Indian Private Defence Sector

fire starter said:
Zeus numerix.
View attachment 13538
HAPS mk1.
View attachment 13540

View: https://x.com/ReviewVayu/status/1851138369780076749?t=4hhm17Y9h4CkN7o_Erwz7A&s=19
Click to expand...

Unguided but still there's this clear plexiglass dome on the bombs
IMG_20241029_115512.jpg
I'm quite sure there's a COTS type laser rangefinder otherwise there no need to have a window with this much of clarity
614PUt-aK2L.jpg
If indeed then it's a nice touch to add air-burst capability to these tiny bombs. Ukrainians are already using pretty similar arrangement and it's quite effective in targetting soft targets in open.
 
fire starter said:
Cont...
View attachment 13573View attachment 13582
122mm guided rocket.
View attachment 13574View attachment 13575
View attachment 13576
Guidance kit.
View attachment 13577
View attachment 13578
Powered glide bomb.
View attachment 13579
View attachment 13580
Guided mortar.
View attachment 13581
Click to expand...
What is up with the recent surge of Private companies pushing out bee drone and missile based weapons?
Did DRDO brought out some new policy of technology distribution and support?
 
Suryavanshi said:
What is up with the recent surge of Private companies pushing out bee drone and missile based weapons?
Did DRDO brought out some new policy of technology distribution and support?
Click to expand...
It may feel like I'm bluffing or downplaying the complexity of everything but trust me, it's not that hard. There is absolutely no innovation in almost 90% of those "UAVs" that we see a new company coming up with every other day. If no innovation then you don't also need the R&D or intellectual capital all together. This lack of R&D is same for everything from tube launched loitering munitions to quadcopters to fixed wing UAVs. Now couple that with the sudden surge in availability of cheap electronics for robotics and FPV hobby drones here in India. And that's all.

You give me just one electronic engineer with basic, one software engineer with intermidate understanding, a lakh or two in capital and I'll give you an above average loitering munition. Because everything else is simply like LEGO piece waiting for someone to order online and just plug-n-play
InCollage_20241029_162205097.jpg
 
Ayan Barat said:
It may feel like I'm bluffing or downplaying the complexity of everything but trust me, it's not that hard. There is absolutely no innovation in almost 90% of those "UAVs" that we see a new company coming up with every other day. If no innovation then you don't also need the R&D or intellectual capital all together. This lack of R&D is same for everything from tube launched loitering munitions to quadcopters to fixed wing UAVs. Now couple that with the sudden surge in availability of cheap electronics for robotics and FPV hobby drones here in India. And that's all.

You give me just one electronic engineer with basic, one software engineer with intermidate understanding, a lakh or two in capital and I'll give you an above average loitering munition. Because everything else is simply like LEGO piece waiting for someone to order online and just plug-n-play
View attachment 13586
Click to expand...
Ayan any reason why dual or quadrocoupled electric motors with dual concentric contra rotating shafts are not being used in drones? Something similar to below
1730297281592.jpeg
This arrangement can potentialy reduce weight in comparison to current crop of octarotors (in case of dual stacked rotors or even much better for quad rotors) and provide better lift and performance.
 
Anants said:
Pranam to Mahalaxmi Ma.

I really want some one to execute above idea. If I had money I would have atleast experimented with it.
Click to expand...
Well other than obviously the increased cost there are few more things. And ultimately it's the question of what benefits you're getting and what cost?

> In case of let's say Tu-95 you're using the same engine to drive two propellers but here two separate motors are doing that. So from a battery perspective it's no different than having two separate motors.

> The rear propeller will always work in the aerodynamic "shadow" of the front. So whatever 5-6% percent efficiency you might get from this coaxial arrangement would be pretty much brought to zero.

And as for advantages, I can only of two application where this arrangement can really shine.

> A coaxial helicopter type UAV. Instead of using one motor for main rotor and one for tail you're now using both for main rotor. Also as it's just a simple hollow shaft instead of complicated gear system as used on things like Ka-52s, it's both cheaper and more efficient.

> Another is a very niche application of where you need more power but the cross section is limited. To be specific, a tube launched UAV. You can't have multiple motors as everything should be constrained by the small tube diameter and even there the space would be bit tight as you'd be also needing some space to accommodate the wings in folded position.
 
Ayan Barat said:
Well other than obviously the increased cost there are few more things. And ultimately it's the question of what benefits you're getting and what cost?
Click to expand...
I think for any decent electric motor manufacturing company (Which designs and manufactures (or sources parts based on inhouse design) should not be difficult
Ayan Barat said:
> In case of let's say Tu-95 you're using the same engine to drive two propellers but here two separate motors are doing that. So from a battery perspective it's no different than having two separate motors.
Click to expand...
Correct. You can have 2 or 4 stacked motors for 2 or 4 coaxial motors. Moreover. It can eliminate hydra armed design structures which some 16 rotors drones are using
1730301292749.jpeg
Ayan Barat said:
> The rear propeller will always work in the aerodynamic "shadow" of the front. So whatever 5-6% percent efficiency you might get from this coaxial arrangement would be pretty much brought to zero.
Click to expand...
The idea is to use same small hub and rigid coaxial rotors advantage S 97 raiders are having. Drones have rigid rotors and with this design you will have small hub, increasing lift and reducing weight I guess
Ayan Barat said:
And as for advantages, I can only of two application where this arrangement can really shine.

> A coaxial helicopter type UAV. Instead of using one motor for main rotor and one for tail you're now using both for main rotor. Also as it's just a simple hollow shaft instead of complicated gear system as used on things like Ka-52s, it's both cheaper and more efficient.

> Another is a very niche application of where you need more power but the cross section is limited. To be specific, a tube launched UAV. You can't have multiple motors as everything should be constrained by the small tube diameter and even there the space would be bit tight as you'd be also needing some space to accommodate the wings in folded position.
Click to expand...
Correct. Or simple mule drones can employ to increase their lift and altitude(!?) Capability with better weight management.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

why so serious?
Indian Private Space Industry
2
Replies
25
Views
997
SKC
SKC
FalconSlayers
Indian Coast Guard
Replies
0
Views
67
FalconSlayers
FalconSlayers
O
Mosque Demolitions in Indian Subcontinent Through History
Replies
4
Views
190
shade2
shade2
Unknowncommando
Indian Army Corps of Signals
Replies
0
Views
68
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Indian Army Training
Replies
1
Views
84
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Donate via Bitcoin - bc1qpc3h2l430vlfflc8w02t7qlkvltagt2y4k9dc2

qrcode
Back
Top