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


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2019, 10:09 PM   #1
Kocrachon
Member
 
Kocrachon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Default Why are we getting Datalink of this is a Block I?

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...e-capabilities

Quote:
The fighter lacks the data link and air to air refuelling capacity or the enhanced avionics, payload and electronic warfare systems of the later Block II variants, but are less costly than their successors which entered production in December 2013. Fifty JF-17 Block I fighters were manufactured from 2007, and the aircraft are considered the least costly fourth generation fighters ever to be manufactured.
^-- Flat out says Block I did not have Datalink like Block II

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/secur...ighter.450130/

Quote:
Future versions of the China-Pakistan jointly developed FC-1 Xiaolong (also known as JF-17 Thunder) will possess advanced data link and electronic warfare capabilities, and be equipped with new-type guided weapons.
^--- Indicates that prior to 2014 (which is Block I) they did not have Datalink (Source is also from Pakistan)

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/20...r-chinese.html

Quote:
Dongxu claimed with the new upgrades, he expects the “JF-17 Block 3 to match an improved version of the F-16 fighter jet.” He added the proposed upgrades would also allow the JF-17 to share information with “other platforms”, hinting at the addition of a datalink system.
^--- Shared Datalink not till Block III it sorta sounds like? (Quote from China)

So I am confused, are we getting a Block 2 or Block 1?
Kocrachon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 10:49 PM   #2
Hatefury
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 104
Default

I think we need to wait to get exact details on this. It wouldn't surprise me if block 1 aircraft have been upgraded to also benefit from datalink as in the real world blocks are not as black and white as they might be in a simulation. On ED's discord the other day someone who said they were previously Blackhawk ground crew saw plenty of aircraft that had received partial upgrades.

I believe Deka have managed to get their hands on an actual JF-17 simulator (based off some of their previous Facebook images). Like it or not having a proper datalink system will increase the popularity of the aircraft and if they make it possible for server admins and mission designers to decide if you do or don't get access to datalink (assuming it is full datalink we're getting and not just the datalink used to control the C-802)

It will also make the aircraft more competitive in the DCS world that now exists where 4.5 gen aircraft have the advantage that datalink allows. Don't get me wrong there will people who make it work no matter what, like those M2000C pilots who continue to be able to dominate even if a fox 3 environment.

I'll be honest I'll be purchasing this aircraft no matter what but there are those whose purchasing decisions will be influenced by the capability of the aircraft. As someone who enjoys the player vs player I'll take every additional capability I can get thank you very much, but I won't be upset if we are simply somehow misreading the images that are being shown on the most recent tiny news post.
Hatefury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 01:19 AM   #3
ShadowFrost
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 163
Default

A lot of aircraft IRL only have partial upgrades or are in progress of being upgraded ETC. I don't know what Deka will say on why they modeled it, but obviously if they could get enough data to accurately provide a simulation to a high enough quality then I dont think there should be any issue. Block I and II are very similar IIRC. And, if its something as simple as a software update, (IE all the hardware is in place) then there is no reason not to have it if they have the data.

I'd just wait and see for when Deka provide all the information like ED does when announcing a aircraft for pre-order or etc. Until then, a lot can change.
ShadowFrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 02:22 AM   #4
Kocrachon
Member
 
Kocrachon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFrost View Post
A lot of aircraft IRL only have partial upgrades or are in progress of being upgraded ETC. I don't know what Deka will say on why they modeled it, but obviously if they could get enough data to accurately provide a simulation to a high enough quality then I dont think there should be any issue. Block I and II are very similar IIRC. And, if its something as simple as a software update, (IE all the hardware is in place) then there is no reason not to have it if they have the data.

I'd just wait and see for when Deka provide all the information like ED does when announcing a aircraft for pre-order or etc. Until then, a lot can change.
My main thing, personally, is they are using "Its Block I" as a reason for not including some things, like some weapons and no AAR. So I am hoping that if they are going the route of a Block II instead, that we can get AAR. The thing has such short legs... AAR would be greatly appreciated.
Kocrachon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 03:12 AM   #5
ShadowFrost
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocrachon View Post
My main thing, personally, is they are using "Its Block I" as a reason for not including some things, like some weapons and no AAR. So I am hoping that if they are going the route of a Block II instead, that we can get AAR. The thing has such short legs... AAR would be greatly appreciated.
It actually doesn't have that short or legs, 3 tanks (max) are worth 5,000lbs of fuel and another 5,300lbs internal gets you a 1800+NM ferry range. Which is better than both the 18 and 16 but under the A-10.

F-16 (2 tanks?) 1740 NM
F/A-18C (3 tanks) 1800+NM
JF-17 (3 tanks) 1,890 NM
A-10C (?) 2,240 NM
(obviously these are all estimates from different sources)

But I agree A2A refueling would be nice but its got decent range when your not in burners and are at altitude.

IIRC, the block II vs I had very small changes to avionics/software over the block I and the most noticeable change was the addition of a refueling probe. I dont believe anything was changed weapons wise other than clearance to carry ALCMs but I dont think that is restrictive to only block II in terms of capability.

(Late thought, I think block II can carry PL-15 as it was originally planned for block III but expedited due to Pakistan's concerns and is a very recent addition) But it was said somewhere that the PL-15 was for sure not coming.
ShadowFrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2019, 02:56 AM   #6
jojo
Veteran
 
jojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France
Posts: 3,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFrost View Post
It actually doesn't have that short or legs, 3 tanks (max) are worth 5,000lbs of fuel and another 5,300lbs internal gets you a 1800+NM ferry range. Which is better than both the 18 and 16 but under the A-10.

F-16 (2 tanks?) 1740 NM
F/A-18C (3 tanks) 1800+NM
JF-17 (3 tanks) 1,890 NM
A-10C (?) 2,240 NM
(obviously these are all estimates from different sources)

But I agree A2A refueling would be nice but its got decent range when your not in burners and are at altitude.

IIRC, the block II vs I had very small changes to avionics/software over the block I and the most noticeable change was the addition of a refueling probe. I dont believe anything was changed weapons wise other than clearance to carry ALCMs but I dont think that is restrictive to only block II in terms of capability.

(Late thought, I think block II can carry PL-15 as it was originally planned for block III but expedited due to Pakistan's concerns and is a very recent addition) But it was said somewhere that the PL-15 was for sure not coming.
When you will want to go on offensive missions, with missiles/ bombs, targeting/ data link pod and AA missiles for self defense, you won't be able to load 3 tanks and you will badly want AAR
__________________
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
jojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 09:06 AM   #7
-P51DMustang-
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 56
Default

Or simply deka decide to add JF17 Blk 2 after popularity of this one but still said nothing to surprise everyone?! :p

More seriously, JF17 Blk 1 actually get a datalink system integrated as Blk 2 and Blk 1 share same Radio systems as L0op8ack said it after i ask more clearance about D/L pod and screens posted... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...3&postcount=44
As Jf17 Blk III is still under cover developpement, and pakistani air force can use their JF side to their F16 and make them 'communicate' via datalink... I wouldn't be surprise all blocks get software update.
-P51DMustang- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2019, 08:37 AM   #8
Terrorban
Junior Member
 
Terrorban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 71
Default

I for once cannot complain since datalink will really help in dcs environment. Reds could actually use a datalink compatible multi role aircraft.
__________________
Current Hangar : A-10C ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

TRAINED -LEARNING- UNTOUCHED
Terrorban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2019, 11:27 AM   #9
Fri13
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrorban View Post
I for once cannot complain since datalink will really help in dcs environment. Reds could actually use a datalink compatible multi role aircraft.
If we would even get a Su-27S and KA-50 to have the datalink they should have, things would change dramatically.

The ground units are capable to send their spotted targets to KA-50 ABRIS system. So it would be great way for CA player to spot the targets and then right click the map and transmit that over datalink to KA-50 pilot.

The Su-27S is capable for flight datalinking, meaning 1-2 can fly radars On, while 2-3 others fly in silence. You can even share the designated targets and guidance data and perform optimal launch at front and Su-27S at rear will support your missile to target while launcher turns and burns drawing enemy missiles behind it.
Su-27S as well receives datalinks not just from the A-50 AWACS, but as well from the GCI network, that includes all ground radars that are networked to GCI via cables or radio links. The SAM systems datalink systems updates the GCI network about every 10 seconds, so you do not get constant updates, but it is similar if you would be sitting in a F/A-18C and scanning sky in TWS that could be even 12-14 second update period (why you can't launch any missile on maneuvering target in such conditions as your accuracy is way too low). So you are very capable to perform long range interception to fly closer and search target with EOS and perform a sneak attack or use your own radar to find target in the general area.

If the JF-17 gets the datalink that supports many other advantages, then it would add new things to RedFor arsenal.

https://quwa.org/2016/04/05/link-17-...a-link-system/

But, does the DCS itself support anything like that? Looks like not, as it would really require a overhaul of its communications system. The whole radio system that is used for datalinks as well for radio communications and delays. And generate a believable radio communication system where different troops do know their general radio frequencies, and they could relay the reports from other troops forward when the units own radio is blocked (LOS) or is out of range. So example the patrol squad down in the valley would radio to a observation post top of the hill and tell their findings like ground units . The observation post will then radio to command post on their other side of the mountain repeating the information. The command post will handle the information and then radio it to the nearest FOB, that process the information and then generates a close air support task for helicopter flight.
The whole simulated process would take 120-240 seconds to get the information from original radio call to the report in the FOB. And only now the Combined Arms player would get information of the general threat information on the map (instead direct information from all units at once).

Such communications delays for all datalinks, all radio communications and processing between the fighters, ground, SAM, AWACS etc would add far more immersion and capabilities.
As there is always a man-in-a-loop that is double checking something, confirming the information, decisions are made, commands are issued and then whole thing gets processed.

And considering what JF-17 datalink system will become, the pilot would report himself to the system as asset to be utilized, or get dynamically assigned by the system when on patrol etc.
The DCS would require every pilot to learn the skills of communications systems, how to use even a kneeboard and scribe down the information they receive over radio on kneeboard first, before starting to enter it to the computer etc.

And such system would make many aircrafts that has co-pilot, far more interesting. As now one can notice that even a KA-50 pilot could radio to somewhere, the information is processed and relayed etc, and at some point later that data is delivered to JF-17 pilot via datalink.
So while the datalink is great and nice, the radio is still the most valuable tool that links the air to ground and sea together. Lots of things can be told over radio if you just know to who you need to contact and how to present the information. Radio doesn't allow the weapons grade quality for targeting etc, but being able to hear over radio that enemy fighters were spotted in the specific valley heading south-east just minute ago, can be great asset for the JF-17 fighter pilot in that direction to do a tactical decision.
__________________
i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.
Fri13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2019, 02:02 PM   #10
rinao0o
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 62
Default

I'd like to add that you shouldn't worry too much about simulation accuracy since Deka is creating the module with help from jf-17's manufacturers, they have access to various exclusive documents including a real cockpit simulator. This practically eliminates all the guessing games and we can expect DCS JF17 to delivery a highly accurate representation of the real thing.

Last edited by rinao0o; 08-09-2019 at 02:28 PM.
rinao0o is offline   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 06:59 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.