three-week jail stint. If they fail to do so, an arrest warrant shall be issued to get them under custody, ruled an irate division bench of the high court.

"The government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court," said the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Thursday.

The two DRDO officers were found guilty of civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They were sentenced to a simple imprisonment for three weeks and directed to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.

"We are aware that they are occupying very high positions in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his. Even during the course of the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake," the court said.

On August 13, 1985, Joseph Raj was appointed clerk-cum-store keeper initially on an ad hoc basis in the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) under the ministry of defence. He acquired his B.Com and master of library and information science degrees later, and when a librarian post fell vacant in the school, he was selected on merits. CVRDE School, started at Avadi here in 1978, was sought to be closed in 2001 and staff members were issued termination notices.

Since then, Joseph Raj won several rounds of litigations in the administrative tribunal, the high court and then in the Supreme Court as well. As he was not reinstated or given job in another unit, he then filed the present contempt of court proceedings, pointing out that the authorities had misled even the apex court.

Narrating the travails of Joseph Raj in detail and convinced that the two officers had done everything to deny him employment for more than a decade, the judges directed the Centre to give a job to Joseph Raj according to the 2004 judgment that favoured him.

It also rapped the two top DRDO officers quoting the Supreme Court's words: "Non-acceptance of a mistake is not a heroic deed. On the contrary, it reflects flawed devotion to obstinacy. The pink of perfection really blossoms in acceptance."

[RoyG]

So now that the "Make in India" campaign is taking off I can only see the PSU monopoly over defense production and R&D decrease at a quicker pace. It will be interesting to see how OFB, HAL, DRDO, etc. hold out.

[Karan M]

Looks like some free food and accomodations

Two top DRDO scientists awarded jail term by Madras high court for contempt of court

CHENNAI: While the science community behind Mangalyaan's success is still basking in glory, the Madras high court on Thursday awarded a three-week jail term to the nation's two top scientists for contempt of court. The court also imposed a fine on them and directed the Centre to initiate stringent action against the duo.

V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to the minister of defence and director general of research & development, DRDO, and G Malakondaiah, director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) in Hyderabad, have to surrender to police in a week and start their three-week jail stint. If they fail to do so, an arrest warrant shall be issued to get them under custody, ruled an irate division bench of the high court.

"The government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court," said the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Thursday.

The two DRDO officers were found guilty of civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They were sentenced to a simple imprisonment for three weeks and directed to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.

"We are aware that they are occupying very high positions in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his. Even during the course of the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake," the court said.

On August 13, 1985, Joseph Raj was appointed clerk-cum-store keeper initially on an ad hoc basis in the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) under the ministry of defence. He acquired his B.Com and master of library and information science degrees later, and when a librarian post fell vacant in the school, he was selected on merits. CVRDE School, started at Avadi here in 1978, was sought to be closed in 2001 and staff members were issued termination notices.

Since then, Joseph Raj won several rounds of litigations in the administrative tribunal, the high court and then in the Supreme Court as well. As he was not reinstated or given job in another unit, he then filed the present contempt of court proceedings, pointing out that the authorities had misled even the apex court.

Narrating the travails of Joseph Raj in detail and convinced that the two officers had done everything to deny him employment for more than a decade, the judges directed the Centre to give a job to Joseph Raj according to the 2004 judgment that favoured him.

It also rapped the two top DRDO officers quoting the Supreme Court's words: "Non-acceptance of a mistake is not a heroic deed. On the contrary, it reflects flawed devotion to obstinacy. The pink of perfection really blossoms in acceptance."

Nope.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 68726.aspx

SC stays contempt order against DRDO scientists

The Supreme Court Friday stayed the Madras High Court order sentencing former DRDO chief VK Saraswat and another senior scientist to three weeks’ simple imprisonment for disobeying its April 2009 order and not re-employing a clerk in a school run by a wing of the organisation.

[Austin]

DRDO has become ageing body with top scientists on extension

An old age problem

[Aditya_V]

UAVs are good but am curious what are all those SAT images that IA gets from Delhi doing? I thought they would get a daily update on troop concentrations; am curious if the battalion commanders on field get the SAT images routed to them(automatically after mosaicking) so that they can focus more on the areas where there could be intrusions(watch out for *deleted* where they are building up and put forces in that sector). Mini-UAV is good but the logistic chain for the data processing of UAV images is similar to that received from SATs so better have both, may be this is already happening in that case shutting up

I think you are being misled by Hollywood movies, satellites pass through a location only once every 24 hours and even US does not have nearly enough, Satellites unless rerouted reducing thier life follow fixed paths. UAV's are relatively cheap for tracking tactical movements, satellites can be used to monitor missile launcher, aircraft, ships, submarines at bases etc. So we are probelly having both doing thier jobs simultaneouly. More over feild ask a UAV to take off and cover a stretch of ground in 1-2 hours. We or today nobody else has that many satellites to give updates that fast.

Do you want a Satellite to follow a line along the LAC or LOC??

[SagarAg]

I think you are being misled by Hollywood movies, satellites pass through a location only once every 24 hours and even US does not have nearly enough, Satellites unless rerouted reducing thier life follow fixed paths. UAV's are relatively cheap for tracking tactical movements, satellites can be used to monitor missile launcher, aircraft, ships, submarines at bases etc. So we are probelly having both doing thier jobs simultaneouly. More over feild ask a UAV to take off and cover a stretch of ground in 1-2 hours. We or today nobody else has that many satellites to give updates that fast.

Do you want a Satellite to follow a line along the LAC or LOC??

Geostationary satellite saar!

[pankajs]

Geo sats are not spy sats .. INSAT series mostly cater to comm and Met segment.

Added later: An example of a spy sat consider RISAT-2
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eopo ... /r/risat-2

Orbit: Near-circular mid-inclination orbit, altitude = 550 km, inclination = 41º, period of ~90 minutes (the orbit is nearly identical to that of the TecSAR spacecraft).

...
XSAR operates at a center frequency of 9.59 GHz (3.1 cm wavelength) with a revisit period of 3 or 4 days and a repeat cycle of 14 days, the look angle can vary from 20-45º and the instrument is capable of acquiring data from both left and right look directions of the subsatellite track. The RISAT-2 data enhances ISRO's capability for earth observation, especially for management of disasters like floods, cyclones, landslides, etc. in a more effective way.

[SagarAg]

Geo sats are not spy sats .. INSAT series mostly cater to comm and Met segment.

Saar what is the reason behind it? Thanks in advance.

[pankajs]

Not sure saar .. but comparing the altitude of Geo sats @ 36,000 Km with RISAT-2 @ 550 Km seems to suggest the cameras & Radars are not good enough to provide the required resolution from a 36K km orbit.

[SagarAg]

Not sure saar .. but comparing the altitude of Geo sats @ 36,000 Km with RISAT-2 @ 550 Km seems to suggest the cameras & Radars are not good enough to provide the required resolution from a 36K km orbit.

You have a point. But just from my limited knowledge, the latest pic by @MarsOrbiter of Mars was from height of 74500 km. The resolution is pretty good.

[pankajs]

MOM Pics are pretty good but not good enough for intel purposes from 36K km. Same with our geo sats.

MCC was tested on earth and here are the results. Just to get an Idea of the capability of the MCC.
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2014/pdf/2449.pdf
MARS COLOR CAMERA ONBOARD MARS ORBITER MISSION: SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES & EARTH IMAGING RESULTS.

Fig. 3 : MTF estimation across land / ocean boundary Another imaging session over the Sahara desert was carried out on Nov 23, 2013 (0900 UT) from an altitude of 18,746 km. The spatial resolution was 0.91km. Many Martian morphological analogues like barchans, longitudinal sand dunes, parabolic dunes, volcanic rock outcrops, Aeolian corridors (streaks) could be mapped using this image (Fig 4)

Added Later: I am a zero in this highly specialized field so to compare "spatial resolution" of MCC with resolution of RISAT-2 may not be accurate so would request gurus to comment.