Jump to content

[REPORTED]The E-3A is not able to send SURV contacts via Link-16 to a distance greater than 135 nm.


Recommended Posts

I found out and then tested that the contacts via the Link-16 datalink are only transmitted to distance about 125 NM. But the PPLI of its own units is transmitted over a correct maximum distance 325 NM. The SA page in F/A-18 is designed to display contacts at distances greater than 125 NM. Next, if the participant transmits PPLI is able to send other data, ie. contacts. Tested with AWACS E-3 Sentry.

 

I note that the distance that AWACS is able to send via the Link-16 has been tested and not its detection capability. The monitored aircraft flew about 2-3 NM from AWACS and in the mission I set the fog of war, AWACS all the time saw the target but sent its position about the distance of 125 NM from the Link-16 terminal. I noticed this phenomenon in missions and therefore I decided to test it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

can you attach the track replay from your test.

 

Thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

 

I have just spoken to a team member.

 

In DCS the maximum range for link-16 on F-18 is 100 nautical miles for fighter to fighter operation.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that this distance is insufficient. In essence, this loses the advantage of AWACS. As the performance of AA missiles improves, we fly operations in a larger area. The design of the SA page is also adapted to display contacts at a greater distance.It is this distance of about 100 NM is calculated from AWACS and it can not operate in the immediate distance from the fighters, especially if it is present as an enemy of the F-14.

If against the F/A-18 is in the air the F-14 needs to cover more space, AWACS must fly in greater depth of territory as the distances increase and the F/A-18 cannot take advantage of information superiority.

 

I would like you to increase this distance to published values if possible. Alternatively, gradually after testing and optimization for game performance. I'm sure it will be very useful.

 

I believe that I have sufficiently clarified why we need them to increase this distance. It's a really important ability for us. I will be waiting for your reply. Thanks :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
In Multiplayer the DL is not working from Fighter to Fighter most of the time.

 

If you have a track replay showing this please post it in a new thread.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say that this distance is insufficient. In essence, this loses the advantage of AWACS. As the performance of AA missiles improves, we fly operations in a larger area. The design of the SA page is also adapted to display contacts at a greater distance.It is this distance of about 100 NM is calculated from AWACS and it can not operate in the immediate distance from the fighters, especially if it is present as an enemy of the F-14.

If against the F/A-18 is in the air the F-14 needs to cover more space, AWACS must fly in greater depth of territory as the distances increase and the F/A-18 cannot take advantage of information superiority.

 

I would like you to increase this distance to published values if possible. Alternatively, gradually after testing and optimization for game performance. I'm sure it will be very useful.

 

I believe that I have sufficiently clarified why we need them to increase this distance. It's a really important ability for us. I will be waiting for your reply. Thanks :)

 

Do you have a reference for the published distances? I am happy to show the team

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
BIGNEWY I sent you a PM with information sources.

 

Yes thank you, I forwarded to the team, but I can not promise any changes currently.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the response and data transfer to the team. But what is the result? Do you consider it a WIP or a bug? I understand it won't be fixed in a week. But there is some road map F/A-18 where it also datalink Link-16. So I think it would be good if it showed up there. As I wrote, the current distance is really insufficient. I'm not saying that we need tomorrow the distances as they are listed in the materials I sent, but I would like to see a gradual increase in distance. I can see friendly contacts that send PPLI over long distances. But I can only see contacts that send AWACS via datalink at distances of +/- 100 NM. What's stopping it? I thought it was just a parametric change. Would it have a significant impact on performance? If this is a problem that requires major code changes, I think it would be a good solution to increase the number of resources that are able to send contacts to the Link-16 network (Arleigh Burke, CVN, Patriot, Hawk).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious about this too. This unclassified PhD thesis from the Naval Postgraduate School states there are two ranges, a normal with ~300 nmi and an extended out to around ~500 nmi.

 

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A JTIDS/LINK-16-TYPE WAVEFORM TRANSMITTED OVER SLOW, FLAT NAKAGAMI FADING CHANNELS IN THE PRESENCE OF NARROWBAND INTERFERENCE

 

This case study from RAND on MIDS also states that MIDS LVT, which is installed in the F/A-18, has a range of 300 nmi.

 

MIDS Case Study

 

Another unclassified report from the Department of the Navy lists LVT as 300 nmi for C2 (Command & Control) to C2 aircraft, 240 nmi for non-C2 to C2 aircraft, and 200 nmi for non-C2 to non-C2 aircraft.

 

Selected Acquisition Report - Multifunction Information Distribution System (MIDS)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
Thanks for the response and data transfer to the team. But what is the result? Do you consider it a WIP or a bug? I understand it won't be fixed in a week. But there is some road map F/A-18 where it also datalink Link-16. So I think it would be good if it showed up there. As I wrote, the current distance is really insufficient. I'm not saying that we need tomorrow the distances as they are listed in the materials I sent, but I would like to see a gradual increase in distance. I can see friendly contacts that send PPLI over long distances. But I can only see contacts that send AWACS via datalink at distances of +/- 100 NM. What's stopping it? I thought it was just a parametric change. Would it have a significant impact on performance? If this is a problem that requires major code changes, I think it would be a good solution to increase the number of resources that are able to send contacts to the Link-16 network (Arleigh Burke, CVN, Patriot, Hawk).

 

The thing here is the incoherence between PPLI and AWACS data transfer, that should be addressed soon so at least they are the same. If ED decides it is 100nm then 100nm it is, but coherently with each other.

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope not. 100 nautical miles is quite a bit. AWACS simply cannot fly so close to the combat zone. And we don't have another sensor (SURV) that would contribute to the Link-16 network in DCS. Even an aircraft carrier does not contribute to the network. I wonder how it is with the transmission distance of Link-4 at F-14 in DCS (from AWACS to plane)? I don't have this plane so I can't test it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I have just spoken to a team member.

 

In DCS the maximum range for link-16 on F-18 is 100 nautical miles for fighter to fighter operation.

 

But aren't we talking about SURV rather than F/F? That's what I understood from OP.

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi.

 

After testing this, it seems nothing that has been said in this thread is coherent with what actually happens in DCS, not even the mods posts.

 

I am receiving as we speak a SURV contact from an AWACS that is flying 228nm from me, and the contact is 93nm from him.

 

EDIT: new test with AWACS at 317nm from me and still receiving SURV donor info.

 

EDIT2: Both tests had the AWACS as an E-2


Edited by hein22

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a test on the original mission from which the track is. The AWACS on my mission was the E-3A. I received the first SURV contact up to a distance of 126 nautical miles. This means that the problem still exists here.

I exchanged AWACS for E-3D. Now there was a great surprise. Not only was I able to confirm your distance values but I even reached the nominal transmission distance. I obtained SURV contact from AWACS E-3D at a distance of 320 NM. The target flew in a parallel course with AWACS so that the test was not affected and it was easy to determine the distance for transmission. Really good job I think you found something interesting.

 

I think we can say that with Link-16 itself as a protocol there is no problem in terms of data transmission distance.

The problem will be in AWACS E-3A. But since it works correctly on another AWACS, I believe that the repair will be easy because it is already correctly implemented in DCS. I think this is crucial news for creators and participants of missions where they are battling over long distances.

 

Screenshot from the test is attached. I think the thread can be marked as resolved and can be closed. I will create a bug report on AWACS E-3A.

spacer.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm, I tried with the big one E-3 and I still got the contact at 250nm from the SURV, however it wasn't as consistent as with the E-2 and radio comms were not available.

 

So there is 100% confirmed a bug with the E-3, but I am not seeing the same results as you are.

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did more tests with the E-3 and I am getting SURV data from 320nm, although much more inconsistent than the E-2. It seems the E-3 is very susceptible to notching, way more than the E-2.

 

Maybe your install is broken? Pls attach your mission so we can look.

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin2487 said:

Ok. And how can you display the SURV contact at a distance of 352 NM in an airplane or how did you find out that you were able to detect it. Is there a way to display this on DDI? The SA page only scales up to 320 NM.

 

Thanks🙂

 

No, you're getting it wrong. What we are discussing here is how far away the AWACS is from you, not the contact he is painting and transferring to you via L16.

 

So I put an AWACS 352nm away FROM ME, and then an enemy that is in between so I can see it on SA.

 

Cheers.

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago I created a thread (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230410-investigatinglink-16-sends-contacts-to-a-shorter-distance-than-it-should-be/?tab=comments#comment-4501647) where I wrote that the distance to which contacts are sent via Link-16 is insufficient. This means that AWACS is not able to send a SURV contact at a distance greater than 125 NM from the receiving aircraft (F/A-18). A model situation was used on a map of the Caucasus of an aircraft standing on the ground at Senaki Airport. AWACS transmitted its PPLI (one of the Link-16 messages) but was unable to send a SURV contact to an aircraft that flew a parallel course with it at a distance of about 1 NM from it. The AWACS contact was detected by radar (verified via F10 maps using the fog of war function).

 

According to the logic of how Link-16 works, this is nonsense. The air track is one of the messaging messages of this protocol as well as PPLI. Therefore, if the aircraft is able to send its PPLI, it is able to transmit other messages, including the air track. The bug report has been investigated. I also sent sources that document that the transmission distance of Link-16 is definitely greater than 125 nm. Due to the rules of the forum, they were sent by private message.

 

6. 12. 2020 came the user hein22 and I thank him once again with interesting information 🙂. He found that the insufficient transmission distance of the SURV contact (air track message) Link-16 in the DCS had apparently been corrected in the meantime. He found that the E-2D Hawkeye is already able to send contacts to correct distance. 

 

He did a test and I confirmed his findings. And so it can be said that the distance of air contact transmission is correct is correct for E-2D. It corresponds to the design of the SA page (320 NM page scale) in the aircraft as well as the available data. Another example of the F/ A-18 aircraft is at Senaki Airport and at a distance of 325 NM from it is AWACS E-2D Hawkeye. An airplane that is about 1 nm away from it flies with him on a parallel course. E-2D sends it to a distance of 325 nm. Screenshot of the test and the track is attached.

 

I checked the E-3A Sentry with the same parameters and found that this AWACS is not able to send an air track (SURV contact) at a distance greater than 135 nm. Here, too, there were some changes before, it was certainly around 125 nm. But if the E-2D is able to send an air track at a distance of 325 NM, the E-3A Sentry must also be able to do so. It uses the same protocol for datalink, ie. Link-16. And as I stated, if the transmitter is able to send its PPLI (as one of the messages to the Link-16 data link) it must also be able to transmit the Air track message. It is simply within the required range for transmission so it is possible. I am very pleased that you have addressed this issue and basically solved it. It remains to solve the problem of insufficient distance to which the E-3A Sentry sends air contacts via Link-16.

 

I think the thread "Link-16 sends contacts to a shorter distance than it should be." (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230410-investigatinglink-16-sends-contacts-to-a-shorter-distance-than-it-should-be/?tab=comments#comment-4501647) can be marked as resolved. The problem is no longer with the Link-16 protocol but only with the AWACS E-3A Sentry unit.

 

Screenshot of the transmission distance test (E-2D Hawkeye)

 

8bQKVAS.png

 

 

Datalink range test E-3A track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fkmONs9tJhrC1ad1jnHtmcxxS1H3kivm/view?usp=sharing

Datalink range test E-2D track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFha8ugCDUrElncfZTSAtsNEkDOt9OOX/view?usp=sharing


Edited by Martin2487
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BIGNEWY changed the title to [REPORTED]The E-3A is not able to send SURV contacts via Link-16 to a distance greater than 135 nm.

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...