Jump to content

2 bugs found


PLAAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

1: The texture of the drop tanks are often missing. Sometimes can be solved by quit and reload the game.
2: JF-17 somehow can't get its uplink to connect with the KJ-2000. Yet it can link up to the american AWACS. This just doesn't make any sense.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Foogle said:

The KJ-2000 uses the redfor datalink scheme, and is not compatible with the JF-17. 

That's the issue, how is JF-17 not a redfor fighter?
Both China and Pakistan are not a part of SCO, which some may call it anti-NATO.
And how does a Chinese plane doesn't use Chinese datalink, but instead, use american one?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 минут назад, PLAAF сказал:

That's the issue, how is JF-17 not a redfor fighter?
Both China and Pakistan are not a part of SCO, which some may call it anti-NATO.
And how does a Chinese plane doesn't use Chinese datalink, but instead, use american one?

Anti-NATO is more or less CSTO which must be what you're referring to since China and Pakistan are not in CSTO but they are in SCO. SCO is more general purpose while CSTO explicitly focuses on security. As for the datalink, JF-17 is intended for Pakistan to replace F-16, so it makes sense why it's compliant with the F-16 (i.e. American) systems. As far as I understand China has little interest in FC-1 which probably explains the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

Anti-NATO is more or less CSTO which must be what you're referring to since China and Pakistan are not in CSTO but they are in SCO. SCO is more general purpose while CSTO explicitly focuses on security. As for the datalink, JF-17 is intended for Pakistan to replace F-16, so it makes sense why it's compliant with the F-16 (i.e. American) systems. As far as I understand China has little interest in FC-1 which probably explains the situation.


No, I meant SCO, not CSTO. I understand your argument that SCO is more general purpose, but nevertheless, it also deal with security issues. For example, China-Russia joint military exercise near Taiwan, to put pressure against separatist movement.
China is the founder of SCO, and Pakistan have joined it recently.

You may claim that JF-17 in Pakistan was intended to replace F-16, so it uses western datalink. But that's in Pakistan and JF-17 wasn't intended for Pakistan only. Many other nations purchased JF-17 had no US datalink and must purchase a Chinese one.
Secondly, Pakistan also have purchase Chinese AWACS for JF-17 too. So, Pakistan JF-17 must be able to link to Chinese system too.

It doesn't make any sense that a Chinese plane cannot linkup to a Chinese AWACS, but can linkup to a E-3.


Edited by PLAAF
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 часа назад, PLAAF сказал:


No, I meant SCO, not CSTO. I understand your argument that SCO is more general purpose, but nevertheless, it also deal with security issues. For example, China-Russia joint military exercise near Taiwan, to put pressure against separatist movement.
China is the founder of SCO, and Pakistan have joined it recently.

You may claim that JF-17 in Pakistan was intended to replace F-16, so it uses western datalink. But that's in Pakistan and JF-17 wasn't intended for Pakistan only. Many other nations purchased JF-17 had no US datalink and must purchase a Chinese one.
Secondly, Pakistan also have purchase Chinese AWACS for JF-17 too. So, Pakistan JF-17 must be able to link to Chinese system too.

It doesn't make any sense that a Chinese plane cannot linkup to a Chinese AWACS, but can linkup to a E-3.

 

Oh, I'm not saying it should not be compatible with KJ-2000, I'm just trying to make sense of why things are the way they are. Obviously we are not exactly spoiled with Redfor aircraft, so whatever works at this point. It seems to work with Russian early warning systems though if things weren't complicated enough already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PLAAF said:

That's the issue, how is JF-17 not a redfor fighter?
Both China and Pakistan are not a part of SCO, which some may call it anti-NATO.
And how does a Chinese plane doesn't use Chinese datalink, but instead, use american one?

Because the Pakistani air force uses western equipment. China does not use the JF-17, it's an export only fighter. So it makes sense that the aircraft would dovetail with the existing framework of the PAF; that means Link 16 compatibility, and not whatever DL the Chinese use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Foogle said:

Because the Pakistani air force uses western equipment. China does not use the JF-17, it's an export only fighter. So it makes sense that the aircraft would dovetail with the existing framework of the PAF; that means Link 16 compatibility, and not whatever DL the Chinese use. 


I don't think you saw what I commented earlier? Probably you opened this page and left it open before I posted my last comment.
Anyway, Pakistan has ordered KJ-200, so they are compatible.
And JF-17 is not sold only for the Pakistan, they are sold to many other nations that do no have US datalink and must purchase Chinese datalink. Therefore we should allow our JF-17 in DCS to connect with Chinese AWACS. Beside, in real life, Pakistan has no E-3 nor E-2.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JF-17 uses the Link-17 datalink system, wich is only compatible with NATO protocols. IIRC the KJ-2000 uses the K-type protocole wich is not compatible with Link-17 datalink protocols.

So, that's not a bug.

The drop tanks might be, I didn't saw it, so check for mods or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paco2002 said:

JF-17 uses the Link-17 datalink system, wich is only compatible with NATO protocols. IIRC the KJ-2000 uses the K-type protocole wich is not compatible with Link-17 datalink protocols.

So, that's not a bug.

The drop tanks might be, I didn't saw it, so check for mods or something.


Let me repeat this again (this is the 3rd time for christ sake), read all comments before reply.
Pakistan uses link-17 system, but JF-17 is not for Pakistan only. JF-17 is sold for other nations which has no western datalink, and they are switched for Chinese datalink.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PLAAF said:


Let me repeat this again (this is the 3rd time for christ sake), read all comments before reply.
Pakistan uses link-17 system, but JF-17 is not for Pakistan only. JF-17 is sold for other nations which has no western datalink, and they are switched for Chinese datalink.

Myanmar and Nigeria don't have AWACS aircraft, they don't need a Chinese datalink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Foogle said:

Myanmar and Nigeria don't have AWACS aircraft, they don't need a Chinese datalink. 


You don't need to have a AWACS for datalink. Ground radar can have control and command center too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PLAAF said:


You don't need to have a AWACS for datalink. Ground radar can have control and command center too.

Yeah that's already modelled on channel 198 if I recall correctly. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Foogle said:

Yeah that's already modelled on channel 198 if I recall correctly. 


I see, thanks for letting me know. I didn't actually know that.
But still, it would be good to allow us to link to the KJ-2000.
Besides, Pakistan do have KJ-200, so JF-17 should be compatible.


Edited by PLAAF

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MK84 said:

Hmm tried that and didn't work for me in the OB.

 

5 hours ago, SuumCuique said:

Does that mean the JF-17 has 2 DL modes, one on channel 199 and one on 198?

 

I distinctly remember a GCI/Ground datalink being on 198, perhaps @uboats can shed some light on it. 

 

Edit: disregard, uboats clarified that it was a dev holdover. 

 

 


Edited by Foogle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...