IN Brief:
- The Indian Air Force held an industry outreach programme on 21 October involving approximately 100 representatives from drone companies and related suppliers.
- Indigenous propulsion, autonomous software, navigation resilience and standardised interfaces were identified as priority technologies.
- The engagement followed the roadmap's release on 14 September and did not include a new procurement award or production commitment.
The Indian Air Force has presented its future requirements for unmanned and autonomous systems to approximately 100 representatives from India’s defence technology industry, identifying indigenous propulsion, autonomous software, resilient navigation and standardised interfaces as priorities for further development.
The engagement took place at Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi on 21 October 2026, chaired by Air Marshal Premkumar K, Director General (Weapon Systems) at Air Headquarters. Participants included drone manufacturers, startups, micro, small and medium enterprises, and businesses working across the wider uncrewed systems supply chain.
The meeting followed the introduction of the Indian Air Force Unmanned and Autonomous Systems Roadmap during Dronathon 2026 at Pokhran on 14 September. The service used the October event to explain the requirements in greater detail and distribute the roadmap booklet to industry representatives, rather than introduce a separate new strategy.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the roadmap envisages a layered and networked family of unmanned systems intended to complement existing and future crewed aircraft. This approach recognises that different aircraft and mission equipment must satisfy different combinations of endurance, payload capacity, mobility, sensing and communications requirements.
A compact reconnaissance aircraft, for example, may need to balance sensor performance against restricted electrical capacity, while a larger uncrewed platform can accommodate different propulsion and payload arrangements at the expense of greater logistical requirements. The system architecture and the technology used to connect platforms must account for those differences.
Manufacturing such a family also creates opportunities for companies specialising in individual subsystems rather than complete aircraft. Propulsion, communications, embedded electronics and software suppliers can contribute to several vehicle types, provided their equipment meets the applicable interfaces, performance requirements and qualification standards.
The Air Force’s emphasis on standardised interfaces is particularly relevant to that industrial structure. Mechanical, electrical and digital connections determine how components interact, including the exchange of control commands, sensor information and equipment status data. Common specifications can reduce the engineering changes needed when a subsystem is incorporated into more than one platform.
Standardisation nevertheless requires more than publishing an interface description. Manufacturers must implement the same requirements consistently, verify compatibility through testing and control subsequent design changes. Different software versions or incompatible interpretations of a data field can produce integration failures even where equipment uses the same physical connector.
Indigenous propulsion was another priority identified during the October engagement. Propulsion technology determines important aspects of an aircraft’s endurance, useful load, speed and maintenance requirements. Smaller electrically powered aircraft depend heavily on battery capacity, motor efficiency and power electronics, while other vehicle classes may require combustion engines or alternative power arrangements.
Developing propulsion equipment for military aircraft involves mechanical and electrical engineering alongside materials selection, thermal management and production quality assurance. Motors, engines and associated control systems must operate reliably across the expected environmental and load conditions, while their performance must be assessed as part of the complete aircraft configuration.
A propulsion system that performs satisfactorily during a short demonstration may encounter different demands during sustained operation. Temperature, vibration, electrical loading and repeated operating cycles can influence component life, requiring endurance testing and maintenance procedures appropriate to the intended use.
The roadmap also highlights autonomous software, which enables uncrewed aircraft to conduct permitted tasks without constant manual intervention. Autonomous navigation and flight functions depend on sensor measurements, onboard processing and control algorithms that interpret the aircraft’s surroundings and operating state.
Software must maintain the aircraft within defined limits while responding to changes in its environment. The complexity of validation increases when the system can adapt its behaviour, because a greater range of operating conditions and possible responses must be considered during testing.
Simulation and controlled trials can help assess these functions before wider deployment, but their usefulness depends on whether the models represent the relevant physical constraints. Sensor noise, interrupted communications and differences between simulated and real environments must be examined alongside the software’s intended behaviour.
Navigation resilience is closely connected to that requirement. Satellite navigation can be degraded by deliberate interference, while terrain, buildings and environmental conditions may limit other sensing methods. An aircraft that relies entirely on one source of positioning information can lose important navigation capability when that source becomes unavailable.
Alternative measurements can include inertial sensors and, where the equipment and environment permit, optical or other navigation references. Combining suitable information sources can improve continuity, although the software must recognise discrepancies between measurements and account for the accuracy and limitations of each input.
The processing equipment used for these functions also influences aircraft design. Additional sensors and computing hardware consume electrical power, generate heat and add mass, making the allocation of onboard resources part of the system engineering problem. Suppliers must demonstrate that the installed configuration can perform its required tasks within those constraints.
Connecting multiple uncrewed platforms introduces further requirements involving communications resilience, information exchange and command authority. Networked systems need defined procedures for sharing data, managing interrupted connections and maintaining appropriate human supervision when operating conditions change.
The Air Force’s September Dronathon provided an earlier setting for demonstrating unmanned systems technology under field conditions. The October engagement extends that process by communicating longer-term capability priorities to potential suppliers, including smaller organisations that may contribute specialised equipment or software.
The Ministry of Defence links domestic development to reducing dependence on external sources for critical technologies. Local design and manufacturing capability can give customers greater control over upgrades, component support and integration arrangements, but these benefits depend on the technical maturity and reliability of the products developed.
No budget allocation, production quantity, equipment award or delivery timetable was disclosed at the outreach programme. The current milestone is therefore the translation of an existing roadmap into more detailed industry engagement, with subsequent technical requirements and procurement decisions needed before particular systems move into funded production.
