Nice... enjoyed it.

For some reason I feel that its an easy target for the forces.

-Ismail

Quote from: izmile on September 01, 2010, 05:36:19 PM
Good to see people developing defence systems chiming in. I was wondering if the drones are just write-off after the training or they could be reused?...

Would be cool watch this kind of stuff. Machine against machine... On a similar note.. does the UAS have intelligence to perform evasive maneuvers if it finds an incomming threat.

Hi Izmile,

No UAV in world are capable of taking evasive action on their own. We need to understand UAV is a inteligent machines as far as avionics is concerned but is still controlled by operator. Secondly UAV's if intercepted during day by say attack hepters or fighters are sitting ducks & can't save them selves neither can the operator do much about it, untill unless it is carrying air to air missile onboard which is not the scenario in present generation UAV's(we can hope to see that in near future). Till now as far as my knowledege gose I have never heard of UAV's using chaff's against missils for the very reason that they are sitting ducks.

Quote from: anwar on September 01, 2010, 06:07:31 PM
Good to see "professionals" chip in

I have always wondered about the power systems that run these.  I mean hours of flight time, yet they are not gliders (I mean using thermals to maximise flight times).  Pack lots of lipos ?

Well power systems are real regular ones but loads of amps in batterys, props sutaible to mission & most important these tactical UAV's have efficient wings with optimal aerofoils, big chords & wingspans etc. Once the cruise altituide is achived one really dose not require that much power.

Ya.. "Sitting ducks" says it all.

I understand that for initial testing of the guns/missiles you would require a ariel target. However, once the guns fully developed/mature I wonder why would the forces shoot at "sitting ducks" while the real threat has more advanced/complex flight path. To be honest, I do not feel it is fair (or worthwhile) to excercise a million dollar artillery on an easy target. I do hope that in near future this would improve and the targets gets smart and presents a real challenge to the training excercise.

-Ismail

Yes sitting ducks all right, but isn't that it is supposed to be? An expendable option rather than much costlier aircraft piloted by even costlier (to replace and psychologically) human/s in the cockpit?

Ismail,
Apart from the initial testing, you still need targets to practice/exercise your crew and equipment which is done under varied simulated condition. And yes even million $$ a piece ammunition still needs to be exercised by the troops. Almost all the forces in the world do it, it serves two purpose first to rotate your older ammunition (which is fired live under simulated condition) and then it gives practice to the crew.
A UAV meant for target practice would be entirely different from one meant for recee or UCAV.   

Do/Can we use these UAVs for kamikaze style attacks if the need be?Actually,it should be quite economical right?And also,are the Global Hawk and the Predator B the most advanced UAVs around?IS there any other UAV with weapons mounted on it other than the Predator B?

And as flyingboxcar said,UAVs are way better than manned planes.They are expendable.Like in the movie stealth ,when the commander tells the flight leader,"I send my men with bombs strapped to their a***s everytime they go out on a flight"(or something very close to that.)

Well the use of phrase "sitting ducks" was just to explain that the UAV's are not capable of taking evasive actions on it's own or by operator.
The aircrafts used for target practise of Air Defence Guns(not conventional artillery) are called PTA's or Target Drones. There is a mark difference between a UAV & a Drone. Drones are preprogramed before launch & may have minimal or no control during flight. Drones cannot be controled real time where as UAV's are controlled all through their flights. There is two way comunication between operator & a UAV.

Yes, practising the crew is the vital element. Apart from that, it still kind of appears naive to me. May be I am still missing something.

Here is my imagination of a target drone:  It would have an impact proof pod that houses the intelligent electronics and a radar. The drone shall be controlled by this pod. On detecting an incoming threat, the electronics could select the appropriate evasive action and would steer the drone appropriately. A few seconds before impact the electronics pod shall disengage itself from the drone and parachute itself. It can have a homing beacon for recovery and reuse.

All the above features would translate to increased cost but then there is a clear advantage. The crew could be trained better and the million $ AAA would face a real challenge.

-Ismail

this can only work with homing missiles(heat seekers,radar guided etc), but what about simple anti aircraft guns?

And Mr.Majraj, thanks for your explanation.Any idea which is the longest flying UAV operated by India now?

Quote from: iamahuman on September 03, 2010, 06:53:21 AM
this can only work with homing missiles(heat seekers,radar guided etc), but what about simple anti aircraft guns?

May be an impact sensor could be used.. similar to the ones used in cars to deploy the air bags. In fact, the IMU inside the electronic pod can sense an impact (or total loss of control). On sensing that the electronic pod shall eject itself and deploy the parachute.

Quote from: majraj on September 02, 2010, 09:13:05 PM
There is a mark difference between a UAV & a Drone.

Whether an UAV, Drone, Aeromodel etc, as long as it flies, and does not have a man/woman inside technically it can be called as Unmanned (dont know why is it never called unwomanned) Aerial Vehicle   

Quote from: flyingboxcar on September 03, 2010, 12:17:37 PM
Whether an UAV, Drone, Aeromodel etc, as long as it flies, and does not have a man/woman inside technically it can be called as Unmanned (dont know why is it never called unwomanned) Aerial Vehicle   

Well we can leave it to everybodys understanding & assimilation capabilities;-))) But on thing for sure we at RCIndia can coin a new term of "unmanned/womnned Air Vehicle". What say Flyingboxer;-))

Arey bhai majraj, *%$#@ (Admin do not worry! the receipent would understand and I have the rights to do this to him)
Check for typos, it is flyingboxcar not flyingboxer!

Flyingboxcar, intention of origenarator shud be understood, baki sab chalta hein. Administrators pl forgive him, he dose not what he is doing;-))))

Again missed out "know"
What are you up to with your .....?

What is the origin of "flyingboxcar" ?

'Bocks Car' was the B 29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

Wasn't it the "Enola Gay" that did this??

Your right it was both!!

Nice username.Unlike mine.

Quote from: tg on September 04, 2010, 10:35:49 PM
Wasn't it the "Enola Gay" that did this??

Enola gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Bocks Car bombed Nagasaki.

http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2808/kadet-defence-systems-to-develop-india%E2%80%99s-first-tactical-uav-with-an-eye-on-civilian-uses/

HI praveen
can you call me on 09717120523 or mail mw on

For what it is worth, the TERP is not a product of India. It is a product of Intellitech Microsystems Inc. from Maryland, USA which is no longer in business. The basic platform and name were my idea but I did not design the actual unit seen here. That was actually a combination of all of us at IMI. The TERP name was actually coined at dinner one night with the IMI gang. It originates from one of the team's University of MD t-shirt...the Terp is the college mascot. He is the same guy holding the plane in the photo. It stands for Tactical Electric Reconassisnce Plane. MKU also claimed that the Erasmus UAV was theirs too, that is the Vector P UAV. I would be surprised if they even have the old plane now.

We developed the TERP and it is true that MKU has license to sell the system. From the photos of the TERP II they have made minimal changes. It is unclear if they have a professional grade autopilot installed. Prevuously it used the Procerus unit. The video you see is from testing we did on the deep stall landing....it was hastily prepared and was never meant to be high quality. MKU's version does not have the ability to deep stall. This mod along with an ingenious wing mount were never provided to them making it susceptible to landing damage.

MKU abandoned IMI leaving them with a large debt for the development of the system. IMI survives in the form of Maryland Aerospace, FARCO and UAV-Assistance. It is unclear if the TERP will ever be produced in the US again...it was marketed under the name "Skyjumper" back in 2007-8.

Hope that sets the record straight.