TeerIt’d be interesting to see what platform is being envisaged for the UCAV & what payload its meant to have.
Weaponizing the Rustom/Nishant designs or something entirely different in the class of a larger aircraft.
TeerThe deveoper trials had foriegn INS system and all have been successful the failed user trials used india INS system hmm.
Thats absolute bovine faecal matter from Hemant Kumar Rout – he wouldnt be able to recognise an INS if one was presented to him on a plate, with a cherry on top.
India has been using its own INS for all its missiles for a substantial period of time across multiple programs. It currently makes the INS for the Prithvi-1,2, Dhanush, Brahmos, Agni-1,2,3 as well as ISRO programs. Wrt to the latter – check out Chandrayaan. The INS is not an issue.
The failure per other public reports is at the stage separation – I would not give any definitive answer here, but I’d be fairly certain DRDO is looking at the stage separation ignition system & reliability of the overall mechanism once it is deployed to the user.
Trial launches by scientists who carefully handle the system are one thing, but a test launch from a production batch which has been in the users hands for a while, is another altogether & more ruggedization may be the answer.
TeerI think we really need more defense establishments than the usual suspects, DRDO,HAL,ADA etc. with the number of weapon systems we are trying to develop at the same time, it will invariably lead to delays.
R&D groups are being set up both in PSUs to take the load off DRDO, ADA and at pvt units.
Of the latter in terms of large companies, TATA and L&T have a good applied engineering setup, while others like Bharat Forge, M&M are waiting and watching to see how much money is going to come from Govt end and whether FDI cap will be relaxed so that they can split costs with established OEMs.
Teerapparently a lot of models are being called rustom-*, at least that’s the impression one gets from the outside. whether it is a case of DDM confusing things we don’t know.
I do think you are correct that it is the LCRA which crashed.
Rustom-I demonstrator for tech, based on the LCRA (which crashed)
Rustom-H, actual MALE UAV for series production (picture of mockup given by Misraji).
Several other UAV projects, Nishant Mk2, MAV, UCAV etc. as well.
TeerThanks, Ankush. Did not know that.
Does anybody have more information about this Chakor UAV. Googling did not help.
Why is the order for Nishant UAV so less while Israeli UAVs are being bought in scores??
They did recently test a new engine for Nishant.
Teer, would you happen to have more insight in this?
@Rahul.
Thanks for the explanation. Now I am just hoping we can hear the news about LCH’s first flight. Would be quite a way to end the year…. đ
Regards,
Ashish
Misraji,
Both Rahulm & ray have noted it already.
The recent protype that crashed was the Rustom -I (demonstrator). This was just a scaled up LCRA with a functional representation of the avionics that would go into the actual Rustom-H.
The Rustom – H is the actual picture that you have put up.
The picture by the way is just a mockup used for initial form & fit prototyping of the systems that will go into the Rustom. Despite modern CAD, CAM and virtual reality, it really helps people to understand the actual size of a system by seeing a “real version”.
This will be followed by an engineering mockup which will include the systems carried by the actual Rustom & which in function, is similar to the Iron Bird which is used for LCA FBW development.
The Rustom is a MALE UAV, and its peer is the Heron presently serving in that role.
Nishant – the IA has ordered 12 Nishants. Currently, there is a Nishant MK2 in development. This is a CTOL – conventional take off and landing system variant, which meets revised IA specs. The original Nishant was a hydraulic launch and parachute recover system based on IA GSQR’s which changed (as usual midway) once the IA discovered that they had enough money to invest in fixed bases to run UAVs off, of.
Theres no guarantee either they will continue to think this way – a few years from now, they might again want hydra. launch & para recover UAVs, the good thing is that there is the Nishant MK1 already now. The Nishant MK1 launch system is called zero length launch – you dont need a runway to have it launch.
The new Nishant engine is meant to develop competence in this critical area, and replace the currently imported Alvis series engines.
Chakor is actually Chukkar. It was a target drone developed by the ADE for launch from Canberra’s and other aircraft, for gunnery practise, and SAM training. Its role, in a way, has been taken over by the Lakshya.
The real progenitor of the Nishant, was actually the fairly basic “Kapothaka” which was demonstrated in exercise Brass Tacks and led to the launch of the Nishant project.
TeerI checked it again. There is nothing called GS-100 at present of whom the new radar should be based. The SR3D platform used as base for many newly developed radars including GM-400 most of them are long range. So I will not be surprised if they come up with something based on GS-1000. Though it is a BMD radar it also has excellent low level coverage.
Once again, just because it is not there on the internet or the website does not mean it does not exist.
The platform in question is just a way of saying technology. Thales has noted it costs so much to develop a modern radar nowadays that the only way to do it is to share common components and technology. It could be reusing software, hardware or even production processes. They have also rationalized their radar group – earlier there were different units spread across France, Netherlands and elsewhere, working in silos and only collaborating on projects. This was due to all the M&A, Thales aim was to combine all this into one “common platform” and leverage it. Incidentally this is where rivals such as IAI had an advantage, in terms of having a focused radar group such as IAI. Thales has long had capability in this arena – its Flair system was the original contender.
Coming to the radar, its important to understand what the IAF wants from it. The IAF wanted a radar capable of tracking low flying targets in mountainous and hard to access areas through Kashmir and the North East. This is meant for that purpose and acts like a gapfiller. For the plains the IAF has ordered 37 Rohinis.
TeerDon’t exactly understand the purpose behind such rides? Is it to bolster services morale? If so, does it really work?
USS.
As funny as it may sound, it does. Mrs Patil is the CincC -in a manner of speaking, of the Armed Forces of the Republic of India. They do like it when the politicians and leadership make an attempt to understand or even take an interest in what they do.
As far as such measures go, George Fernandes was a class act. He & his brother funded a christmas cake made at a famous south Indian eatery, for troops at the Line of Control. Small thing, but it went a long way.
TeerMay be unsubstantiated, but how could you say it is inaccurate? How can you explain IN operating three different types of fighters (Mig-29/NLCA/western type) from its carriers (only three carrier I think?)? How many other navies around the world are doing so? Mig-29 is a reality. NLCA is being developed. How hard it is for someone to think that IN might be seeking for further information on western types, just in case NLCA does not materialise on time?
Oh for crying out loud – relying on dodgy reports from the TOI which does not know its rear from its front does not get you or anyone for that matter, far. But mark it up for consistency – TOI continues to mark its time as the TOIlet paper of defence journalism.
The NLCA is hardly “floundering” – the 2 seaters flown, the engine selections being progressed, and so is consultancy for a strengthened gear system & navalization.
The Indian Navy has always been interested in a more advanced type than the 29 K, as it stood, the 29 K was all that could be available for the Gorshkov for a variety of reasons & at the time, its competitors did not offer anything much over it either.
That does not mean it will be the only type, forever – the JSF has been high for instance on the IN’s list of things of interest & per what I know for a certainty, a F3+ Rafale with AESA & some other kit is also very…interesting.
The 29K is good, but funding permitting, its not a surety the IN will stick only to that type forever.
21Ankush you have mail.
TeerIf we are to buy American can we atleast buy something good like the F-35 please? pease sir please?
the F/18 EF on all accounts is a monumental waste of time and money for the IN and IAF.
The point is that the F/A-18 E/F is available now, whereas the JSF is still under development, and since India is not a development partner, its orders will probably be put in the later pipeline. If it pushes for early JSFs – thats more expensive. All in all, theres no easy solution here.
Rajan,
The GS100 is likely to be there, even if its not on the website. Thales has been working on making a modular series of radars based on the same technology platform, which they refer to as the S3RD. The Ground Master 400 is basically the high end of the current series of AD radars using this basis. The GS100 is likely to be the mid-end. The G1000 is a different project altogether, meant for long range BMD, think of it as the French GreenPine.
TeerThe IAF is actually interested in the Meteor & apparently went via Sweden to learn more about the actual capabilities.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143664
Request from the Defense Materiel Administration to disclose confidential information to India on the robot system Meteor
Fö2008/2544/MIL
TeerSwerve, I already know all that – ALARMs operation is well known and the 2 missiles versus 99 HARMs in Kosovo has become somewhat of an internet legend by itself, stated each time the word ARM is mentioned.
But thats not the point I was attempting to make. HARM may be better at DEAD and even SEAD thanks to its loiter, but the GPS fix for HARM gives it a good capability (good as versus best!) against static HPRs. And its actually better than one without – because now, its no longer dependent on sidelobe emissions alone & with the right software fix can autotarget the specified postion, rendering co-located radar decievers w/the target, useless.
And if you force the radar to shut down for the period and have it redeploy, for the period of time that a strike package is in town – thats the job done.
The IAF operates Kh-31’s and Kh-25’s – off the cuff, they are no better than HARM, but they provide a useful capability, for this same reason. Fire off a bunch, create chaos and get your people out.
But all this is besides the point.
The point I am trying to make is, if an arms vendor offers an integrated package, ie HARMs (70% as effective as the best) + HTS & says “war proven” & upgrades guaranteed thanks to a large user base (ie the United States services) & at a reasonable cost (thanks to large production runs), and no integration hassles (since it already comes prequalified on the F/A-18 and Viper) – he has a very good argument to offer.
Saves time, saves money.
And the advantage that the US guys have is – that these “slight” advantages keep piling up, since they have a range of munitions prequalified with similar advantages…and the entire package is supplied as part of the deal.
The IAF has added a lot of third party munitions eg to its MKI, but its a very intensive process, and given the MMRCA was all about “ready to go, out of the box”, it will be hard for the IAF to reject such “offers” as mentioned above, because the CAG (Auditor) & Finance guys will point fingers.
TeerYes I am serious. Give me an opponent with a better WVR at this moment.
Both Iran & India operate better WVR with the latest R-73E variants. More agile, more ranged and with HOBS capability. India in particular has far more fighters than Pak, already equipped with HMCS and HOBS missiles.
And you said they had nothing and now you agree that it is developed.
Actually I dont agree, because all you have to show as evidence is a webpage which itself puts question marks. The webpage is clear that it may update and is unsure, unfortunately you are taking it as definitive.
Whether it is operational or not… I have no idea. We often do not see the latest. JF17 in Pakistan is not seen with SD10. I have no clue whether they have it besides that it was ordered. Whether that is reliable? Unfortunately news items like these are not more detailed.
So basically you are just proving my point. Thanks.
TeerIn which combat do you think that PAF needs more? Iran? Afghanistan? India? There are not many opponents so if AIM9m 8 is not good enough then I am curious which opponent it has to face.
Is that even a serious question?
Besides that marking Chinese as inferior is a bit unrealistic. It took a few seconds…
PL-10 (K/AKK-10?) is the next generation IR-guided missile in the same class as AIM-9X, ASRAAM, A-Darter and IRIS-T. It features an IIR seeker and TVC, giving the missile a 90° off-boresight angle and excellent IRCCM capability against aerial target maneuvering at high-g. It also has a “lock-after-launch” capability, which could extend its range to BVR. The development of PL-10 started in 2005 and a test round was launched from the ground in November 2008.
A few more seconds reading what you Ctrl+C’ed would tell you that a) This missile is “still in development” b) Any access to AIM-9X tech would help c) Its not even sure what the specs or even the designation is (look at the question mark next to PL-10 within the brackets.
Quadbike
Is the AIM 9X on offer to India ? I think it will also be AIM 120 C-7 offered to the IAF to begin with and not the AIM 120D.
If they dont offer AIM-9X, then the Euros, and even the Russians will have a field day. AIM-120C7 sounds logical, keeping the AIM-120 D for themselves. Guess despite the cost , India may go the Meteor way.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143664
TeerHow did that follow – what I mean is only if there is a substantially more advanced AIM-9X follow on inducted or confirmed to be in the works, by the USAF would it be released to the PAF. Otherwise it may remain out of bounds.
The Block 2 doesnt change/advance the seeker AFAIK but adds more s/w capability, datalink etc so they might not give it even then.
Via the SD-10 the PRC has demonstrated a basic grasp of ARH, so an earlier AIM-120C5 is not such technology leak/ proliferation risk as giving access to an IIR equipped AIM-9X. Till date the PRC has no IIR equipped missile. The US has blocked Israeli exports to the PRC (Python 5 is NA) and there is an European Arms embargo (and IRIS-T, ASRAAM are not dual use like helicopters to skim past).
TeerWhat an appalling article. Fantasies of VTOL Eurofighters . . . . :confused:
Mr Luthra is an ex. Armyman and not upto scratch with AF technology, ergo bloopers galore.
The fun is in seeing what he was told (and he mangled). What I can make out – the EF guys have said they will put TVC if required (which he seems to have made into, “will surely have”) and that there is some thinking going on about another aircraft apart from the MiG-29, whether it will be the SH or Rafale is too early to tell.
One was rejected on grounds of cost in earlier days (Ankush may know why exactly, if I am wrong) and the other was part of a planning exercise.
So far though, Mr Luthra has been one of the better journos in terms of not editorializing but sticking to telling a story (even with huge bloopers – tech errors are preferable to motivated reporting).
Sign In
