Thanks a ton for sharing. That's one hell of a display of shock and awe.joygoswami wrote:ONE OF THE BEST DRONACHARYA VIDEO EVER
UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
for counter battery work this thing is obviously too slow and short legged. atleast a harpy sized thing is needed and that is perhaps one role we see for harpy and harop.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Why one men (with weapon) disappears before hit at 02:54 ?joygoswami wrote:ONE OF THE BEST DRONACHARYA VIDEO EVER
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
^^^ that might be an apache, not a drone
I dont think drones have gun firing capability
I dont think drones have gun firing capability
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
We have multiple UAV; Drone program running\devloped at a moment by various organizations... do we have a collective list\central page which lists all such programs... also wider Q is whether all these programs are complimenting each other...
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Reading from the above two articles it seems:-
There is a LCA Mark-3 with stealth features planned for the future. But this is the first time one has heard about it. Are they confusing it with LCA Mark-2??
Can this be LCA MArk-3 ? http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03/hel ... fexpo.html
There is definitely Rustom-1, then Rustam-2 piston twin engined and Rustum-Turboprop which may be called Rustom-3. Is the High altitude surveillance UAV = Rustom Turboprop? Or we are going to have a turbofan based Rustom
Lastly UCAV might be AURA in the category of X-45/47 with design looking like Neuron
A bigger indigenous AWACS has always been considered as a next step and bi-static radar detection of steath aircraft may be logical next step.
Though Pulse jets & Sunlight powered HALE seems really far out
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Piramal Healthcare looks to enter defence industry to bid for Indian Army contracts. To invest in Israeli UAV mfg co.
http://t.co/KTjv4blk
http://t.co/KTjv4blk
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Two Indian companies in fray for over Rs. 10,000 cr army deal
In a major boost to the private sector, defence ministry has shortlisted two indigenous agencies including Larsen and Toubro, Tata Power and HCL and the state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the over Rs. 10,000 crore tactical communication project of the army.
Two companies, including a private sector consortium for the Tactical Communication System (TCS) project of the Army, have been down-selected, Defence Ministry sources said here.
They will now submit a Detailed Project Report (DPR) on whose basis further steps will be taken to select the final winner, they said.
It was a significant step towards fulfilling army’s requirement to replace its older radio network system to handle communication requirements in battle zone, they said.
TCS is a wide network deployed to provide secure communications infrastructure and network enabled operating environment to tactical forces in a battle zone.
Commenting on the Defence Ministry decision to select the two companies, the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) said, “Army has selected a private sector Special Purpose Company consisting of Larsen & Toubro, Tata Power SED and M/s HCL Infosys Ltd as a designated agency (DA) for the prestigious TCS project. Both DAs are supposed to make the prototype and out of two the lowest bidder will be given the final project.”
“This selection is an outcome of rigorous rounds of scrutiny and years of concerted efforts put in by the Corps of Signals, army, Defence Ministry and Indian Industry together,” it added.
The TCS project would be the first programme under the ‘Make’ clause in the Defence Procurement procedure (DPP). Under ‘Make’ programmes, Government provides 80% funding for the development phase and rest comes from the industry.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
we keep hearing about Rustom, and plans to arm it, but no missiles are mentioned
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
CROSS POSTING:
I was excited to see a lot of to and fro between Shiv Aroor and Prasun Sengupta about aero engines in the making ... I think the reporters both of them combined have the right picture and individually they are confusing between class of engines. THis is what my comprehension of India's engine programs are for UAVs/missiles:
1. GTRE Laghu Shakti (4-5 kN): This one is for UAVs for the 500-1000 kg class. There are reports that IAF/IN want a single-turbofan powered UAV where the piston/rotax engines won't do. This has never been reported before. Neelam Mathews had confused Rustom 1 as Rustom H and reported that it is flying with a 36MT engine. The reports further say that DRDO is already developing such a UAV). This engine can be used on missiles (don't know about restrictions) as NPO-Saturn builds the same class of engine 36MT used on various Russian missiles.
2. HAL (4-5 kN) engine: This one will be used for sub sonic cruise missiles like Nirbhay ... Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.
3. HAL (20 kN): This definitely is a new project. I was going thorugh HAL-CONNECT a few days ago and there was material on the same. Unfortunately, the link is not working today for me (Will post the link if it comes up again). I wonder what this engine is going to be used for? Future Trainers/UCAVs(5 - 10 Ton Class)?
4. Kaveri derivative: This is for IUSAV (10-15 Ton UCAVs).
I was excited to see a lot of to and fro between Shiv Aroor and Prasun Sengupta about aero engines in the making ... I think the reporters both of them combined have the right picture and individually they are confusing between class of engines. THis is what my comprehension of India's engine programs are for UAVs/missiles:
1. GTRE Laghu Shakti (4-5 kN): This one is for UAVs for the 500-1000 kg class. There are reports that IAF/IN want a single-turbofan powered UAV where the piston/rotax engines won't do. This has never been reported before. Neelam Mathews had confused Rustom 1 as Rustom H and reported that it is flying with a 36MT engine. The reports further say that DRDO is already developing such a UAV). This engine can be used on missiles (don't know about restrictions) as NPO-Saturn builds the same class of engine 36MT used on various Russian missiles.
2. HAL (4-5 kN) engine: This one will be used for sub sonic cruise missiles like Nirbhay ... Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.
3. HAL (20 kN): This definitely is a new project. I was going thorugh HAL-CONNECT a few days ago and there was material on the same. Unfortunately, the link is not working today for me (Will post the link if it comes up again). I wonder what this engine is going to be used for? Future Trainers/UCAVs(5 - 10 Ton Class)?
4. Kaveri derivative: This is for IUSAV (10-15 Ton UCAVs).
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
> Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.
on the contrary it was reported we had purchased engines and licenses for 36MT from saturn earlier. maybe we had purchased some tech also and would apply it to our own model free of restrictions same way the pandas 'clone' and 'reverse engineer' russian products with quiet blessings of the bear.
on the contrary it was reported we had purchased engines and licenses for 36MT from saturn earlier. maybe we had purchased some tech also and would apply it to our own model free of restrictions same way the pandas 'clone' and 'reverse engineer' russian products with quiet blessings of the bear.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
The official moto of HAL is "We are proud to be lazy corrupt screwdrivers". Read TATRA or ARV. HAL attempt at indigenous 4kn and 20kn engine can only mean attempt to refresh import contract of 36MT and AL-55i engines with more transfer of money under pretext of new JV
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
On a different Note the specifications of Indian UCAV=AURA=IUSAV with MTOW 15 tons may indicate a UCAV with strike - combat radius of around 4000km, which can allow us to threaten Chinese East Coast for the first time.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
radius of 4000 Kms ? WOW, pretty awesome if true. How did we arrive at that ? Analysis please.vic wrote:On a different Note the specifications of Indian UCAV=AURA=IUSAV with MTOW 15 tons may indicate a UCAV with strike - combat radius of around 4000km, which can allow us to threaten Chinese East Coast for the first time.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Google for equivalent US led pregrammes for UCAVs
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Arrey Pappe that is range ( i.e 4000 km) and not combat radius. All these programs are intended to deliver an "honest" 1100 nautical mile radius strike vehicle. So basically whether your are talking about UCAS-D or Skat you are looking at a radius of action of about 2000 km and not 4000 km.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
I did, I couldn't find anything. Could you please point me in the right direction ?vic wrote:Google for equivalent US led pregrammes for UCAVs
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
none of the US led programs seem to have more than 2000km radius and usually lot less.
LM X47, Boeing X45, general atomics avenger...
the X47 is big, the rest + neuron + barracuda are small fry....2x500lb in internal bay is typical payload.
the idea probably is not to have 20 platinum bullet B2 types, but 200 of small fry let loose in a swarm...cheaper and more expendable.
LM X47, Boeing X45, general atomics avenger...
the X47 is big, the rest + neuron + barracuda are small fry....2x500lb in internal bay is typical payload.
the idea probably is not to have 20 platinum bullet B2 types, but 200 of small fry let loose in a swarm...cheaper and more expendable.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Singha, we all know this, but when someone makes claims they should back it up. I am waiting for further research notes from vic.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
J UCAS
X-45C
X-45C
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
That has a 1600 km combat radius.vic wrote:J UCAS
X-45C
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
range: how about a point-point strike mission? perhaps naval version is mandatory for UCAVs.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
If you look at the MTOW, ability to add external fuel tanks and intended increase in range, you will get 2000NM which is around 4000km
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
UCAV at 15T MTOW.
We can expect a empty weight of 7T with a non afterburning version of Kaveri weighing 1T. Internal fuel of 6T (40% of MTOW) giving ferry range of over 8000 KM. This @ internal weapon payload of 2T.
Kaveri non afterburning thrust @5T.
For naval version we will require catapult launch capability.
We can expect a empty weight of 7T with a non afterburning version of Kaveri weighing 1T. Internal fuel of 6T (40% of MTOW) giving ferry range of over 8000 KM. This @ internal weapon payload of 2T.
Kaveri non afterburning thrust @5T.
For naval version we will require catapult launch capability.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
I will go with empty weight of 5tons and internal weapon payload of 2Tons
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
well since we havent even got a Rustom2 with Nags flying yet, all this specing out seems premature.
others are 10 yrs ahead of us - minimum.
others are 10 yrs ahead of us - minimum.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
vic wrote:If you look at the MTOW, ability to add external fuel tanks and intended increase in range, you will get 2000NM which is around 4000km
We also hear you have anti-gravity properties & my mind sees endless possiblities!
Anyways, I haven't seen anyting concrete backing your original claim of 4000Kms combat radius with payload. Thats 8000 Kms range fully loaded along with 10-15% bingo fuel requirements. Not happening for a while atleast in India. We are far far away from this today like Singha mentions.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Instead of wildly putting numbers, let us go by real facts. Take chips..e.g: from the nearest SC sea, our ADS should have UCAVs take off, and return back to replenishment. What is the deepest target it should take on?
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
We are far away from flying AURA but the 15 ton MTOW has all indicators of 5000km range when it enters squadron level service
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Few months ago Iran displayed an American drone which they claimed to have hijacked. USA denied and said it crashed due to technical failure and now Texas University students have demonstrated it can be done by spoofing. Ofcourse this is a different drone and not as sophisticated as the one that was displayed by Iran.
Students hijack US drone in mid-air for $1,000 wager
If it is this simple, you must wonder if Iran was telling the truth and did hijack the drone.
Students hijack US drone in mid-air for $1,000 wager
If it is this simple, you must wonder if Iran was telling the truth and did hijack the drone.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
why the assumption?? They are not pakis^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
snooping was the technique involved
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
It is 'spoofing'
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Speaking of "spoofing", does any body know whether GPS?GLOSSNAS signals for military purposes is encrypted?
The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.
The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
Yes I believe they are, infact all packet transactions over Internet are secure, hacking into these packets is called "Packet Sniffing" like secure credit card transactions and decryption is quite difficult. The Navy computers as would be for any other secure network would be part of Org Network with firewall and rigid security. So hacking wasn't the issue, but the problem was with pendrives which are thriving places for trojans, and so pendrives are generally banned. The chinese trojans got copied from the pendrives and may have copied the files to them and sent them over when connected to another non-secure machine. Spoofing is something different, its like a fake copy of some website/object which people think is the original one and give away their personal details into it. Spoofing can also be faking an user account.rajanb wrote:Speaking of "spoofing", does any body know whether GPS?GLOSSNAS signals for military purposes is encrypted?
The reason I ask this, is because, if not, then spoofing becomes easier.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
^^^ There should be a very strong encryption-id for the host controller and the UAV. So the UAV knows the command is coming from its origin host.
These ids can be at multiple levels i.e primary, secondary, tertiary. Also, can be changed for each operation and then changed at specific intervals. So am surprised that this can be hacked into.
These ids can be at multiple levels i.e primary, secondary, tertiary. Also, can be changed for each operation and then changed at specific intervals. So am surprised that this can be hacked into.
Re: UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech
While its true that regime is occasionally prone to embarrassingly silly bragging (photoshopped multiple missile launches, vaporware wonder-weapons, etc) the Iranians have substantially invested in their science, technology and engineering base from the 1960s to the present.Surya wrote:why the assumption?? They are not pakis^^If they did manage to hijack the drone it would've been done with chinese/russian assistance.
"Mohandis" or "Engineer" is a term of respect. Not quite the same as "Doctor" but still significant.
Especially after the isolation of the Iraq war experience when they had to mount major intelligence operations to scour the world for spares at ridiculous prices they don't want to just buy technology, they want to master it.