F/A-18C Data Link ?

What kind of data link does the plane operate with ? How does it compare to to the A-10C Data Link and the Su-27/33 Data Link

We will get a crippled version just like in the A-10C. It all depends on what open data ED managed to obtain. And what ED decides to implement. I have not seen any info on ED's implementation.

I just really, really hope it's a good one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LINK-16

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/DataLinkProcessingAndManagement/Documents/Understanding_Voice+Data_Link_Networking.pdf

F/A-18 integration

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264742534_Multifunctional_Information_Distribution_System_MIDS_Low_Volume_Terminal_LVT_Development_and_Integration_Programs_Towards_LINK-16_Network_Centric_AlliedCoalition_Operations

Link-16 messages

https://www.viasat.com/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/Link16_NPG_Message_Card_100112a.pdf

Big questions are

1. what messages can the F/A-18C recieve?

2. what messages can it transmit

3. how much information can be stored/displayed

4. how often do tracks or messages get updated

So from what I am reading here, the A-10 has a different system from what the Hornet has (Link 16), but they can both communicate with each other ?

from page 207 of the link-16 pdf

Does that also means, if lets say the A-10 had an radar and locked and air threat it could share it with F-18 and vice versa

So from what I am reading here, the A-10 has a different system from what the Hornet has (Link 16), but they can both communicate with each other ?

Don't know if some real F/A-18 have DataLink16, but, ED Team already told us, that our Hornet will have DataLink 4 and it won't be able "to talk" with A-10C in DCS World.

Follow your topics, dude))))

Don't know if some real F/A-18 have DataLink16, but, ED Team already told us, that our Hornet will have DataLink 4 and it won't be able "to talk" with A-10C in DCS World.

Source? I remember Olgerd saying that they want to model the gateway.

IRL, USN F/A-18 and A-10C can see each other via Link 16 gateways only. However US Marines F/A-18 and A-10C can report their positions via VMF messages (and thus, potentially to see each other directly). We do USN F/A-18, and ideally we would like to introduce a 'normal' Link 16 implementation with AI support, plus to split EPRLS and Link 16 networks.

It is still in question regarding Link 4 functions related to AA intercepts, as Link 16 completely implements similar functionality. We would like to implement it as well, but only after we are satisfied with Link 16 functionality (as still have time for it).

~~~

What kind of data link does the plane operate with ? How does it compare to to the A-10C Data Link and the Su-27/33 Data Link

given they are simulating a 21st century F/A18C hornet ( as noted by post production upgraded features such as aim9x, HMCS, and AMPCD that replaced the older CRT MPCD for navigation/mapping) it is practically guaranteed to have a modern datalink, which in this case would be the Link16.

Whole point of Link 16 being standardized not just among other US branches service but With Nato as well, is so when they end up working in conjunction within the same battle space these various aircraft will be able see each other and more effectively communicate.

Yeah, real F/A-18Cs have DL16

Link16. ( which A10C also has)

A-10C uses SADL, not directly compatible with Link 16, and so should require a mediating unit (Gateway) for use with Navy Hornet.

A-10C uses SADL, not directly compatible with Link 16, and so should require a mediating unit (Gateway) for use with Navy Hornet.

but both can communicate via gateway thefore via this process SADL datalink communication is indeed compatible with Link 16

http://www.g2tcg.com/tactical-communications-group-adds-situational-awareness-data-link-sadl-capabilities-to-its-tactical-data-link-communications-solutions/

Most of the time it only works when the comms techs are signing off your gripe "Cannot duplicate fault" and telling you they can't find anything wrong with it and it must be operator error.

no worries, that will be accurately simulated on the forums.

no worries, that will be accurately simulated on the forums.

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

What DL systems non-US operators use, btw?

In Finnish Hornets, Link 16 is used today. It replaced an earlier, locally made system at some point before 2010 I think - and supposedly was not all improvement in performance, but NATO compatibility was more important.

I'd guess the Swiss Hornets would use Link 16 as well, but what about the others?

Everyone complying with NATO standards can use L16. I don't know any modern western aircraft that doesn't support L16.

Everyone complying with NATO standards can use L16. I don't know any modern western aircraft that doesn't support L16.

Yes, exactly. :) The question is more that if all the current operators of F-18C actually do use the Link 16 as of today, and have it installed & employed. Not all "foreign" operators included this datalink system when the airplanes were initially delivered, but the question stands if all have switched to the Link 16 by now.

Yes, exactly. :) The question is more that if all the current operators of F-18C actually do use the Link 16 as of today, and have it installed & employed. Not all "foreign" operators included this datalink system when the airplanes were initially delivered, but the question stands if all have switched to the Link 16 by now.

Yes its a interesting question, but it does not pertain to ED Hornet because although they are including FOreign skins, its being modeled first and foremost to represent a US navy Hornet. Therefore it will have Link 16, especially since it's a 21st century era Hornet. Its just a matter of how well they can simulate its functions with what publicly available information they can get their hands on.

MMmmmm I wonder if after DCS:Hornet we will see some of the enhancements in DL modeling applied to the A-10C as well.

Regards!

Yes its a interesting question, but it does not pertain to ED Hornet because although they are including FOreign skins, its being modeled first and foremost to represent a US navy Hornet. Therefore it will have Link 16, especially since it's a 21st century era Hornet. Its just a matter of how well they can simulate its functions with what publicly available information they can get their hands on.

Yep, purely out of curiosity, and of interest regarding the type. :)

Indeed, interesting how they model this thing. As I understand, it is far from being the most capable data link system out there, but being so widespread and common, it makes a sensible choice even for the export customers.

Yep, purely out of curiosity, and of interest regarding the type. :)

 

Indeed, interesting how they model this thing. As I understand, it is far from being the most capable data link system out there, but being so widespread and common, it makes a sensible choice even for the export customers.

True but neither is the fa18 hornet the best fighter jet out there anymore.

F35 has next generation datalink ( MADL) that will be capable of much higher bandwidths. Thus faster transfer of information. All allies using 5th gen f35 will have it afaik.

Link 16 is 4th gen tech. So no it's no longer the best datalink out there.

But from i recall reading datalink 16 when it first debuted was praised by a general for being the most revolutionary addition for situational awareness since the addition of a search radar to fighters that began in the cold war

Yes, and more to my point (I need to state that the discussion is purely academic in what comes to the DCS product most likely!), is that the Link 16 apparently was in many ways inferior to some datalink(s) it actually replaced, except in what comes to compatibility. There were other, non-US/NATO solutions that were in some areas, reportedly of noticeably higher performance. Details of course remain mostly classified, and these systems were not, to my understanding, exported much at all, so I'd expect them to remain relatively little-known area of telecommunications in technical terms up until they maybe are disclosed in a decade or so on.

What comes to the airframe, the F/A-18 is somewhat underrated, IMO. It is a brilliant design in many aspects, almost as easy as a big GA airplane to handle on ground, carries a huge span of weapon and sensors systems, and reportedly flies beautifully in the air, especially if one likes high alphas. The fixed inlet design somewhat restricted the high Mach number performance, and it has some relationships to the centerline stores config, but my understanding from the data of it is that at the usual airspeeds, it is a nimble, powerful, point-and-shoot kind of a jet, not any shy of MiG-29 or Su-27, and with sensible A2A loadouts for close engagement, not loosing too much in vertical neither.

I thought this was supposed to simulate a digital battleground. And it won't be able to link with the A-10. Isn't that counter productive????

I thought this was supposed to simulate a digital battleground. And it won't be able to link with the A-10. Isn't that counter productive????

Well -- I guess some top brass in the Pentagon has the same concerns as you!

Regards!

I thought this was supposed to simulate a digital battleground. And it won't be able to link with the A-10. Isn't that counter productive????

Where was it said that they wouldn't model the gateway?