Rustom 2 MALE UAV

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Kunal Biswas, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. abingdonboy

    abingdonboy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    Compare how many sats there are in the skies compared to how many UAVs there are.
     
  2. abingdonboy

    abingdonboy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    7,745
  3. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    One big difference (or advantage) is the resolution of the images!
    One can presumably design cameras that can take very high resolution pics of the ground from (say) 5kms above the ground as compared to 35,000 kms above! The kind of optics & technology required would be immensely expensive (once you've the technical base to even design & build it).
    The other option is to use a LEO sats, but as I've said it only a dozen times today, LEO sats revolve very fast. They're over the target area only for an hour-two-hours (that's how Indian nuclear tests hoodwinked US LEO sats!). To have 24 hr coverage one would need plenty of LEO sats - cumulatively expensive!
     
  4. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    Again, that's a 2013 document. There's a big difference between a wish list and what's practically achievable!
    1000kms range is what DEAL has actually developed!
    If you look at the GSQR for Rustom, Tejas, Arjun etc, I am sure the payload/weight parameters were quite different from what was achieved!
     
  5. Kshithij

    Kshithij DharmaYoddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,892
    The difference are many-
    1) Resolution of image is higher for UAV as it flies closer to grond
    2) UAV can be directed to a location more quickly than a satellite as LEOs revolve around the earth very fast and move away from observation area quickly
    3) UAV can give longer coverage for a fixed area compared to satellite
    4) UAV is cheap and can be made in large numbers
    5) Earth observation satelltes are for general surveillance, not for real time surveillance
     
  6. charlie

    charlie Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    787
    Nobody I know off uses Leo, it’s absurd for me but you never know with this nano satellite business where the future will go, right now SES uses o3b MEO satellite for latency issue but they are mostly commercial, only small part of their business goes to DOD.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Kshithij likes this.
  7. abingdonboy

    abingdonboy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    And why isn’t a SATCOM using GEO tactically achievable for DRDO? Again, this isn’t technology that is alien to India, DRDO has created pretty much every competent already.

    LEO link is utterly impractical, you are fighting so hard to argue against the most logical outcome.

    Even if the document is 10 years old, so? It still shows DRDO’s intent
     
    Kshithij likes this.
  8. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    I am stating FACTS. And you were disguising intentions & wishes as existing realities.
    That's a sin practiced by fanboys who're not thorough in comprehension and unable to moderate their own exuberance with reality checks.
     
  9. Kshithij

    Kshithij DharmaYoddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,892
    There is no point arguing with people who tell that whatever they say are facts. There must be proper arguments based on reason and logic and where there is missing data, the older data should be supplemented with logical postulations. Instead simply harping on only one thing without having any proper and consistent reasoning to disprove an opposing view serves no purpose. Saying negative things just to show one is not a fanboy is height of stupidity.

    It is best to not argue and leave matters with such people
     
  10. charlie

    charlie Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    787
    Ohh ya forgot to add about WAPS program you might have heard before program such as Argus and Corvuseye which make the need on multiple drone in one area unnecessary, you can do geofencing and lot of stuff with just one drone, it covers the whole city. As image processing gets better and better the number of drone required surveillance will be less.

    We are nowhere close to US in image processing but this is one are India needs to invest.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  11. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    I am gonna go ahead and answer my own questions (after having done some thinking ).

    No. One Rustom cannot act as real-time relay agent to other another!
    The transceiver antenna is directional - as such it can communicate with only ONE entity at a time.

    One possibility is some kind of delayed transfer. The relay Rustom can 'download' the 'stored' data (say every 5-10 mins) from the surveilling Rustom, then reorient the antenna towards ground station to do a dump.

    Other option that ensures real time transfer of day is to have a 'second' antenna could be a fitted on a temporary basis - swapping out SAR/EO pod for such relay Rustom!!!????
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  12. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    When two documents have different/contradictory information then the wise people go by the information in the latest document (that talks about the actual product that's realized), while born retards continue to harp on the outdated (wishful) documents.
    I am sure idiots like you think 'pushpaka vimanas' flew all over India 5000 years ago, because someone created some diagrams and hoped that it might fly!!!!
     
  13. Raj Malhotra

    Raj Malhotra Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    482
    Rustom 2 is a dead end design
    It is extremely overweight and cannot be rescued by using more powerful Piston engines
    More powerful Piston engines will lead to even higher weight gain
    As per DRDO report the maximum time rustim 2 t as flown is 85 minutes which means that very limited fuel is being put in the aircraft to compensate for very high weight
    The only way to rescue Rustom 2 in short term is to put in turboprop engines in conventional layout but long term solution is to adopt Saras type layout as also adopted by Euro MALE drone.
    The fuselage would be practically the same design but the Twin engines will be mounted towards the back end while the wings would be pushed forward a little to compensate for the centre of gravity
    But the Dalals want the DRDO to continue pursuing the dead end design in order to create a vacuum for easy imports
    As I have repeatedly point out that even if Rustom 2 Drone ad been fully successful that is to say was built as per specifications even then it would have been useless in Himalayas which is our primary area of concern
    Piston engines do not work well even with turbochargers or superchargers at high altitude in all practical situations except for experimental aircrafts
    Therefore we should immediately start a Rustom 3 Drone program adopting the layout of Saras/Euro drone
     
  14. Raj Malhotra

    Raj Malhotra Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    482
    Rustom 2 is a dead end design
    It is extremely overweight and cannot be rescued by using more powerful Piston engines
    More powerful Piston engines will lead to even higher weight gain
    As per DRDO report the maximum time rustim 2 t as flown is 85 minutes which means that very limited fuel is being put in the aircraft to compensate for very high weight
    The only way to rescue Rustom 2 in short term is to put in turboprop engines in conventional layout but long term solution is to adopt Saras type layout as also adopted by Euro MALE drone.
    The fuselage would be practically the same design but the Twin engines will be mounted towards the back end while the wings would be pushed forward a little to compensate for the centre of gravity
    But the Dalals want the DRDO to continue pursuing the dead end design in order to create a vacuum for easy imports
    As I have repeatedly point out that even if Rustom 2 Drone ad been fully successful that is to say was built as per specifications even then it would have been useless in Himalayas which is our primary area of concern
    Piston engines do not work well even with turbochargers or superchargers at high altitude in all practical situations except for experimental aircrafts
    Therefore we should immediately start a Rustom 3 Drone program adopting the layout of Saras/Euro drone
     
  15. Kshithij

    Kshithij DharmaYoddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,892
    Read how these piston planes worked in WW2 at high altitude of even 50000 feet. Rustom 2 is only for 30000 feet and hence perfectly viable. Even a surveillance height of 24000-25000 feet is good enough for almost all areas. Since pistone engines have been proven even in 1940s, there is no reason to assume that they will fail now when there is much more recise machinery and tooling processes available.

    Rustom has been flown only for 85 minutes as it is still in developmental phase. Otherwise, it has endurance of over 34 hours, not just 1.5 hour. 160hp twin engine is more than enough power to carry 3.2ton of weight. That is the requirement anyways and hence I see no reason to say Rustom 2 is a failure or overweight.
     
  16. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    I hated Rustom 2's design ever since it's model was displayed 6-8 years ago!!
    Despite it's inefficiency and bulkiness it'll still lumber along with some functionality!
    New engines will add disproportionately more thrust than the weight addition. So, it's not a bad idea.
    The fact that it'll be a 3 tonne beast with only 350kgs as payload (including EO, SAR, EW etc) makes it a laughable - it's like a driving a large truck for your weekend groceries!

    Turboprop engines might deliver more power but is deemed to guzzle more fuel. Piston engine choice was made due to its fuel efficiency.
    Long term solution is to have a SINGLE REAR engine, turboprop or turbofan(like all successful UAVs in the world)

    Wings should be pushed BACKWARDS to compensate!

    The design altitude ceiling is 30,000 ft. If they achieve that, it'll still be useful in the mountainous territory.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  17. G10

    G10 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    520
    Please maintain the decorum of the thread. Mods please clean up.
     
  18. Raj Malhotra

    Raj Malhotra Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    482
    As mountains rise easily upto 15 to 20,000 feet, therefore it is difficult to get a good angle of view from safe distance. Also highly vulnerable to manpads & small arms. Further easy detection due to noisy engine at relatively low altitude.

    That's why piston engines are not being used for u a v in the weight category of three tons

    If we replace the Piston engines by turboprop engine then the endurance will fall 2 only 8 hours but the way we will be useful for the purpose it is required

    Subsequently ample space available inside the fuselage can be used to increase the fuel and slowly increase the endurance to 24 to 36 hours

    At present Rustom 2 can do nothing.
    It is overweight and can hardly take off with minimal fuel
    It cannot be used for combat as there is no scope for carrying weapons

    Rustom equipped with turboprop engine will be able to fly high for Recce missions and also carry weapons for combat missions

    It will definitely lose endurance but at least it will be able to do something instead of doing nothing at present
     
  19. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    9,074
    Unless they move to a single rear engine, there's very small scope for carrying weapons.
    The propellers and EO pod obstruct any possible path for missile travel (unless using the drop type!)
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  20. charlie

    charlie Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    787
    [​IMG]
    how many C band LOS antenna do you see ?

    "One Rustom cannot act as real-time relay agent to other another!"
    it's something that was used before still they use it sometime in US military
    https://www.scribd.com/document/141176073/01-Drone-Satcoms

    I was not able to find a clear photo for SDR 2010 but's seems like dual channel as well, so connect antenna in RF, Data in network and encryption key in Key fill.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page