Rustom 2/TAPAS/BH-201 MALE UAV News Updates and Discussions

[Kshithij]

Yo autocoprophagious a'hole!!
Did you read the DRDO's own newsletter (to which I provided the link for) where all the sensors are referred to (multiple times) as 'payload'??

Now that you've stuffed enough of your own shit in your mouth, can you shut the F up??

Also, ballast is a placeholder! In your deranged world (where you waddle in your own shit, after having a mouthful) you might design & validate an aircraft for years and then load 350kgs aft of the aircraft. F'ing moron!!

You just ate your own shit. Show me where DRDO has mentioned the limit of 350kg for these so called payload. How do you know that the 350kg is for external payload or internal or total payload? Also, what sense does it make to define the payload capacity as 350kg when the 350kg has to be kept to maintain the centre of gravity either as ballast or as sensor?

 

[Enquirer]

You just ate your own shit. Show me where DRDO has mentioned the limit of 350kg for these so called payload. How do you know that the 350kg is for external payload or internal or total payload? Also, what sense does it make to define the payload capacity as 350kg when the 350kg has to be kept to maintain the centre of gravity either as ballast or as sensor?

You're dumb as f'ck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Armand2REP]

You just ate your own shit. Show me where DRDO has mentioned the limit of 350kg for these so called payload. How do you know that the 350kg is for external payload or internal or total payload? Also, what sense does it make to define the payload capacity as 350kg when the 350kg has to be kept to maintain the centre of gravity either as ballast or as sensor?

Unless it has internal bays it has no internal payload, only internal fuel which is not counted as payload.

 

[Kshithij]

Unless it has internal bays it has no internal payload, only internal fuel which is not counted as payload.

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. @Enquirer is trying to say that even the internal parts like comint, electto-optics are to be considered as payload.

I am pasting the image of TAPAS configuration again

@Enquirer Here we can see that only SAR is the payload. Rest other things like ELINT, Optics are all internal. You are only partially right about SAR being payload while many other parts which you mentioned as payload are not payload. Do you have more bullshit to spew?

 

[Armand2REP]

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. @Enquirer is trying to say that even the internal parts like comint, electto-optics are to be considered as payload.

I am pasting the image of TAPAS configuration again
View attachment 26332
@Enquirer Here we can see that only SAR is the payload. Rest other things like ELINT, Optics are all internal. You are only partially right about SAR being payload while many other parts which you mentioned as payload are not payload. Do you have more bullshit to spew?

If they are built into the frame they are not payload, if they are interchangeable they are payload.

 

[Enquirer]

If they are built into the frame they are not payload, if they are interchangeable they are payload.

Perhaps that's one way to define the word 'payload'. What matters is not the etymological nuance - but only what DRDO subsumes into the term!
When it comes to UAVs DRDO has always claimed any piece of hardware that's not directly related to propulsion or flight control as 'payload'. As such EO, EW & SAR were always considered as 'payload' irrespective of their degree of permanence vis-a-vis the air frame.

 

[Armand2REP]

Perhaps that's one way to define the word 'payload'. What matters is not the etymological nuance - but only what DRDO subsumes into the term!
When it comes to UAVs DRDO has always claimed any piece of hardware that's not directly related to propulsion or flight control as 'payload'. As such EO, EW & SAR were always considered as 'payload' irrespective of their degree of permanence vis-a-vis the air frame.

Payload is anything that does not come standard on the aircraft that can be put on or taken off as needed. If the standard Rostom 2 does not have a sat-link and they add one to it, that is part of the payload. If the sat-link is standard, it is not part of the payload. The EO is considered a standard fitting to the UAV, if the EW and SAR packages that can go in their place take the same weight, they are not part of payload as they fit into the standard weight. If they weigh more that can eat into the payload weight. As a twin engine aircraft 350kg is a rather poor payload so I doubt DRDO is fudging that number.

 

[Enquirer]

Payload is anything that does not come standard on the aircraft that can be put on or taken off as needed. If the standard Rostom 2 does not have a sat-link and they add one to it, that is part of the payload. If the sat-link is standard, it is not part of the payload. The EO is considered a standard fitting to the UAV, if the EW and SAR packages that can go in their place take the same weight, they are not part of payload as they fit into the standard weight. If they weigh more that can eat into the payload weight. As a twin engine aircraft 350kg is a rather poor payload so I doubt DRDO is fudging that number.

EO is considered 'payload' on all DRDO developed UAVs (Nishant, Rustom 1 & Rustom 2) - irrespective of it being a permanent fixture or swappable!
As I said before, for our discussion the definition of 'payload' is less relevant than the actual & useful (capabilities of) packages that's loaded onto the UAV.

 

[Armand2REP]

EO is considered 'payload' on all DRDO developed UAVs (Nishant, Rustom 1 & Rustom 2) - irrespective of it being a permanent fixture or swappable!
As I said before, for our discussion the definition of 'payload' is less relevant than the actual & useful (capabilities of) packages that's loaded onto the UAV.

What evidence do you have that DRDO is considering that as payload? Why would DRDO go against industry standard naming conventions? If they are trying to pad a 350kg payload figure with a twin engine UAV they might as well just scrap the thing now.

 

[Enquirer]

What evidence do you have that DRDO is considering that as payload? Why would DRDO go against industry standard naming conventions? If they are trying to pad a 350kg payload figure with a twin engine UAV they might as well just scrap the thing now.

Evidence? I thought u were more reasonable than the other guy!!
Read DRDO’s Newsletters (I also provided a link to it - but alas no one reads! Everyone feels it’s easier to concoct!) and DRDO’s annual reports where they refer to EO as payload (and have done so for decades!!!)
As to why they do wud go against ‘industry’ standards, u shud ask them. When u do, also ask them why they categorize fighter aircraft as light, medium, heavy - when no one in the world does so. World over aircraft are categorized by capabilities and not dead weight (stupid to think that mig-29 is medium weight but has less ‘payload’ than a light weight Tejas)!!

 

[Enquirer]

What evidence do you have that DRDO is considering that as payload? Why would DRDO go against industry standard naming conventions? If they are trying to pad a 350kg payload figure with a twin engine UAV they might as well just scrap the thing now.

Evidence? I thought u were more reasonable than the other guy!!
Read DRDO’s Newsletters (I also provided a link to it - but alas no one reads! Everyone feels it’s easier to concoct!) and DRDO’s annual reports where they refer to EO as payload (and have done so for decades!!!)
As to why they do wud go against ‘industry’ standards, u shud ask them. When u do, also ask them why they categorize fighter aircraft as light, medium, heavy - when no one in the world does so. World over aircraft are categorized by capabilities and not dead weight (stupid to think that mig-29 is medium weight but has less ‘payload’ than a light weight Tejas)!!

 

[Armand2REP]

Evidence? I thought u were more reasonable than the other guy!!
Read DRDO’s Newsletters (I also provided a link to it - but alas no one reads! Everyone feels it’s easier to concoct!) and DRDO’s annual reports where they refer to EO as payload (and have done so for decades!!!)
As to why they do wud go against ‘industry’ standards, u shud ask them. When u do, also ask them why they categorize fighter aircraft as light, medium, heavy - when no one in the world does so. World over aircraft are categorized by capabilities and not dead weight (stupid to think that mig-29 is medium weight but has less ‘payload’ than a light weight Tejas)!!

They only have a 40km range on the video data link. I wish I had not read that.

 

[Enquirer]

They only have a 40km range on the video data link. I wish I had not read that.

Despair not. I think the 40km range is not the max range from where Rustom 2 can relay video to the operator; but it appears to be between GCS (Ground Control Station) & RVT (Remote video terminal).
RVT is defined as providing - users at various levels to view the displays and images from on-board payload sensors.
So, I deduce that the Rustom 2 can be a full 250 kms away from GCS (where the operators are) relaying all on-board data including HD video feed. And GCS can in turn relays the data to another remote terminal (where the big bosses may sit). And since GCS-RVT is a ground-to-ground communication, the range maybe lesser. 40kms range seems ball park range for ground based FM transmissions.
RVT terminal maybe even consolidating data from various GCS.

 

[Armand2REP]

Despair not. I think the 40km range is not the max range from where Rustom 2 can relay video to the operator; but it appears to be between GCS (Ground Control Station) & RVT (Remote video terminal).
RVT is defined as providing - users at various levels to view the displays and images from on-board payload sensors.
So, I deduce that the Rustom 2 can be a full 250 kms away from GCS (where the operators are) relaying all on-board data including HD video feed. And GCS can in turn relay the data to another remote terminal (where the big bosses may sit). And since GCS-RVT is a ground-to-ground communication, the range maybe lesser.

If it is at various levels, that would imply all levels would it not?

 

[Kshithij]

They only have a 40km range on the video data link. I wish I had not read that.

RVT is not video data link. It is remote video terminal to be used by onfield soldiers. I am not sure how it works but it is called OSRVT in USA. The soldier can use some laptop type device connected to some IFV battery to monitor the situation on the field by directly viewing the video from the drone. I am not sure why its range is only 40km. Maybe because the antenna of the remote video monitor is not powerful enough?

 

[Armand2REP]

RVT is not video data link. It is remote video terminal to be used by onfield soldiers. I am not sure how it works but it is called OSRVT in USA. The soldier can use some laptop type device connected to some IFV battery to monitor the situation on the field by directly viewing the video from the drone. I am not sure why its range is only 40km. Maybe because the antenna of the remote video monitor is not powerful enough?

We have something similar in France but the Scorpion terminals are tied to satellite or terrestrial data links, they don't directly hook up to the UAV. That data is transmitted from the ground control station across the network. It is the same in the US system. It would make it too easy to hack into if you get direct access like that.

 

[Kshithij]

We have something similar in France but the Scorpion terminals are tied to satellite or terrestrial data links, they don't directly hook up to the UAV. That data is transmitted from the ground control station across the network. It is the same in the US system. It would make it too easy to hack into if you get direct access like that.

If the ground terminal is operating in enemy territory or far off territory, how will the ground soldier manage to get the feed?

Let's say that the Operation is in Afghanistan and the ground control in in Kabul. The drone is 250km away on a battle field. How will the soldier on the battlefield get video feed from 250km away? Do the ground control station have that high a range, that too for a high resolution video?

 

[Enquirer]

If it is at various levels, that would imply all levels would it not?

'various' means several but with exclusions. 'All' would mean unrestricted and with no exclusions.
It's just a wordplay. Not sure what the point was.

 

[Armand2REP]

If the ground terminal is operating in enemy territory or far off territory, how will the ground soldier manage to get the feed?

Let's say that the Operation is in Afghanistan and the ground control in in Kabul. The drone is 250km away on a battle field. How will the soldier on the battlefield get video feed from 250km away? Do the ground control station have that high a range, that too for a high resolution video?

How do soldiers get networked information on the battlefield? Either satellite or terrestrial data links, the terrestrial requires repeaters on the ground so is only possible if you control the lines behind you. The satellite can reach anywhere.

 

[Enquirer]

We have something similar in France but the Scorpion terminals are tied to satellite or terrestrial data links, they don't directly hook up to the UAV. That data is transmitted from the ground control station across the network. It is the same in the US system. It would make it too easy to hack into if you get direct access like that.

India hasn't yet exploited the satellite route for the UAVs - even though logic and capabilities would dictate it should have already!
Right now all inducted and under-development UAVs operate on Line-Of-Sight communication. This is what restricts Rustom 2 to 250 kms range!
GCS hooks into Rustom 2 & RVT hook into GCS.
Not sure what you mean by direct-access? It's the communication protocol & encryption methods that makes something secure and not the communication channel itself!
Satellite based communications can also be hacked! US hacks into Israeli UAVs all the time!!!