Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chetak » 09 Feb 2018 00:38

tsarkar wrote:
Philip wrote:Sov. era AN-32s never had an major accidents,barring two AN-32s which disappered somewhere in the Arabian Sea on their delivery run from Russia which may have collided with each othe,and another more recent;ly which disappeared in the Bay of Bengal en route to the ANC

Aren't the first and second part of the sentences contradictory?

How are the planes safe, especially since wreckage are often never found.

The An-32 being delivered were flying on separate days, so no chance of collision.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-27/ ... -air-force
NEW DELHI — A sophisticated transport plane that India bought from the Soviet Union disappeared on its way to India and is feared to have crashed, a Defense Ministry spokesman said today. It was the second Soviet-built Antonov-32 purchased by the Indian air force to disappear in flight in less than a week.


Lots of An-32 crashes, including

1990 Tambaram to Thiruvananthapuram
1999 New Delhi IGIA
2009 Mechukha Arunachal
2016 Port Blair


the collision may have been with an amreki plane.

The amrekis were seen searching the same area for an aircraft of theirs that also seemed to have gone down at the same time.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1260
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Khalsa » 09 Feb 2018 05:48

chetak wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Aren't the first and second part of the sentences contradictory?

How are the planes safe, especially since wreckage are often never found.

The An-32 being delivered were flying on separate days, so no chance of collision.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-27/ ... -air-force


Lots of An-32 crashes, including

1990 Tambaram to Thiruvananthapuram
1999 New Delhi IGIA
2009 Mechukha Arunachal
2016 Port Blair


the collision may have been with an amreki plane.

The amrekis were seen searching the same area for an aircraft of theirs that also seemed to have gone down at the same time.


Rumour was that it was an F-14 that was too close and too aggressive.
Yes correct American planes were spotted in the general area flying slow and low and in patterns that looked like a Grid square search.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chetak » 09 Feb 2018 07:30

Khalsa wrote:
chetak wrote:
the collision may have been with an amreki plane.

The amrekis were seen searching the same area for an aircraft of theirs that also seemed to have gone down at the same time.


Rumour was that it was an F-14 that was too close and too aggressive.
Yes correct American planes were spotted in the general area flying slow and low and in patterns that looked like a Grid square search.


IIRC, the AN-32 vanished off the radar screen of an IAF tracking station.

I was in bombay at the time.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62668
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2018 08:10

why was this F-14 yahoo trying to scare a transport plane, not even a LRMP or ELINT bird.

just because he was american and allowed to be a yahoo?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 09 Feb 2018 08:58

Singha wrote:why was this F-14 yahoo trying to scare a transport plane, not even a LRMP or ELINT bird.

just because he was american and allowed to be a yahoo?


You wont know if this was ELINT or similar other plane if the transponder is off then the fighter needs to go close and check the type in question , The getting close is the tricky part specially if you are deep in the ocean and in Intl Waters , Lot of accidents can happen inadvertently

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chetak » 09 Feb 2018 09:15

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:why was this F-14 yahoo trying to scare a transport plane, not even a LRMP or ELINT bird.

just because he was american and allowed to be a yahoo?


You wont know if this was ELINT or similar other plane if the transponder is off then the fighter needs to go close and check the type in question , The getting close is the tricky part specially if you are deep in the ocean and in Intl Waters , Lot of accidents can happen inadvertently


The fact that India was ferrying AN-32s purchased from russia via the gelf was well known.

This "accident" happened fairly soon after the takeoff of the AN-32 and it undoubtedly happened in international waters.

WTF does the US need to know who is flying on a declared international route and that too with a valid flight plan??

in those days, Indian planes getting buzzed in all sorts of places was very routine and all it takes is some hot shot, wet behind the ears moron in the cockpit of the US plane itching for an extreme close up of the "enemy" aircraft.

We used to see this all the time. Those yokels would perform "aerobatics" to intimidate the natives.

Ferry always takes place with the transponder on and a valid flight plan filed well in advance with the active involvement of the local embassy staff, who invariably receive and also see off the aircraft.

Arrangements for crew stay, diplomatic clearances, purchase of fuel and other billed airport services cannot be kept secret.

Anyone with a binoc will be able to see who is coming and going and all it takes to monitor is a really cheap, home brew receiver set to the correct frequency. This sort of receiver can be built by a reasonably intelligent kid.

Getting close to another aircraft is ALWAYS tricky, especially if the other guy does not know that you are there or he is not expecting it, like, say, when on an innocent passage, on a documented and legally flight planned international ferry and in international airspace.

Ultimately, physics was to blame.

Wrong place and a wrong time.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 09 Feb 2018 09:22

IF the transponder was ON then there is little incentive for any one to intercept the aircraft on declared Intl Routes unless there is an itch to do dekho types.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chetak » 09 Feb 2018 09:28

Austin wrote:IF the transponder was ON then there is little incentive for any one to intercept the aircraft on declared Intl Routes unless there is an itch to do dekho types.


There was a large element of intimidation in those days.

Those yahoos had UHF and we usually had VHF and no one in their right mind would open up on HF.

So it was mostly, hand signals and distances that would make such hand signaling visible.

They had these really cute (for those days) hand held pocket cameras which they were very keen to use.

So, IMVHO, some mishap may have occurred along these lines.

The IN was well used to these tactics and knew how to play the game. Maybe the IAF was very new at such tactics and some unfortunate slip between the cup and the lip took place.

A lot of those amreki guys were friendly and would photograph you and also allow you to photograph them.

But there were a lot of really mean georgia cracker type SOBs too.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ashish raval » 09 Feb 2018 13:16

We should be running large scale honey trapping program internally to weed out any potential weaklings and loose characters and make the system leak-proof.

Alternatively they should take a oath that they will serve the nation and not beauties. No disrespect but I guess it is time for moral science course every week for this guys.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/iaf-officer-who-leaked-info-to-isi-for-sex-chats-arrested/articleshow/62843197.cms

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 10 Feb 2018 06:54

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/hawk-i-flies-with-desi-real-time-os-claims-hal/articleshow/62818264.cms

Good stuff from HAL,
LCH was flying on imported AFCS, then it was replaced with a local one. LCH prototype flying wasn’t stopped just because there was no local AFCS

Now the Hawk-I, an aircraft based on a foreign design is flying with a local RTOS base

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 11 Feb 2018 20:37

^^^
This should allow the flight control systems on Israeli UAVs or any foreign sourced ones to be replaced with local ones?
The Naval Tejas should also be modified for unmanned operations

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2018 11:43

Tx for the stats.Forgot about the other incidents.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Haridas » 12 Feb 2018 14:27

vasu raya wrote:^^^
This should allow the flight control systems on Israeli UAVs or any foreign sourced ones to be replaced with local ones?

Prey also tell us what will it cost to rewrite/port the code, test and qualify? And how quickly it can be done?
The Naval Tejas should also be modified for unmanned operations

we have no engineers left to move forward with critical Tejas AF /AMCA while on brf we are free to wish to flick our fingers to make it happen at will. Allaadin Lamp or mental stimulation?

if desires had wings I would grow wings & flying like bird; and pappu could use brain of the indigenous flight control computer. Lets give thought before writing.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6730
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 13 Feb 2018 01:06

+1.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3155
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2018 05:30

Haridas wrote:
The Naval Tejas should also be modified for unmanned operations

we have no engineers left to move forward with critical Tejas AF /AMCA while on brf we are free to wish to flick our fingers to make it happen at will. Allaadin Lamp or mental stimulation?

This is precisely what I was guessing a few months back when I suggested the lack of resources as a reason to settle for additional mk1a and push for the AMCA instead of tinkering with various Tejas variants such as the mk2. Can you shed more light ?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2018 06:29

Maiden Flight of Hawk-i with Indigenous RTOS Developed by HAL
http://www.hal-india.com/Maiden%20Flight%20o/ND__220

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 13 Feb 2018 06:33

Haridasji,
Maybe need to give more context, part of the problem arming the Israeli UAVs is they need to consent, and if you own the FCS and mission software you can do that integration. Currently Rustom airframe and its FCS both are evolving probably delaying the program. Hawk-I is flying with a desi RTOS and they claim this effort can be applied in other aircraft and proof them against cyber attacks.

One of the professed goals of Naval Tejas was automated takeoff and landing from the STOBAR carrier, and if you are suspending relevant R&D, down the line it will show the effect. If they don’t have bandwidth they should atleast outsource it, as is Indian MIC is in catch up mode.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 06:49

What the hell does a "realtime operating system" (RTOS) do in a Hawk? What were they using so far? As far as I can tell an "operating system" is simply a base that provides communication between hardware and human or hardware to other hardware/software. That means that any hardware that is used will have to be operable within that RTOS environment. Hawks are not FBW so the hardware that uses the RTOS has got to be radio, radar, sensors, weapons control, engine and fuel management, other systems that route via electronics like hydraulics and electrical system. So each and every hardware item has to be compatible with the RTOS.

BAe and HAL have had software collaboration for over a decade and we don't know if Hawk RTOS was a collaborative effort with BAe funding that gave BAe the rights, but the knowhow was with us anyway. Maybe what has been done is to build the modules in India after expiry of any licence allowing us to use our own OS (This is just my guess). As regards rewriting the OS of a UAV we may need to know how the OS communicates with the various UAV systems before building an OS. Apart from licensing issues this requires playing around and a degree of hacking. Not impossible - but I don't know if it is a national priority.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2018 07:31

shiv wrote: What were they using so far?


From the Release:

Currently, avionics systems in India are developed using commercial RTOS procured from foreign suppliers. The import of technology leads to high cost, provides very limited flexibility in incorporating new features and adaptation to new hardware platforms.


shiv wrote:As far as I can tell an "operating system" is simply a base that provides communication between hardware and human or hardware to other hardware/software.


RTOS performs the same function, but, responds to multiple requests and guarantees completion of a "task". Telephone switches were, IIRC, the first RTOS - where they could receive huge requests at the same time and the system has to ensure that all requests are serviced, without failure. No matter how many people pick up the hand set (old days), the telephone switch had to provide a dial tone to all of them. Then provide a connection to everyone who dialed a tele number.

There is more to this, but that at a very high level.

shiv wrote:What the hell does a "realtime operating system" (RTOS) do in a Hawk?


That is what the RTOS is and was doing in the Hawk. Responding to multiple requests and servicing them without failures. Ref "key features", below.


shiv wrote:BAe and HAL have had software collaboration for over a decade and we don't know if Hawk RTOS was a collaborative effort with BAe funding that gave BAe the rights, but the knowhow was with us anyway. Maybe what has been done is to build the modules in India after expiry of any licence allowing us to use our own OS (This is just my guess). As regards rewriting the OS of a UAV we may need to know how the OS communicates with the various UAV systems before building an OS. Apart from licensing issues this requires playing around and a degree of hacking. Not impossible - but I don't know if it is a national priority.


Again, from the release:

The imported RTOS may also be vulnerable to cyber-attacks which may compromise the safety and security of the avionics system. To overcome this dependency and achieve self-reliance, HAL had taken up the onus of designing an indigenous RTOS for safety-critical and mission-critical avionics systems.

The HAL-RTOS provides a comprehensive feature set based on international specification - ARINC-653 - to support Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture. Key features include address, space and time partitioning, priority pre-emptive process scheduling and health monitoring.


The kicker:

With this development, the HAL-RTOS can be made as a standard Real Time Operating System for any future avionics systems development in the country.



I recall a BR poster from IIT-M, who was developing a RTOS system specifically with avionics in mind. IIRC his BR handle was macaque (after a monkey found on IIT-M campus that he admired a lot.



However, this is a very good development (I had been pushing for India to develop a OS). Now only if they could back it up with locally designed + fabricated chips of all kinds.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Haridas » 13 Feb 2018 07:54

vasu raya wrote:Haridasji,
Maybe need to give more context, part of the problem arming the Israeli UAVs is they need to consent, and if you own the FCS and mission software you can do that integration. Currently Rustom airframe and its FCS both are evolving probably delaying the program. Hawk-I is flying with a desi RTOS and they claim this effort can be applied in other aircraft and proof them against cyber attacks.

I understand teh techical merit of going with our own RTOS. One must also understand the systems and project management aspect in perticular with crying needs of weapons armed forces MUST have in high priority.
All things / projects are three legged stool, the legs are functionality, schedule and cost. Optimize/make agressive one leg and it other two legs must yield. India/HAL/ADA/DRDO is at a point where beggars can't be choosers. So my urgeing to stop dreaming and behaving as a rich country with money to spare, instead be realistic and cognizant of reality.

vasu raya wrote:One of the professed goals of Naval Tejas was automated takeoff and landing from the STOBAR carrier, and if you are suspending relevant R&D, down the line it will show the effect. If they don’t have bandwidth they should atleast outsource it, as is Indian MIC is in catch up mode.
Even outsource to Indian MIC requires HAL/ADA/DRDO to do technical project management and usual project management in addition to money to fund the development of weapons (not just technology or PoConcept). Navel Tejas is, like it on not very low on the totem pole. There blazing fire in the house of IAF that needs immediate relief.
JMT saar.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 07:59

NRao wrote:
The HAL-RTOS provides a comprehensive feature set based on international specification - ARINC-653 - to support Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture. Key features include address, space and time partitioning, priority pre-emptive process scheduling and health monitoring.

Unfortunately this is not saying a lot - this is what any good OS does - they seem to have simply taken words from the same source as Wiki - which says the same in in different words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_653
ARINC 653 (Avionics Application Standard Software Interface) is a software specification for space and time partitioning in safety-critical avionics real-time operating systems (RTOS).


But Wiki says something more - which I have highlighted below
It allows the hosting of multiple applications of different software levels on the same hardware in the context of an Integrated Modular Avionics architecture.[1]


It appears that ARINC 653 allows the simultaneous functioning of applications written for various OSes while maintaining integrity in separate partitions. A pdf linking from the WiKi page says that ARINC 653 allows commands from Posix, ADA and other systems to work via APIs . It means that the system "translates" various languages and passes information appropriately while maintaining separate partitions for each and prioritizing as necessary.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091007150 ... _final.pdf

To my untrained mind this seems like something that would need plenty of fast memory and decent processor speed - both of which are easily available now.

That also means that vasu raya may be right in guessing that this system could possibly be applicable to Isareli UAVs as well

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2191
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2018 08:07

You don't need either fast memory or fast processor for either. And it's not such a big deal. Glad we either have something from scratch, will be a pain to qualify it for new stuff all the time, or have a port, which makes life easier, or have a source level agreement, where we maintain the source and all new patches go through our testing and evaluation before applying. if it's the last. seen many such agreements before and they aren't that expensive either.
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Feb 2018 08:16, edited 1 time in total.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Haridas » 13 Feb 2018 08:10

shiv wrote:What the hell does a "realtime operating system" (RTOS) do in a Hawk? What were they using so far? As far as I can tell an "operating system" is simply a base that provides communication between hardware and human or hardware to other hardware/software. That means that any hardware that is used will have to be operable within that RTOS environment. Hawks are not FBW so the hardware that uses the RTOS has got to be radio, radar, sensors, weapons control, engine and fuel management, other systems that route via electronics like hydraulics and electrical system. So each and every hardware item has to be compatible with the RTOS.

BAe and HAL have had software collaboration for over a decade and we don't know if Hawk RTOS was a collaborative effort with BAe funding that gave BAe the rights, but the knowhow was with us anyway. Maybe what has been done is to build the modules in India after expiry of any licence allowing us to use our own OS (This is just my guess). As regards rewriting the OS of a UAV we may need to know how the OS communicates with the various UAV systems before building an OS. Apart from licensing issues this requires playing around and a degree of hacking. Not impossible - but I don't know if it is a national priority.

All aircraft systems (almost all military weapons) by definition use RTOS, down from low end embedded controller nodes to medium and high level computers. And for very good set of reasons.

I know how expensive the commercial RTOS licenses are for medium and high level systems (few thousand $ for each SBC node). If we can develop it and mature it, we should use it going forward on new design. Much like using indigenous processors. An equally important aspect is prevent foreign vendors and nations from compromising (remotely initiated failure/spoof/monitoring) the weapon when the weapon is needed the most.

Started my professional life developing RToS for flight control & nav systems.
Last edited by Haridas on 13 Feb 2018 08:30, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 08:12

Haridas wrote: An equally important aspect is prevent foreign vendors and nations from compromising (remotely initiated failure/spoof/monitoring) the weapon when the weapon is needed the most.

hmmm - interesting point

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 08:16

OK question:

What RTOS would the LCH be using? Would this news that appeared 3-4 days ago indicate software that works on an existing RTOS?
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2018/02/l ... r.html?m=1
Light Combat Helicopter gets cheaper with crucial indigenisation flight control system (AFCS)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2018 08:26

they seem to have simply taken words from the same source as Wiki - which says the same in in different words.


Yes, that is to be expected. HAL is only trying to make the RTOS more secure. From a functional point of view nothing changes (as far as I can tell from that release). It is just like any other RTOS (again that comment based on teh Release).

Even then this is an excellent, non trivial development.

It appears that ARINC 653 allows the simultaneous functioning of applications written for various OSes while maintaining integrity in separate partitions


Well. That is the basic feature set of any RTOS - like the telephone example I gave.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 09:05

NRao wrote:
It appears that ARINC 653 allows the simultaneous functioning of applications written for various OSes while maintaining integrity in separate partitions


Well. That is the basic feature set of any RTOS - like the telephone example I gave.
I think you have left out a crucial detail - now highlighted in red.

I agree that the telephone exchange is a RTOS - but taking commands from apps written for different operating systems (for different hardware) and routing or executing them simultaneously while still keeping them separate and maintaining priority is not something that a standard OS like Windows. Android or iOS does. ARINC 653 appears to be an OS that allows simultaneous control of hardware that takes instructions from apps needing different "hostile" and incompatible OSes like Windows/Android and iOS.

The only analogy I can think of is WINE on Linux that allows Linux and Windows apps to run simultaneously on the same terminal.

Can't say for sure - this is only gyan picked up from working with different OSes on PCs - not as a software developer.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2018 09:51

ARINC 653 appears to be an OS


No. It is a standard. Much like Java specs. So,

ARINC = Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated

ARINC 653 (Avionics Application Standard Software Interface) is a software specification for space and time partitioning in safety-critical avionics real-time operating systems (RTOS). It allows the hosting of multiple applications of different software levels on the same hardware in the context of an Integrated Modular Avionics architecture.[1]

It is part of ARINC 600-Series Standards for Digital Aircraft & Flight Simulators.


HAL for whatever reason/s decided to follow the ARINC 653 standard. They could have opted for any other standard or come up with their own. That is what creates "various OSes", all of them being RTOS.

Not like WINE (which I think is more of an emulator?). RTOS is a stand alone OS. UNIX has a RTOS - which is what was used in AT&T telephone switches. Linux has a RTOS.

BTW, the "different software levels" refers to the "nice" process priority levels in UNIX. Which is a big feature in RTOS. The HAL Release states that in the feature set.


Anyways, very good dev. This is a big deal.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 942
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby KrishnaK » 13 Feb 2018 12:33

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:
The HAL-RTOS provides a comprehensive feature set based on international specification - ARINC-653 - to support Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture. Key features include address, space and time partitioning, priority pre-emptive process scheduling and health monitoring.

Unfortunately this is not saying a lot - this is what any good OS does - they seem to have simply taken words from the same source as Wiki - which says the same in in different words.
An RTOS is like any other OS with an important constraint - it has a bound on time to act on an input.

A key characteristic of an RTOS is the level of its consistency concerning the amount of time it takes to accept and complete an application's task; the variability is jitter.[1] A hard real-time operating system has less jitter than a soft real-time operating system. The chief design goal is not high throughput, but rather a guarantee of a soft or hard performance category. An RTOS that can usually or generally meet a deadline is a soft real-time OS, but if it can meet a deadline deterministically it is a hard real-time OS.


Normal OSes can and do optimize for throughput instead of latency/responsiveness or vice-versa. However an RTOS needs to be deterministic in how long it'll take to do something say A, so it can guarantee that any other input that arrives when A is being processed will be serviced in a max of time t after it arrives. To give an idea of what it takes for a regular OS to be RTOS like

What PREEMPT_RT gives you over the normal kernel is not only faster response times, but more importantly, it removes all unbounded latencies. An unbounded latency is where the amount of delay that can occur is dependent on the situation.
from Intro to Real Time Linux for embedded developers

ARINC 653 is a standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_653
ARINC 653 (Avionics Application Standard Software Interface) is a software specification for space and time partitioning in safety-critical avionics real-time operating systems (RTOS).


But Wiki says something more - which I have highlighted below
It allows the hosting of multiple applications of different software levels on the same hardware in the context of an Integrated Modular Avionics architecture.[1]


It appears that ARINC 653 allows the simultaneous functioning of applications written for various OSes while maintaining integrity in separate partitions. A pdf linking from the WiKi page says that ARINC 653 allows commands from Posix, ADA and other systems to work via APIs . It means that the system "translates" various languages and passes information appropriately while maintaining separate partitions for each and prioritizing as necessary.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091007150 ... _final.pdf


It does look like that - from wiki

Each application software is called a partition and has its own memory space. It also has a dedicated time slot allocated by the APEX API. Within each partition, multitasking is allowed. The APEX API provides services to manage partitions, processes and timing, as well as partition/process communication and error handling. The partitioning environment can be implemented by using a hypervisor[2] to map partitions to virtual machines, but this is not required.
However it doesn't say anywhere that the system "translates" back and forth between its partitions - what it does seem to offer is the ability for processes (in different partitions ?) to talk to/synchronize with each other. The standard would likely define how to write to a port or semaphore and how that can be read etc. The key advantage seems to be

SWaP (multiple functions on single LRU)
vs
SWaP – Each function is separate LRU


I agree that the telephone exchange is a RTOS - but taking commands from apps written for different operating systems (for different hardware) and routing or executing them simultaneously while still keeping them separate and maintaining priority is not something that a standard OS like Windows. Android or iOS does. ARINC 653 appears to be an OS that allows simultaneous control of hardware that takes instructions from apps needing different "hostile" and incompatible OSes like Windows/Android and iOS.

The only analogy I can think of is WINE on Linux that allows Linux and Windows apps to run simultaneously on the same terminal.
It would compare with a hypervisor like XEN that allows different OSes and processes within those OSes to run on the same hardware. VMWare & VirtualBox offer the same features but within the primary OS.

Moving a running system to your own implementation will take considerable time and effort assuming the vendor will give you access to the hardware
specs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ramana » 13 Feb 2018 22:59

This is HAL-RTOS development is good thing by HAL.

The software folks are also confirming that.


ELMO= Enough Lets Move On.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 14 Feb 2018 06:27

Arming the Israeli UAVs is a existent program

https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/project-cheetah-drones-india-army-air-force-surgical-strikes-israel-349227-2016-10-30

We don’t know how far they progressed, it could be that Israel isn’t playing ball. A Searcher UAV crashed in Tibet recently, and now China has an opportunity to build its own version.

Shiv, Tejas FBW has quad redundancy, if they instrument the control surfaces of the Searcher UAV, the FCS in development can be made to shadow the original one, after a certain number of flight hours the new FCS stabilizes and with a UAV fleet at hand the flight hours logged across can be rapid.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9668
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Feb 2018 11:28

I think China is pretty much developed its Drones, quite frankly this reverse Engineering is Bakwas. If you have knowledgeable people, the can get 1 or 2 new ideas- thats it. See the History if Tu-4 and B-29(not 3 B-29's were caught by Soviets but they had got the Blue prints from the American Factory- still it was a struggle). Reverse Engineering is just psy-ops where many people for H&D import systems, paint it and claim it as indigenous systems.

The worry though is that Israel may not want to put off the Chinese. This will always be the limitation of being import dependent. Imports are quick medicine which prolong issues.

In 2002 after our Israeli made drone was shot down after repeated passes deep in Paki territory and after Multiple Aim-9L shots from Paki F-16's. Paki's claim they now have drone Technology and will be producing 100's of Drones by 2004. Has it happened, why cant the Pakis reverse engineer their F-16's.

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm

They were not able to manufacture the wing fuel tanks. The compound curves of the plexiglass nose presented an unsolved problem, and pilots complained about distortion in the Russian copy. They did not have the capability to manufacture the huge tires. The massive landing gear also was a problem. The responsibility of copying the airframe went to Tupolev. There were miles of wires, and the sophisticated gunnery system presented the biggest problem. The Russians sent agents to the U.S. to try to purchase anything they could find in parts, plans, tires, or information pertaining to the B-29. The machine guns were replaced with cannons. The copying and manufacture of the R-3350 engine was turned over to Shvetsov.


Meanwhile, back in the Soviet Union, problems continued to plague the TU-4 project. The advanced avionics of the central fire control gunnery system remained unsolved. There were problems with the pressurization system, and the R-3350 copy was overheating, had short engine life, runaway props, and in general the total unreliability of the entire aircraft.


Reverse Engineering is most cases BS>

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 15 Feb 2018 06:58

We are going on a tangent here, the manufacturing capabilities of cheen and pak are not even comparable. I could take another example, just to avoid generalizing reverse engineering is this or that, where cheen has stolen EMALS tech and then finding its way on their Carriers, regardless of how good it is, IN will be left with the only option of buying it from US to close the perceived gap. You could almost feel the whiff of how pak gets free goodies and India is either forced to slog in development or import

Whether they would copy the Searcher or not we still have a need for armed drones and for whichever reason its not a national priority when an ex defense minister clearly said safety of the special forces was his topmost concern during the last Surgical strikes.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3535
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Neela » 21 Feb 2018 19:25


Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 155
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Rishi_Tri » 21 Feb 2018 23:10

Link to Video of Saras PT1N flight 2.

https://www.nal.res.in/cms/medias/video ... 20-1mb.mp4

Is 2:04 min long and is 476 MB. By looks of it, must be 4K resolution.

And yes, predictably the 'Light' bug has bitten Saras too. It is being called Light Transport Aircraft. :)

LCA, LCH, ALH, and now LTA.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3872
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 22 Feb 2018 04:24

IAF commits to buying 15 Saras Mk2 LTA

The Indian Air force (IAF) has committed to buying at least 15 units of a future production version of India’s indigenous SARAS light transport aircraft (LTA). This was revealed by Dr Harsh Vardhan, India’s Minister for Science & Technology (S&T) after witnessing the second test flight of a refurbished SARAS prototype, called PT1N, earlier today, at the HAL Airport in Bengaluru. The SARAS has been developed by the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Bengaluru, which falls under the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) controlled by India’s Ministry for S&T (MST). Echoing, Dr Vardhan’s revelation was the IAF’s Air Vice Marshal (AVM) Sandeep Singh, also present during this second test-flight, who said that ‘The IAF is committed to test and thereafter induct the first indigenously designed and manufactured Light Transport Aircraft. IAF is fully supporting this programme and the design and configuration of the new version of SARAS would be frozen soon‘.

Indeed, this second flight of the PT1N was commanded by three IAF officers from the Aircraft and System Testing Establishment – Group Captain R.V. Panicker, Group Captain K.P. Bhat and Wing Commander U.P. Singh. A further 18 test flights are planned for the PT1N, before freezing the design configuration for the production version. According to NAL, the production model design is expected to be ready by June-July this year.The first successful test-flight was of course carried out on 24 January, earlier this year.


As such, the refurbished PT1N has incorporated several design modifications and improvements over the original SARAS PT1 prototypes. For instance, PT1N is powered by two 1200 shaft horse power (SHP) engines instead of the two 800 SHP engines that were used to power PT1 prototypes. PT1N also has a 104-inch diameter propeller assembly to cater to second segment climb gradient requirements. PT1N also has an improved flight control system, rudder area, main wheel and brakes in keeping with its ‘all-up weight’ of 7100 kg. Moreover, it has now incorporated an indigenous stall warning system as an added safety feature.



PT1N will, however, form the basis for the creation of three limited series production (LSP) SARAS MK-2 aircraft, which will have an empty weight that is some 500 kgs less than that of PT1N. The weight reduction will be achieved in the main through the use of composite wings & greater composite content in the fuselage itself. The SARAS MK-2 will also be a 19-seater aircraft in comparison to the current PT1N’s 14-seat configuration. Commenting on the pathway for the Mk-2’s development Dr Vardhan said that CSIR-NAL proposes to get the SARAS-Mk 2 version initially certified for military use following which it would be put up for certification for civilian roles. Adding to this, Dr Girish Sahni, Director General of CSIR, said that the cost of development and certification of the SARAS Mk-2 will be around Rs 600 crores, spent over a ‘time period of about 2 to 3 years’.


Cheaper than imports

Dr Vardhan, also believes that SARAS Mk-2 will be cheaper by 20-25 percent as compared to any imported aircraft in its category. Stating more precise figures, Dr Vardhan said:“The unit cost of the aircraft, with more than 70 per cent indigenous content, will be around 40-45 crores as against 60-70 crores for imported ones and has far more benefits than what the imported aircraft offer.”

A bright future

It must be noted that the aircraft currently available in the same category as the SARAS are essentially based on 1970’s technology while incorporating iterative improvements. Examples would include the Beechcraft 19000D, the Embraer EMB 110 and the Dornier-228 family which is currently being license produced by HAL. These designs typically have higher fuel consumption and lower cruise speeds than the SARAS design and are unsuitable for sustained operations from hot and high-altitude airfields. SARAS is also expected to have lower operating costs as compared to these planes. SARAS also has a pressurized cabin which is not the case with most aircraft in its category. It can also be operated from semi prepared airfields thereby potentially opening up remote areas to air travel.

Indeed, the upgraded SARAS Mk-2 version, which will undergo considerable drag/weight reduction besides boasting a higher cruise speed, lower specific fuel consumption, short take-off and landing capability, low cabin noise, capability to operate from hot and high airfields, besides lower acquisition and maintenance costs, seems well poised to dominate this segment of the aviation market in India. Thereby paving the way for future exports.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62668
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 22 Feb 2018 07:19

I saw it yesterday around 11.15am.
it was a short flight like maybe 10 mins.
a kiran trainer was flying close formation to keep watch.

from below it looks like a A10 warthawg :twisted:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62668
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 22 Feb 2018 07:31

the DARE SIVA pod finds a new life as airborne tested

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02 ... 30mki.html

Su30 will get new indian aesa jammer pod by next year. replaced the heavy russian pods which affect the flight envelope....thats why we do not see them being carried much...plus does not interface fully with indian rwr

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 22 Feb 2018 07:49

Great day for swadeshi!! A step forward! Thank you IAF.

Now if only we could order 500 LCA MK1, Mk1A and MK2. Force HAL to deliver in 10 years!!

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 182
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby K_Rohit » 22 Feb 2018 10:15

Can someone help me understand the Mig 21 variant designations in Indian service (map Type 77, Type 96, etc. with M, MF, etc.) and which are retired now? I understand M, Bis, Bison, UM still in service with Ms going out next year?
Mig 21 FL
Mig 21 M
Mig 21 UM
Mig 21 MF
Mig 21 Bis
Mig 21 Bison


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests