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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2015 03:21

Wonderful news!

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Oct 2015 20:01

Now we will action like terminators along loc

.. hope we get some taped action sequences vs the wannabe terrorists

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 12 Oct 2015 06:44

^And sooner or later, wannabe refugees. Thats when these things set on automatic mode are gonna really be worthwhile.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2015 04:35

India signs deal for 194 micro-light planes with Slovenian firm

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

what happens to hansa?

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2015 07:43

^^^
Can anyone compare the performance between the two?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 13 Oct 2015 11:44

Imported maal is always the best, so say Swiss bankers!

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 13 Oct 2015 15:18

Imported maal is always the best, so say Swiss bankers!

Please. Lets not go full CT when there is a better explanation.

Can anyone compare the performance between the two?

1. DGCA defines microlight as <450kg all up weight, Hansa3 is not a microlight.
2. The Hansa 3 has a Rotax 914 turbo with fuel consumption (> 10 gal/hr for turbo) close to double that of the Rotax 912UL which powers the Pipistrel(5.3 gal/ hour normally aspirated).
3. Pricewise Hansa3 is more than double the cost.
4. Hansa3 has a constant speed prop whereas the Pipistrel has a fixed pitch prop.
5. In any case, you cant replace a microlight with a turboprop no matter if they look the same. Firstly, you will not be allowed to go to a complex aircraft straightaway. Secondly, if someone were to try it, the added complexity of the turbo and the variable pitch prop will certainly overwhelm novice pilots causing them and their instructors untold grief in the cockpit.

Currently, the only Make in India alternative to the Pipistrel would have been the X-Air F series or the Zenith Aircraft CH750. X-air F is already in service with the NCC for similar operations. I dont believe Zenith can deliver 194 aircrafts in 3 years. I have seen their plant. It is a great company with an excellent STOL design, but they would be hardpressed to scale to this level.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2015 15:51

ManjaM wrote:...

Currently, the only Make in India alternative to the Pipistrel would have been the X-Air F series or the Zenith Aircraft CH750. X-air F is already in service with the NCC for similar operations. I dont believe Zenith can deliver 194 aircrafts in 3 years. I have seen their plant. It is a great company with an excellent STOL design, but they would be hardpressed to scale to this level.

Right. That's one of the crux of the argument; Pipistrel has been around for 26-years and over that time they have built up pretty impressive production capacity and types of microlite. Hard for Zenith to compete right now. But if given 194 orders, Zenith-like company may not have been able to deliver all of them within 3-years but would have been able to scale up over time and in that process it would have been able to build up extensive supplier-chain within the country. Then they would be in a good position to deliver the next 100 quicker. Opportunity for a 300 microlite order is huge and would have been beneficial to get a domestic aerospace company to become a global player. Of course, this doesn't mean acquiring a sub-par product at any cost but one where the users are willing to work with the domestic manufacturers (competitive down selection) to get what they want. Win-win for both in the long-run. But it seems 10-years went by and none such efforts were attempted.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 13 Oct 2015 18:44

First 908E Air-to-Air Refuelling pod structures assembled by Tata Advanced Systems ready for delivery

Tata Advanced Systems was selected by Cobham Mission Equipment in May 2014, as a strategic partner for the manufacture and assembly of Air-to-Air Refuelling pod and centreline structures

Hyderabad, India: Today, the first product from a new relationship between Cobham Mission Systems (CMS) and Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) to build Air-to-Air Refuelling Structures is ready for delivery from the TASL facility in Hyderabad.

TASL was selected by Cobham Mission Equipment in May 2014, as a strategic partner for the manufacture and assembly of Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) pod and centreline structures. Today marks the official handover ceremony of the first two 908E pod structures assembled by TASL and destined for use on the Airbus A400M.

The ceremony, attended by Cobham Mission Systems and TASL leadership, included a contingent from the British High Commission in India, and represents a significant milestone in the relationship between CMS and TASL, reinforcing the further strategic intent for the partnership.

TASL are also currently working on 905E, 808E and 912E AAR products for the Airbus A330, Airbus A400M and Embraer KC-390 tanker programmes, due for delivery to Wimborne before the end of 2015.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2015 19:48

Is this the Cobham IFR for LCA also?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2015 20:49

Looks like part of a pod.
https://www.cobham.com/media/136971/SYS ... V10611.pdf

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2015 20:50

Could have been part of offsets..

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 14 Oct 2015 07:38

Torpedo Maker Plans India Plant With Billionaire Anil Ambani.

Germany’s Atlas Elektronik GmbH is tying up with one of billionaire Anil Ambani’s defense companies to make an advanced torpedo in India, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi pursues a $60 billion expansion of the country’s navy.

The goal is a joint venture with Ambani’s Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Co. to make a heavyweight torpedo in India, according to Khalil Rahman, the chief executive of the German company’s local unit.

"Up until now, most of the projects to which we have sold were to supply equipment directly from Germany," he said in an interview in New Delhi. "But it’s now clear some of the projects are coming out in the ‘buy and make in India’ category. What we need to do is to develop a supply chain, so that the sub-components are built in India."

Modi is seeking to almost double the size of India’s navy with locally made vessels to deter China in the Indian Ocean, spur manufacturing and encourage defense exports. His challenge is convincing global arms makers that India has the funds to match its ambitions and is making it easier to operate in Asia’s third-largest economy.

"Everyone starts with very good intentions," Rahman said in the Sept. 29 interview. "What happens in India generally -- I’m not talking specifically about defense procurement procedures -- things are very heavily regulated and we end up with complicated procedures to do anything. But things are beginning to change."

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Oct 2015 09:39

Can the u-light planes be converted to UAVs if good Control Systems are devised?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2015 09:48

vayu tuvan wrote:Can the u-light planes be converted to UAVs if good Control Systems are devised?

Would make a stealthy Kamikaze bomber.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Oct 2015 11:27

That's what Kadet systems said they would do with the Hansa aircraft, and you all laughed them off.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Oct 2015 20:28

Vipul wrote:Torpedo Maker Plans India Plant With Billionaire Anil Ambani.

Germany’s Atlas Elektronik GmbH is tying up with one of billionaire Anil Ambani’s defense companies to make an advanced torpedo in India, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi pursues a $60 billion expansion of the country’s navy.

The goal is a joint venture with Ambani’s Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Co. to make a heavyweight torpedo in India, according to Khalil Rahman, the chief executive of the German company’s local unit.

"Up until now, most of the projects to which we have sold were to supply equipment directly from Germany," he said in an interview in New Delhi. "But it’s now clear some of the projects are coming out in the ‘buy and make in India’ category. What we need to do is to develop a supply chain, so that the sub-components are built in India."

Modi is seeking to almost double the size of India’s navy with locally made vessels to deter China in the Indian Ocean, spur manufacturing and encourage defense exports. His challenge is convincing global arms makers that India has the funds to match its ambitions and is making it easier to operate in Asia’s third-largest economy.

"Everyone starts with very good intentions," Rahman said in the Sept. 29 interview. "What happens in India generally -- I’m not talking specifically about defense procurement procedures -- things are very heavily regulated and we end up with complicated procedures to do anything. But things are beginning to change."

This means the DRDO versions of the torpedo are ready for manufacture!

Also folks please read Katherine Epstein's book "Torpedo" on how the MIC was created early in 1914 to make improvements to torpedoes.

Its a very crucial technology where naval capability intersects with geopolitics and economics and now with the triad (Arihant) with deterrence.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2015 20:42

why need a kamikaze that gets shot down in mid-air? the reason we have cruise missiles like nirbhay. it is going to be tested for low fly at around 20 m above sea level.

we have to also pay keen attention to the topic - 'waste, fraud and abuse' that gets into stealth mode during R&D.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2015 01:40

Kadet and NAL were speaking of an UAV.

They will probably keep the wing (just extend it), landing gear, control surfaces, engine and fuel systems. They will change the fuselage and change the orientation to a pusher configuration. People are hung up on how a plane designed to carry humans is not optimally shaped. That is not a challenge. Challenge is in building subsystems.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 15 Oct 2015 04:00

indranilroy: It should be possible to design a fuselage through modification of the air-frame and two versions of control software (but same microcontroller/computer) to have multi-role Hansa. One base platform but dual usage - manned craft and unmanned UAV. For unmanned UAV, the pilot's weight can be used to put in more computational power; 70-80 KG processing power is enormous now a days.

"Area-Efficient VLSI Computation" is a classic - CMU PhD thesis of Charles E. Leiserson.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Oct 2015 04:04

vayu tuvan wrote:Can the u-light planes be converted to UAVs if good Control Systems are devised?

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/pages/lcra.htm
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/derivati ... tm#pagetop

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2015 04:18

vayu tuvan wrote:indranilroy: It should be possible to design a fuselage through modification of the air-frame and two versions of control software (but same microcontroller/computer) to have multi-role Hansa. One base platform but dual usage - manned craft and unmanned UAV. For unmanned UAV, the pilot's weight can be used to put in more computational power; 70-80 KG processing power is enormous now a days.

"Area-Efficient VLSI Computation" is a classic - CMU PhD thesis of Charles E. Leiserson.

It is not he weight. UAV's fuselages are completely packed from inside to have the most streamlined body possible leading to longer loiter times.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 15 Oct 2015 05:52

Karan M: Those two have same DNA as Hansa/Hamsa?

indranilroy: So the air-frame platforms are not compatible?

(both questions are Socratic in nature, just in case you two think I have some super duper gnyan on these thingummies)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Oct 2015 06:44

I think that once a policy decision has been made to induct the LCA in numbers it is time to involve other agencies to develop lightweight, smart standoff munitions of the 500 to 1000 kg class to arm the LCA with. Of course if they are good for the LCA they can always be later claimed to be great for Su-30 or Jag to carry in large numbers a la SDB

For example an ARM/bunker buster with an all up weight of 500-1000 kg and a standoff range of anywhere from 25 to 50 km, Inertial and GPS guidance - perhaps with laser homing as well. I don;t know how the optical sensor scene is like in India.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 15 Oct 2015 11:14

Update on Uttam AESA

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/10 ... ssing.html

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Oct 2015 13:55

shiv wrote:I think that once a policy decision has been made to induct the LCA in numbers it is time to involve other agencies to develop lightweight, smart standoff munitions of the 500 to 1000 kg class to arm the LCA with. Of course if they are good for the LCA they can always be later claimed to be great for Su-30 or Jag to carry in large numbers a la SDB

For example an ARM/bunker buster with an all up weight of <a href="tel:500-1000">500-1000</a> kg and a standoff range of anywhere from 25 to 50 km, Inertial and GPS guidance - perhaps with laser homing as well. I don;t know how the optical sensor scene is like in India.

Agree.

General specs wish list for next gen indigenous PGMs:

Length: less than 4.2m to fit into internal weapon bays and be carried by smaller fighters
Weight: less than 800kg allowing it be carried in more pylons like on LCA mid-wing
Range: 30km plus to be out of most MANPAD/SR-SAM engagement zones; 150km+ variety for out of LR-SAM ranges
Seeker: multi-mode type (GPS/INS, MMW, IIR)
Warhead: multi-mode type (general, fragment, penetrator and incedinary)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Oct 2015 16:02

Re: coast guard's 2K crore purchasing EC 725. Can't HAL rudra version take this? Why is HAL not thinking of establishing versions, assembly lines and more to get these contracts?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 15 Oct 2015 17:24

SaiK wrote:Re: coast guard's 2K crore purchasing EC 725. Can't HAL rudra version take this? Why is HAL not thinking of establishing versions, assembly lines and more to get these contracts?

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... SAR_lg.jpg

This is the EC 725 used for SAR and patrolling. Now, does this look like it can be substituted for by a variant of the Dhruv?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 15 Oct 2015 17:32

If Navy opts for this too. Mahindra will most likely be assembling it in India

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Oct 2015 17:51

vayu tuvan wrote:Karan M: Those two have same DNA as Hansa/Hamsa?

NAL is the creator/originator of both airframes.. so in a sense, you are correct.

indranilroy: So the air-frame platforms are not compatible?

(both questions are Socratic in nature, just in case you two think I have some super duper gnyan on these thingummies)

They are most certainly compatible, but a purpose built UAV will be cheaper to operate.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /24060511/
http://www.p1hh.piaggioaerospace.it/

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 15 Oct 2015 20:04

srai wrote:
shiv wrote:I think that once a policy decision has been made to induct the LCA in numbers it is time to involve other agencies to develop lightweight, smart standoff munitions of the 500 to 1000 kg class to arm the LCA with

Shiv & Srai: Though I don't question the utility of small, smart weapons, I feel that IAF/DRDO haven't learnt a key lesson from the Tejas episode. We are repeating the same mistake with AMCA.

We need small weapons, no doubt. But what we need *even more* are large aircraft capable of flying long distances & carrying a crapload of weapons.

Here is where we are making a strategic blunder even with AMCA. Its *medium* alright, but its larger space is nullified by the "internal weapons bay" constraint. Its almost childish thinking by IAF/DRDO that after Light, we should go for Medium aircraft. Like after LKG, kids should go to only UKG.

Why not just skip a step and build an F22/FGFA sized large stealth fighter and a B2 sized stealth bomber? It will eliminate self-imposed constraints like "small payload", "limited fuel carrying capacity" & "miniaturized everything" crap which plagued Tejas & delayed its induction.

With the FGFA in trouble, we will be left hand-wringing and the Russkies will play Gorshkov-style hardball with us to fund their development program because we don't have a Plan B. We can take a leaf out of China here, with their J10 & stealth J20 programs. They didn't go for a "Medium" fighter. It will be tragi-comic if AMCA has a lower payload than J10 (which I suspect is the case)!

Sorry for the OT & didn't mean to pick on your post. It just triggered the thoughts about other self-inflicted wounds.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Oct 2015 20:31

Prem Kumar wrote: We need small weapons, no doubt. But what we need *even more* are large aircraft capable of flying long distances & carrying a crapload of weapons.

Why? I haven't understood the purpose. Particularly, how large and what range?

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 15 Oct 2015 20:34

Not directly related to R&D but...

nitin gokhale ‏@nitingokhale 10m10 minutes ago
For friends who asked. Announcing http://bharatshakti.in Launch in November. In support of self-- reliance in defence. Watch this space

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2015 21:14

vayu tuvan wrote: indranilroy: So the air-frame platforms are not compatible?

Not compatibility, but efficiency. Let's say you design a plane which can be flown by humans and serve as an UAV interchangeably. Let's also say that you can remove every thing that caters to humans from the plane when it is to be used as an UAV. But the plane which can seat two humans abreast has to have a cabin which is i approximately 1.5m wide, 1.2 m tall and 1 meter deep. When the plane flies you have to push the air around these dimensions.

Now, imagine you were designing a UAV subsystems to have a 150 kg payload. The fuselage doesn't need to be any wider than the engine. A 100 hp engine is about 0.6 mtrs wide. You can actually fill up the entire subsystems weighing 150 kg in a cylinder with 0.6 mtr diameter with a depth of about 1 mtr. So you design your UAV fuselage as a cigar (for best aerodynamic efficiency) with a diameter of 0.6 mtrs. Put the engine at the back, so that the spinning props don't interfere with view in the front (primary FoV). Put the equipment in a bay in the front to counter-balance the engine weight. Put a whole lot of fuel in the middle, so that the CG doesn't move much as the fuel gets used. Put the fight controls between the fuel tank and the engine, leads to least amount of control wiring and lines. And there you have a good balanced design, in fact the general layout for most UAVs out there.

vayu tuvan wrote: (both questions are Socratic in nature, just in case you two think I have some super duper gnyan on these thingummies)

I am an enthusiast as well with a very keen interest in aerodynamics. Unfortunately, it did not materialize into a career for me.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 15 Oct 2015 21:18

Nice lucid explanation. Thanks guys.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Oct 2015 23:17

SaiK wrote:Re: coast guard's 2K crore purchasing EC 725. Can't HAL rudra version take this? Why is HAL not thinking of establishing versions, assembly lines and more to get these contracts?

You dont even the Rudra variant. The requirement is for SAR.

Unfortunately for Dhruv, it tends to loose out to medium weight helicopters when it comes to Navy type requirements. Yes, there may be situations when ICG cannot rescue a person in distress due to distance. But I don't see why the CG cannot work with a Dhruv based solution given that it is a real step up compared to Chetaks

This tender should be shot down with extreme prejudice.

If we must then I hope this bird to make it:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2015 02:32

Punj Lloyd - impressive ambition, but seems to be content to be more of a precision manufacturer and component supplier and mostly relying on foreign partners for tech and TOT. Hence focused on max allowable % for foreign partner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQlp8xESijQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTlSXwBALKk

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2015 02:40

This is nice!! Godrej's Brahmos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1OgiOJ0EGw

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2015 03:06

Verdant Technologies - amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiVqmxUyELw

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 17 Oct 2015 06:25

Karan M wrote:Verdant Technologies - amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiVqmxUyELw

Not what he said about being accepted at home to sell global.