Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-delivers-overhauled-block-1-jf-17-fighters-to-pakistan-with-enhanced-performance-capabilities

 

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/secure-data-link-ew-capability-guided-weapons-planned-for-pakistan-china-jf-17-fighter.450130/

 

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/2019/03/12/pakistan-jf-17-fighter-radar-chinese.html

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?p=4001293&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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by rinao0o
Link to post
Share on other sites
And to answer your question the data-link capabilities afaik is provided by an external pod.
Nope sir... D/L pod is oonnnnnnnly for C-802AKG man in the loop control as stated by L0op8ack in this post.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4001293&postcount=44

 

Apparently, from deeper research, it appear Block 2 and Block 1 share same systems and radiocoms, so datalink was just a software update to provide Jf17 Blk 1 a proper datalink, kinda like L16...

And as Terrorban said it, can't complain from getting datalink since it will be very usefull and welcome against F16 and F18. (Btw i wonder if ED will make pakistani livery for F16 so we can get F16 + Jf17 VS F16, F18, F14, M2000C... :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-delivers-overhauled-block-1-jf-17-fighters-to-pakistan-with-enhanced-performance-capabilities

 

 

 

^-- Flat out says Block I did not have Datalink like Block II

 

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/secure-data-link-ew-capability-guided-weapons-planned-for-pakistan-china-jf-17-fighter.450130/

 

 

 

^--- 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/2019/03/12/pakistan-jf-17-fighter-radar-chinese.html

 

 

 

^--- 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?

 

 

Datalink (Enhanced version LINK-16) was described in detail in the flight manual(CN and EN versions) since 2006.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Datalink (Enhanced version LINK-16) was described in detail in the flight manual(CN and EN versions) since 2006.

 

Good to know. The work you've shown so far looks excellent. Looking forward to some more in depth information and of course the aircraft itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct. That's all we need on multiplayer servers is a J17 with 2040 technology and weapons. The Phoenix is bad enough

Link to post
Share on other sites

We’ll be fine. I’m sure the manufacturers downplayed the utility of the datalink. Who knows what “block II has datalink” means. It could mean a more advanced datalink that provides weapons quality lock target transfer for more than the C-802. There has to be reason it is in the 2006 manual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct.

whatever they have is likely much more authoritative than the sparse information available from googling, sources which often don't even agree with each other


Edited by probad

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure hope we don't get this overly modeled add-on based on data the devs "thought" were correct. That's all we need on multiplayer servers is a J17 with 2040 technology and weapons. The Phoenix is bad enough

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well after chatting with an ex F14 pilot, it sure sounds like ED has got the phoenix wrong.

 

Edit- Its likely limitations of the API, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Plenty of forums on Heatblurs side for that kind of thing.


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to post
Share on other sites

its also both fallacious and rude to drag in the issues of another developer here

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well now it’s got me wondering about how the rwr and missile warning info is displayed:)

 

I cant speak for Deka and how they are implementing theirs, but from what I've heard from others, the RWR warning (at least for an active missile) is by a range from target. So once the missile passes within a certain range (generally whatever range the missile would go pitbull), the RWR on the target aircraft will get a warning. It is dependent on the range, and not the actual active state of the missile.

 

That's what I've been told about how its coded, and I haven't personally tested, but from game play it seems correct, but I've never isolated the variable specifically.


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to post
Share on other sites
Question, will the datalink on JF-17 communicate between aircraft to aircraft without the need for a ground station or airborne EWR? Or will it still need some form of AI to relay the information on datalink?

 

Group based A2A datalink do not need any relay, it's ad-hoc or Point-to-Point.

 

JF-17 have 2 radios.

radio1: voice mode only, contact TOWER/AWACS/TANKER etc;

radio2: voice mode for radio1 failover, and datalink mode

 

datalink network is identified by unique channel number,

radio2 datalink mode is enabled automatically by setting special channel number,

for example,

channel 199: LINK-16;

channel 198: AWACS/GCI;


Edited by L0op8ack
Link to post
Share on other sites
Group based A2A datalink do not need any relay, it's ad-hoc or Point-to-Point.

 

JF-17 have 2 radios.

radio1: voice mode only, contact TOWER/AWACS/TANKER etc;

radio2: voice mode for radio1 failover, and datalink mode

 

datalink network is identified by unique channel number,

radio2 datalink mode is enabled automatically by setting special channel number,

for example,

channel 199: LINK-16;

channel 198: AWACS/GCI;

 

Does that mean the JF-17 will have the choice of using a link 16 network, or connecting to A-50 and ground search radar stations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...