Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) : News and Updates

Bali78 said:
No. It's incorrect. You are getting confused between chip design and system design. The EM compatibility and EM interference you are talking about comes into picture during system design and there are procedures to take care of it. I haven't been involved in that since long time, so can't comment on the latest developments in that domain.

As far as chip is concerned, the ruggedness of the chip is decided during backend library characterization. Every technology node (22nm or 7nm) does support military standards which is typically allow the chip to work from -40 deg to 115 deg C temp at military environment. This is taken care of during the backend process and the processes needs to be run at every corner.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Temperature is just one part even if it does play a huge part. Processors and all assorted components have to survive spalling from a tank shell inside tanks, 9 or 10G performance on fighter aircraft etc. Imagine the huge number of Gs missiles go through. EMP proofing also.

I don't know enough about it, but a lot of work goes into this stuff. There's a lot of testing done for reliability also. By the time all of this is done, the military chips are way behind civilian technology.

Anyway, -40deg to +115deg is not military grade, it's industrial grade. For military grade you need -55deg to +125deg and higher. Engine chips cross 150 deg. Hence GaAs.
 
randomradio said:
It's not that simple. Temperature is just one part even if it does play a huge part. Processors and all assorted components have to survive spalling from a tank shell inside tanks, 9 or 10G performance on fighter aircraft etc. Imagine the huge number of Gs missiles go through. EMP proofing also.

I don't know enough about it, but a lot of work goes into this stuff. There's a lot of testing done for reliability also. By the time all of this is done, the military chips are way behind civilian technology.

Anyway, -40deg to +115deg is not military grade, it's industrial grade. For military grade you need -55deg to +125deg and higher. Engine chips cross 150 deg. Hence GaAs.
Click to expand...
When did I say temperature is the only criteria? Library characterization takes care of anything that can be done at that particular technology node.

How exactly 22nm performs better than 6nm when it comes to dealing with G shocks, or performing in hot and humid climate?? That is the job of packaging and mounting. You are making a khichdi of different aspects of system design. The temperature range itself does not define whether it's industrial or military. Military grade is suffixed by "MIL" , for example you have corners at 125 and 125 MIL. And it's not necessary that chips meant for civilian purposes need not go through MIL processes. In fact if the performance allows, every manufacturer would like to run backend processes for all corners including military.

You are getting confused between TRX modules and processers. GaAs is being used for TRX modules, not for fabricating processers. Both are as different as chalk and cheese when it comes to functionality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milspec
Bali78 said:
No. It's incorrect. You are getting confused between chip design and system design. The EM compatibility and EM interference you are talking about comes into picture during system design and there are procedures to take care of it. I haven't been involved in that since long time, so can't comment on the latest developments in that domain.

As far as chip is concerned, the ruggedness of the chip is decided during backend library characterization. Every technology node (22nm or 7nm) does support military standards which is typically allow the chip to work from -40 deg to 115 deg C temp at military environment. This is taken care of during the backend process and the processes needs to be run at every corner.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the concept of reliability. The spacing between 2 transistor in 22nm chips is lower than 90 or 180nm chips. This means that some spike in current can result in shorting between 2 transistor more easily in 22nm than 90 or 180nm. The 22nm chips have smaller transistor and consume less power per transistor. But the tolerance for fluctuations also becomes low. The power and reliability are inversely related as a result.

Bali78 said:
Depends on what we want. For AESA radars very high processing capacity is required for digital signal processing. Same is true for AI and machine learning. Those processors cannot be done in India.
Click to expand...

AI is not used in defence equipment as of date. There are only certain automations, not complete automation. So, there is no need for high end automation. The processing also doesn't require much power. Older computers, one generation before pentium 4 also worked with 180nm chips. Computers work for 80W of energy including monitor and other facilities. So, keeping 2-3 processor is not really energy drain. But if the processor is something that gets overheated (internally) or can't handle fluctuations in current arisinh out of sudden shocks or sudden changes in speed\maneuver etc, then that becomes a problem.
Bali78 said:
When did I say temperature is the only criteria? Library characterization takes care of anything that can be done at that particular technology node.

How exactly 22nm performs better than 6nm when it comes to dealing with G shocks, or performing in hot and humid climate?? That is the job of packaging and mounting. You are making a khichdi of different aspects of system design. The temperature range itself does not define whether it's industrial or military. Military grade is suffixed by "MIL" , for example you have corners at 125 and 125 MIL. And it's not necessary that chips meant for civilian purposes need not go through MIL processes. In fact if the performance allows, every manufacturer would like to run backend processes for all corners including military.

You are getting confused between TRX modules and processers. GaAs is being used for TRX modules, not for fabricating processers. Both are as different as chalk and cheese when it comes to functionality.
Click to expand...
It is not the G shock physically applying to the chips that damage it but the effect of electricity spike. Typically a chip takes in current in single digit ampere. If the shock from the G-shock changes or shakes the electricity supply devices, there will be spike of current. This spike is the problem. If the transistor gap is low and power requirements is low, even small spikes can cause problem.

Also, no matter what cooling fans you keep, the sttong packaging will come in the way of cooling. The packaging and cooling are inversely proportional and there also the lower nm spacing will be a problem
 
@Bali78 the power consumption of 180nm intel pentium 4 processor is not too high. It is about twice that of 32nm intel i5 processor per GFLOP of computing.

Typically, a processor uses 50W of power which is insignificant in defence equipment power generation. So, the savings of 25W per processor by substituting 180nm with 32nm may at most save 100W for the entire equipment like a jet aircraft with 4 processor. That is not much in general
 
pachawry said:
You don't seem to understand the concept of reliability. The spacing between 2 transistor in 22nm chips is lower than 90 or 180nm chips. This means that some spike in current can result in shorting between 2 transistor more easily in 22nm than 90 or 180nm. The 22nm chips have smaller transistor and consume less power per transistor. But the tolerance for fluctuations also becomes low. The power and reliability are inversely related as a result.



AI is not used in defence equipment as of date. There are only certain automations, not complete automation. So, there is no need for high end automation. The processing also doesn't require much power. Older computers, one generation before pentium 4 also worked with 180nm chips. Computers work for 80W of energy including monitor and other facilities. So, keeping 2-3 processor is not really energy drain. But if the processor is something that gets overheated (internally) or can't handle fluctuations in current arisinh out of sudden shocks or sudden changes in speed\maneuver etc, then that becomes a problem.

It is not the G shock physically applying to the chips that damage it but the effect of electricity spike. Typically a chip takes in current in single digit ampere. If the shock from the G-shock changes or shakes the electricity supply devices, there will be spike of current. This spike is the problem. If the transistor gap is low and power requirements is low, even small spikes can cause problem.

Also, no matter what cooling fans you keep, the sttong packaging will come in the way of cooling. The packaging and cooling are inversely proportional and there also the lower nm spacing will be a problem
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you are talking and I am not interested in either educating you or continuing meaningless discussion forever. So let's put a stop to this. We can respectfully agree to disagree with each other.
 
Bali78 said:
You have no idea what you are talking and I am not interested in either educating you or continuing meaningless discussion forever. So let's put a stop to this. We can respectfully agree to disagree with each other.
Click to expand...
You are not touching the 2 points-
1) fluctuation tolerance of 180nm vs 22nm
2) cooling problem caused by packaging

The third factor of power consumption increase for same computation power for 180nm and 22nm to find if the difference is big enough also is important to find the trade-off.

Answer these 3 points intead of digressing. Thanks
 
pachawry said:
You are not touching the 2 points-
1) fluctuation tolerance of 180nm vs 22nm
2) cooling problem caused by packaging

The third factor of power consumption increase for same computation power for 180nm and 22nm to find if the difference is big enough also is important to find the trade-off.

Answer these 3 points intead of digressing. Thanks
Click to expand...
As I mentioned this is not a classroom and I am not interested in teaching you. If you want answers, feel free to google. There are tons of material that can help you understand. I have zero incentive to waste my beautiful Saturday morning answering your "not so intelligent questions".
PS: If by chance you are an electronics engineer, then you should be ashamed of asking questions like how a chip will deal with current spike. I have no intention of offending people, but some people just don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Himanshu
Bali78 said:
When did I say temperature is the only criteria? Library characterization takes care of anything that can be done at that particular technology node.

How exactly 22nm performs better than 6nm when it comes to dealing with G shocks, or performing in hot and humid climate?? That is the job of packaging and mounting. You are making a khichdi of different aspects of system design. The temperature range itself does not define whether it's industrial or military. Military grade is suffixed by "MIL" , for example you have corners at 125 and 125 MIL. And it's not necessary that chips meant for civilian purposes need not go through MIL processes. In fact if the performance allows, every manufacturer would like to run backend processes for all corners including military.

You are getting confused between TRX modules and processers. GaAs is being used for TRX modules, not for fabricating processers. Both are as different as chalk and cheese when it comes to functionality.
Click to expand...

GaAs processors do exist. These are strategic processors.

GaAs microprocessors and digital systems: an overview of R&D efforts - IEEE Journals & Magazine

They are designed and made in India. ANURAG designs and GAETEC manufactures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker and Angel Eyes
_Anonymous_ said:
PAK SCAN: DRDO: A Liability For India | Indian Defence News


Sorry. Here's the article .
Click to expand...

Well, The author do have some points.
"Some classic examples of India’s R&D failures, which have reached the public domain, are the Arjun tank, Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, INSAS rifle, Saras, Kaveri, Akash, Nag, Indra Radar"

Arjun == Failure.Too much imported parts. It cannot fulfill its intended role.
Tejas == I wouldn't call it failure. Project looks good for the last few years.
INSAS rifle == Won't call it failure. its an old rifle now, but it served for the last few decades.
Saras == Failure. too much delay and overweight.
Kaveri == failure. failed to fulfill its intended role.
Akash == Success.
Nag == Failure. It failed to fulfill its intended role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TARGET
Volcano said:
Well, The author do have some points.
"Some classic examples of India’s R&D failures, which have reached the public domain, are the Arjun tank, Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, INSAS rifle, Saras, Kaveri, Akash, Nag, Indra Radar"

Arjun == Failure.Too much imported parts. It cannot fulfill its intended role.
Tejas == I wouldn't call it failure. Project looks good for the last few years.
INSAS rifle == Won't call it failure. its an old rifle now, but it served for the last few decades.
Saras == Failure. too much delay and overweight.
Kaveri == failure. failed to fulfill its intended role.
Akash == Success.
Nag == Failure. It failed to fulfill its intended role.
Click to expand...
Agree ,but Nag may be late but it’s steal breathing ...Nag technology is integrated in NAMICA and hope it will be inducted soon :unsure:
 
Volcano said:
Well, The author do have some points.
"Some classic examples of India’s R&D failures, which have reached the public domain, are the Arjun tank, Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, INSAS rifle, Saras, Kaveri, Akash, Nag, Indra Radar"

Arjun == Failure.Too much imported parts. It cannot fulfill its intended role.
Tejas == I wouldn't call it failure. Project looks good for the last few years.
INSAS rifle == Won't call it failure. its an old rifle now, but it served for the last few decades.
Saras == Failure. too much delay and overweight.
Kaveri == failure. failed to fulfill its intended role.
Akash == Success.
Nag == Failure. It failed to fulfill its intended role.
Click to expand...

Arjun cannot be called failure .. actual problem is the roads and bridges which we didn't upgrade..

Saras is flying again .

Kaveri is getting certified.. will further get developed

Nag many variants are coming up..
I think it needs some push ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Angel Eyes, Ironhide and 3 others
Sathya said:
Arjun cannot be called failure .. actual problem is the roads and bridges which we didn't upgrade..

Saras is flying again .

Kaveri is getting certified.. will further get developed

Nag many variants are coming up..
I think it needs some push ..
Click to expand...

Perhaps your definition of "Success" is too stretched? My definition of success is simple, If a product failed to meet its intended role, the "project" is a failure.

Arjun was supposed to replace lion share of our soviet era tanks (Some 2500 tanks). Have they managed to do that? Can they ever do that? Answer is a big "No". Roads and bridges cannot handle the tank? That is cute. When you are making a product for a client, you make it for the client not for yourself or someone else. DRDO should have made a tank for the Indian Armed forces for use in Indian theater of operation, not for Germans, Syrians or Americans. Project coordination between end user and development team was poor. As a project, it is a failure.

Kaveri was supposed to be an engine for Tejas. Does it succeeded in fulfilling its purpose? Again No. Ship has already sailed, it failed to meet its objective. As a project was a failure. But even if they can make it in 5-6 years,making the engine is still worth it. But I am afraid its gonna be under powered by the time they make it.

Project NAG is also a failure in meeting its core objective, ie, to replace the 2nd generation man portable antitank guided missiles.
Many other projects have taken off using research base of NAG project under different names. Hopefully they will be successful. But NAG project failed to meet its objective.

Saras looks more brighter than the above 3, i agree. Even if everything goes fine, it is still 7-8 years away from getting certified.For military application it might get certified earlier according to some sources. The price of the aircraft is high for a 14 seater aircraft and its its commercial viability as a civilian aircraft looks bleak. Ex HAL chief apparently believes that it is an outdated program for civilian applications. However, I am still hopeful for its military application.


I am not denying that all of this programmers contributed to advancement in research base. However, due to many reasons,Including a pathetic project management, all projects failed to meet its objective. After the failure to meet its core objective, government was forced to change the goal post for projects like Arjun for example by limited induction in desert frontier etc.
 
Volcano said:
Arjun was supposed to replace lion share of our soviet era tanks (Some 2500 tanks). Have they managed to do that? Can they ever do that? Answer is a big "No". Roads and bridges cannot handle the tank? That is cute. When you are making a product for a client, you make it for the client not for yourself or someone else. DRDO should have made a tank for the Indian Armed forces for use in Indian theater of operation, not for Germans, Syrians or Americans
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's true but I heard Arjun was designed as a heavy tank to counter a possibility of PA aquiring Abrams. Though It never happened, they should have improvised their designs dpeneding on the present Geo political situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom