Typhoon cannot talk to F-22
My post was not clear. The point I was making was that that having "receive only" players was never really an option operationally. Whilst we were introducing it, a lot of folk imaginied that they were being asked to carry around a bloody great beacon that would give away their position during their, low-lovel ingress and that they could be full-up players in the net by just receiving.
You've made most of the technical points already concerning synch with the network timing reference. Not being able to transmit in coarse synch means no one else in the package/force/raid/etc can see you and you lose the obvious benefits to air battle management (tactical). Happy to transmit Mode 4, but not contribute to building the RAP was my real issue.
In my opinion, I always pushed for full participation with the option to use Conditional Radio Silence or Polling Mode if required, announcing that in the PPLI. That way, players got fine synch and could still use receive and transmit secure voice whilst in CRS mode and return to Normal Mode when appropriate. In that case F-22 would be able to share data, contribute to the net and transmit voice, which was the OP's original statement.
You've made most of the technical points already concerning synch with the network timing reference. Not being able to transmit in coarse synch means no one else in the package/force/raid/etc can see you and you lose the obvious benefits to air battle management (tactical). Happy to transmit Mode 4, but not contribute to building the RAP was my real issue.
In my opinion, I always pushed for full participation with the option to use Conditional Radio Silence or Polling Mode if required, announcing that in the PPLI. That way, players got fine synch and could still use receive and transmit secure voice whilst in CRS mode and return to Normal Mode when appropriate. In that case F-22 would be able to share data, contribute to the net and transmit voice, which was the OP's original statement.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 23rd Feb 2013 at 09:58.
Not being able to transmit in coarse synch means no one else in the package/force/raid/etc can see you and you lose the obvious benefits to air battle management (tactical). Happy to transmit Mode 4, but not contribute to building the RAP was my real issue.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
True that you wouldn't be able to send a PPLI or any other messages in coarse
synch. However, provided that you were being seen by a suitable surveillance
platform and your track was being reported, your position would still be
available to other JUs on the net, but not as a PPLI.
The major problem with L16 is that it tries to be all things to all men. The ID requirements to produce a surveillance RAP are often different to those IDs required by a fighter crew (there was no equivalence between Bandit and Bogie to RAP IDs in the surveillance documents for example and so the E-3 had to bastardise IDs in deployed operations and ensure that the GE did not interfere too much). This was fine when L11/IJMS were being used as the surveillance link, but using L16 for both weapons control and surveillance simultaneously has its own problems (and this without the problems of CAA agreements and time slot allocations). There were also conflicts between naval ID procedures and GE IDs which made associated support to one or the other very difficult with a host of conflict alerts being generated. Everyone seems to be agreed that host system software needs to be compatible with all other friendly platforms - as long as it is all the other platforms that have to change their software (at great expense).
If the mud mover IPT and 1Gp had pushed harder for JTIDS for GR4 then we probably wouldn't have lost one of them to the friendly fire Patriot in 2003. This is because a PPLI from a JU sits higher up the ID matrix than Mode 4.
Spilt milk though...
LJ
Spilt milk though...
LJ
"It's not a bug, it's a feature".
Optimal stealth involves zero transmissions, and certainly none that are not governed by the EMCON functions in the aircraft or the four-ship unit. Hence the only transmit comms are the voice radio (outside threat range only) and IFDL. Any datalink that responds automatically to an outside query is verboten. It's like a ninja with Tourette syndrome.
Bevo is correct that other things have been demonstrated. However, the solution adopted in 2010 (IIRC) was to put the F-35's MADL (which for reasons unexplained can't talk to IFDL) on the F-22 and B-2, along with a fully cooked version of BACN called Objective Gateway. Unfortunately this was then
canned on cost grounds (also, perhaps, in view of the real-world IOC of Porky).
My impression is that the stealth community is resistant on the grounds that their job is to go into the "red bubble" of denied airspace, and that if they have the means to contribute to the big air picture they will be under constant pressure from the joint air component commander to do that.
Optimal stealth involves zero transmissions, and certainly none that are not governed by the EMCON functions in the aircraft or the four-ship unit. Hence the only transmit comms are the voice radio (outside threat range only) and IFDL. Any datalink that responds automatically to an outside query is verboten. It's like a ninja with Tourette syndrome.
Bevo is correct that other things have been demonstrated. However, the solution adopted in 2010 (IIRC) was to put the F-35's MADL (which for reasons unexplained can't talk to IFDL) on the F-22 and B-2, along with a fully cooked version of BACN called Objective Gateway. Unfortunately this was then
canned on cost grounds (also, perhaps, in view of the real-world IOC of Porky). My impression is that the stealth community is resistant on the grounds that their job is to go into the "red bubble" of denied airspace, and that if they have the means to contribute to the big air picture they will be under constant pressure from the joint air component commander to do that.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, and something I didnt know. But did I need to know? And do others not in the loop need to know that the Typhoon can't talk to the F-22?
Ahhh, that'll be my taxi then. Now where did I put the hat n coat.
Ahhh, that'll be my taxi then. Now where did I put the hat n coat.
WB-57F - BACN
LJ,
The 2 x WB-57F still perform the BACN role !
The Aviationist » NASA’s WB-57 Battlefield Airborne Communication Node gets new sensors, paint scheme for more clandestine missions
Great pics in this article:
Wb-57f News, Videos, Reviews and Gossip - Gizmodo
A third WB-57F was withdrawn from AMARG Davis Monthan mid-2011 and is currently being regenerated in Colorado for further service.
NASA WB-57F
The 2 x WB-57F still perform the BACN role !
The Aviationist » NASA’s WB-57 Battlefield Airborne Communication Node gets new sensors, paint scheme for more clandestine missions
Great pics in this article:
Wb-57f News, Videos, Reviews and Gossip - Gizmodo
A third WB-57F was withdrawn from AMARG Davis Monthan mid-2011 and is currently being regenerated in Colorado for further service.
NASA WB-57F
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 23rd Feb 2013 at 15:21.
Standardisation and inter-operability problems are endemic to organisations like NATO. It was ever thus.
The Met. meetings on the subject at about Wg Cdr / Gp Capt level in Northag, AFCent and the like were just talking shops, with each country bragging about [usually miniscule] progress since last time, and more focus on Wives' Programmes and Dinings-In than business.
The level which really knew what was going on and where to make progress rarely got a look in beyond briefing their boss.
I reacted by sending my expert [at Flt Lt level], appointed him my deputy for 72 hours and awaited his report.
"They didn't have a clue what I was talking about, but they all agreed!"
Muddle along is the best description.
The Met. meetings on the subject at about Wg Cdr / Gp Capt level in Northag, AFCent and the like were just talking shops, with each country bragging about [usually miniscule] progress since last time, and more focus on Wives' Programmes and Dinings-In than business.
The level which really knew what was going on and where to make progress rarely got a look in beyond briefing their boss.
I reacted by sending my expert [at Flt Lt level], appointed him my deputy for 72 hours and awaited his report.
"They didn't have a clue what I was talking about, but they all agreed!"
Muddle along is the best description.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comms interoperability thing surely doesn't matter unless the USAF are about to start letting the F-22 'go places'.
Although clearly it doesn't sound very smart for such special friend's to not be able to talk secure.
Although clearly it doesn't sound very smart for such special friend's to not be able to talk secure.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
This comms interoperability thing surely doesn't matter unless the USAF are about to start letting the F-22 'go places'.
Originally Posted by orca
Are we saying that the two genuinely have to communicate in non-agile, unencrypted UHF?
Perhaps they'll have to fall back on Havequick.
We re-modified our radios, but only for one aircraft fleet; the first fleet to encrypt a hopper. None of the other project offices (it was before the Mk2 IPTs were formed in 1999) even bothered updating their tech pubs, or ADS to inform the crews there was no point selecting a certain secure mode.
In 2001 a major initiative was developed to improve integration and interoperability. DEC demanded the word "interoperability" be removed as it was not policy for our Services to be interoperable with each other, never mind Allies.
tuc, while HQII worked well in the VC10K, there were often occasions during OP WARDEN when we had to send a 'mickey' to F-15 crews, who couldn't get HQ to work.
But even with a correct WOD and TOD, it was reasonably common for the wrong OpDay to have been loaded - or for MWODs to drop during the change from external to internal power after engine start. So I decided that the ground crew comms NCO with HQ fill gun should remain on board until we were on internal power and had re-checked HQ comms with Mad Dog, then disembark - they readily agreed as at least they were interested in successful missions.
Sadly, most sqn crews new √(cock all) about HQ, RWR etc. Nor could they be ar$ed to read up about such systems, particularly on detachments as they were more interested in playing golf and general holidaying. Until, that is, a certain FI started including questions about such operational systems in routine Ground Cats....
But even with a correct WOD and TOD, it was reasonably common for the wrong OpDay to have been loaded - or for MWODs to drop during the change from external to internal power after engine start. So I decided that the ground crew comms NCO with HQ fill gun should remain on board until we were on internal power and had re-checked HQ comms with Mad Dog, then disembark - they readily agreed as at least they were interested in successful missions.
Sadly, most sqn crews new √(cock all) about HQ, RWR etc. Nor could they be ar$ed to read up about such systems, particularly on detachments as they were more interested in playing golf and general holidaying. Until, that is, a certain FI started including questions about such operational systems in routine Ground Cats....
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Feb 2013 at 20:57.