Why are we getting Datalink of this is a Block I? - Page 5 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2019, 08:02 AM   #41
Quaggles
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queensland, Australia - Behind your 3/9 Line
Posts: 42
Default

Yeah I thought I had read it had Link-16 somewhere then I looked it up again and realised that the JF-17 has "Link-17" which is a proprietary Pakistani datalink.
Quaggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 08:32 PM   #42
Kazansky222
Member
 
Kazansky222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaggles View Post
Yeah I thought I had read it had Link-16 somewhere then I looked it up again and realised that the JF-17 has "Link-17" which is a proprietary Pakistani datalink.
Is it proprietary as in Pakistani F-16 and JF-17 can share data on the same network?
__________________

64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron
Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron
TS: 195.201.110.22
Kazansky222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 09:03 PM   #43
jojo
Veteran
 
jojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France
Posts: 3,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaggles View Post
From my understanding the JF-17 implements Link-16 since the PAF needed interoperability with their F-16s, is the datalink only working between JF-17s and AWACS because of an ED limitation where they haven't defined a Link-16 API yet to work with their Hornet?
Just read that:
https://quwa.org/2016/03/27/pakistan...ns-data-links/

If Link 16, only on F-16. National Data Link (Link 17) for the rest of PAF assets.
They do say they have Link 16, which I find surprising too...but it seems confirmed by various sources

Quote:
2006: MIDS LVTs were ordered by the United States, Australia, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Switzerland, and Turkey. Requests for the systems came from Greece, Pakistan, and Turkey. Canada selected DLS LLC to provide Canadian forces with MIDS LVTs
https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/m...ink-16/#_edn34
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...s-(jul-3).html
__________________
Mirage fanatic !
I7 7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go 2400 Hz/ SSD Samsung 850 EVO/ Saitek X-55 + MFG Crosswind + Rift S
Flickr gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Last edited by jojo; 09-25-2019 at 11:52 PM.
jojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 03:34 AM   #44
almullao
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFrost View Post
Funnily enough, other than the guidance bug (not losing track/ability to regain track) its probably the most correct missile in DCS currently other than the Aim-7 (AIM-7 has improved guidance g-restrictions, quite basic still but is an API limitation, which have not made their way to other missiles). It can't be told when to go pit-bull due to missile API limitations which are being worked on/improved. But actual weapon performance is the closest of any DCS missile (besides the aim-7 potentially) due to it having G-restrictions and lofting before pit-bull. But it still has a good ways to be improved as the G-restrictions and lofting aren't matching where they should but that is currently waiting once again on the missile API.

You don't exactly get to just make a module for DCS, they will have to provide information to ED and go through ED's approval process before release to ensure it is up to standards in terms of accuracy for what is available through DCS.
According to my testing the missile pulled 50+gs intercepting a mig29 pulling 10gs.
almullao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 03:42 AM   #45
AeriaGloria
Senior Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 1,233
Default

When did you test it? Deka has said when it was first added to the game months ago it was WIP

Last edited by AeriaGloria; 10-20-2019 at 09:19 AM.
AeriaGloria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 03:44 AM   #46
ShadowFrost
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almullao View Post
According to my testing the missile pulled 50+gs intercepting a mig29 pulling 10gs.
Yeah, AFAIK from talking to them the missile in game (not sure about latest updates) is not what were getting. So everything I've said is useless ultimately as it was confirmed to be a placeholder.

Unless were talking about the Aim-7. And if it is the Aim-7, pm me that way we dont take up forum space for something that isn't related to Deka.

Last edited by ShadowFrost; 10-20-2019 at 03:52 AM.
ShadowFrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:56 PM   #47
Banzaiib
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 639
Default

So, why is the Deka JF-17 getting link-16 in dcs if it doesn't have it IRL? I don't understand. This is a study level sim.
Banzaiib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 09:53 PM   #48
Ramsay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banzaiib View Post
So, why is the Deka JF-17 getting link-16 in dcs if it doesn't have it IRL? I don't understand.
The Pakistani military use multiple data-link protocols.

AFAIK the PAF use Link-16 with their F-16s and the NDL (National Data Link) with the JF-17.

DCS doesn't really differentiate between data links so Deka allow the JF-17's NDL to communicate with AWACS for surveillance and with other JF-17's.

AFAIK the DCS JF-17 will not receive Link-16 data from F-15C, F-15E, F-16C Blk52, F-18 (lot 20 and AI) or PPLI from A-10C, B-1 and B-52.

It's always possible Deka may allow DCS's AWACS to act as a network bridge (as it already does for ED's Link-16/SADL) but we'll only know for sure when Deka share more details i.e. via a video.

Last edited by Ramsay; 10-23-2019 at 10:06 PM.
Ramsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 10:35 PM   #49
AeriaGloria
Senior Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 1,233
Default

The PAF call it link 17. There’s a video of a wall monitors with. Multiple sensors including JF-17 contributing, I forget where the video is
AeriaGloria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 10:56 PM   #50
TLTeo
Member
 
TLTeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 692
Default

Link 16 is a NATO only system as far as I understand. I imagine whatever datalink Pakistan uses is different from it.


Considering that the Viper we have is a US-specific variant (like the Hornet), it make sense that they wouldn't come with whichever Pakistani datalink is on their Viper and JF 17s.
TLTeo is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.