A hardware design and simulation package that lets engineers propose a precision guidance kit and multi-mode electronic fuze for a 155 mm artillery shell.
Ministry of Defence (MoD) · Yantra India Limited, Ambajhari,Nagpur · Hardware
Signing in saves it for your whole team, so everyone on your invite link sees the same two entries. Anything you shortlisted while signed out comes with you.
Decomposed from what the description asks for. Nothing added.
Canard Actuation Assembly
Design a mechanical canard deployment system with a CAD model for trajectory correction.
GNC and Control Algorithms
Develop the guidance, navigation, and control algorithms for real-time flight control and terminal accuracy.
Multi-Mode Electronic Fuze
Design the electronic fuze supporting proximity, time, and impact modes along with a programming interface.
Embedded Hardware Architecture
Create the electronics block diagram, sensor selection plan, and power management strategy for high-g conditions.
Simulation and Validation
Build a simulation demonstrating trajectory correction and performance estimation to achieve a CEP of 30 meters or better.
Both columns are read off the brief's own wording. Nothing here is inferred from the ministry's name.
The jury will check if your design achieves a Circular Error Probable of 30 meters or better, survives high-g launch acceleration, vibration, and spin, and maintains compatibility with a standard 155 mm artillery shell casing.
A jury can still ask about these. Decide them deliberately rather than by accident.
Generated from the brief's own wording and the competition's published rules, never from a guess about what this ministry prefers.
Exact maximum launch acceleration and spin rate limits?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
Available internal volume and weight budget inside the shell casing?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
Specific cost target for low-cost production?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
Has any part of this been shown at a previous event, hackathon or college project?
The guidelines are explicit: your solution must not have appeared in any previous event or programme, of any sort. A recycled project is what a team under time pressure reaches for.
The brief asks for canard actuation assembly. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26098 itself: Design a mechanical canard deployment system with a CAD model for trajectory correction. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for gnc and control algorithms. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26098 itself: Develop the guidance, navigation, and control algorithms for real-time flight control and terminal accuracy. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for multi-mode electronic fuze. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26098 itself: Design the electronic fuze supporting proximity, time, and impact modes along with a programming interface. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for embedded hardware architecture. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26098 itself: Create the electronics block diagram, sensor selection plan, and power management strategy for high-g conditions. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for simulation and validation. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26098 itself: Build a simulation demonstrating trajectory correction and performance estimation to achieve a CEP of 30 meters or better. The brief asks for it by name.
Where does your data come from: a published source, one you collect, or one you generate?
No dataset is attached to this problem statement, so sourcing it is part of the work and nobody told you that.
Why not use what already exists? Name the closest thing to this that is already running.
A team that has not named the alternative themselves is answering this for the first time in the room.
Which single thing will you demonstrate end to end, start to finish, with nothing skipped?
Ours, not a rule: a narrow thing that fully works survives questioning better than a broad thing that half works. If nobody on the team can name it, that is the finding.
Show me this working: the jury will check if your design achieves a Circular Error Probable of 30 meters or better, survives high-g launch acceleration, vibration, and spin, and maintains compatibility with a standard 155 mm artillery shell casing.
This is the evaluator read for your problem statement, decoded from the brief's own wording.
Each one is quoted from a gap in the brief, not a guess about your team.
Needs physical hardware
Listed as a hardware problem statement, so a working demo needs physical components you have to source yourself.
What the organisers attached, and what the brief assumes you can get.