-
This stuff about having frequencies in the SharedMem appears to be more Top Secret than the systems installed on the new stealth Air Force One?
Anyways, that means we have to do what we all always do when it comes to secret stuff: speculate.
I think one valid reason where it would be useful to see which frequency a pilot is tuned to, would be a new guy who is suddenly âlostâ after a comm switch. But thatâs what Guard is for, or why you never switch both radios at the same time, or still have Teamspeak running in the background.What other things can you come up with?
-
@Eagle-Eye: replacing IVC. Wanting to create a UHF LRU compatible with BMS which can be drop-in for cockpit builders. Simulating Link-16 as a third party Add-on.
A few things.
-
Coming back to the Thread Topic, I do think IFF is much much easier to implement versus Link 16.
-
You could write a short book on that topic good sirâŚ
But I guess flying with labels on covers a good portion of it.
The short version is that its a datalink which craps on the IDM and has a heap of features for integrating aircraft, ships and ground positions on one network. You can classify tracks according to the level of ROE they have satisfied, so a fighter could look at an air track and see that its passed through MRR without complying for example, just from tags on the track. You can vector aircraft onto a target with their radar off.
Lots of things.
There is more to it than that, and less. In a L16 network, each player, IE: Ground Unit (the moving kind), Fighter, AWACS, Ground Station, etc⌠that has a terminal only gets to transmit every so often, the network is set up in time slots and each transmitter only gets a small window to transmit certain messages on each cycle. In theory, there are hundreds of message types which can be sent across the network, ranging from simple stuff like weather and airport notams, to more complex things like targeting information, Bandit/Hostile declarations, radar tracks, and plenty more. Not every message includes position reporting either (Realistically itâs fast enough to nullify the lack of constant position reporting, for the most part). In reality⌠there is very little of this capability actually used, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being its hard to design a network that allows a lot of players to work together and share the limited transmit slots, and do so in a manner that will be beneficial to the most number of players on the network. (I used to do this in the AF) Additionally, all the nice things like MRR and ROE resolution is done by AWACS (Or another C2 platform) and pushed to the players via tracks. It does however have limited IFF M4 integration, sort of, but that wouldnât do much until the IFF piece got added to the game anyways. Itâs certainly more advanced than the IDM, but it comes at a cost, and the advantages that it really brings wouldnât do much to enhance the Falcon experience all that much. Truth be told a lot of the pilots Iâve spoken with about it over the years tend to say the best part of L16 is the private voice channel you get with your flight, which likely wouldnât be implemented anyway⌠The system provides a lot of useful features, but to truly integrate all of them into Falcon would be a nightmare no doubt. I know first hand how the L16 system is designed and how it works, and to do it with the level of realism that BMS tends to shoot for, would be a monstrous task indeed.
(I need to save this reply somewhere, Iâm definitely going to use it again )
For a functionning IFF, we would also need to implement IFF failures, what happens when you come back in your lines with a bent IFF, safe passage lines, ROEs for AI, creating new radio messages, get rid of âhackâ like asking your wingman to engage, etc. Then debug all this, especially since it has a high potential of creating huge bugs like AI never firing or AI firing on friendly too often.
I think a lot of people want IFF just to have a magic button telling them Friendly/Enemy. IRL, that is not the case at all and requires a lot of work in the pit, and in mission preparation. Even IFF Mode 4 might be turned off in enemy space, if needed.
All in all, a lot of other basic stuff more important are missing, like simply having a correct system of frequencies for contacting flight/AWACS/FAC/TAnker, instead of the original F4 one which is kind of a mess.
And before somebody ask : same deal for the L-16.
I think most people fail to realize with the exception of Mode 4/5 IFF is simply used for ATC. Mode 1 and Mode 2, for the most part, canât be read by anyone other than AWACS and really only provides package information to reference against the ATO (Which you donât fly with so you wouldnât know if it was a valid reply or not), so thatâs useless for the most part, and Mode 3/a/c are only altitude/position indicators with a number attached to them (Think of other flight sims when they tell you to change your squawk) Mode 4/5 is encrypted, but itâs very pilot intensive for small aircraft, and not automated like most people think. When you as a pilot send an IFF interrogation (Which you have to do manually when you bug a target), the other pilot gets an indicator that they are being interrogated, IF and ONLY IF they have the same codes loaded. When they get the indication, their transponder may or may not respond based on the mode its in (You can always manually respond, there is a reason the HOTAS buttons are called IFF IN/IFF OUT), as L3Crusader mentioned itâs not always a good thing to have random RF leaving the airplane in some areas.
-
There is more to it than that, and less. In a L16 network, each player, IE: Ground Unit (the moving kind), Fighter, AWACS, Ground Station, etc⌠that has a terminal only gets to transmit every so often, the network is set up in time slots and each transmitter only gets a small window to transmit certain messages on each cycle.
Yes, hence TDMA.
In theory, there are hundreds of message types which can be sent across the network, ranging from simple stuff like weather and airport notams, to more complex things like targeting information, Bandit/Hostile declarations, radar tracks, and plenty more. Not every message includes position reporting either (Realistically itâs fast enough to nullify the lack of constant position reporting, for the most part).
J2.X and J3.X messages carry position reporting. For an F-16, J2.2 (Air PPLIâs), J3.0 (reference points) and J3.2 (air tracks) are the main ones expected. PPLIs every 12 seconds typically? tracks up to 20 second spacing?
In reality⌠there is very little of this capability actually used, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being its hard to design a network that allows a lot of players to work together and share the limited transmit slots, and do so in a manner that will be beneficial to the most number of players on the network. (I used to do this in the AF) Additionally, all the nice things like MRR and ROE resolution is done by AWACS (Or another C2 platform) and pushed to the players via tracks. It does however have limited IFF M4 integration, sort of, but that wouldnât do much until the IFF piece got added to the game anyways. Itâs certainly more advanced than the IDM, but it comes at a cost, and the advantages that it really brings wouldnât do much to enhance the Falcon experience all that much. Truth be told a lot of the pilots Iâve spoken with about it over the years tend to say the best part of L16 is the private voice channel you get with your flight, which likely wouldnât be implemented anyway⌠The system provides a lot of useful features, but to truly integrate all of them into Falcon would be a nightmare no doubt. I know first hand how the L16 system is designed and how it works, and to do it with the level of realism that BMS tends to shoot for, would be a monstrous task indeed.
I was under the impression that the IFF integration was also something the C2 player had to correlate themself?
Id just like the ability to send commit/engage instructions to F-16 players digitally, instead of over IVC. Things like that would enhance the experience substantially. I think we can agree that it would be a pretty massive task to implement it down to the level of tracking messages sent though. The coding to implement it would need to be a lot more simple than the way L16 actually works, but it could do that and still appear to the players of the sim exactly the same as L16 in operation.
If this was part of your job you could probably assist the devs quite a bit with this topic, if you were so inclined.
I think most people fail to realize with the exception of Mode 4/5 IFF is simply used for ATC. Mode 1 and Mode 2, for the most part, canât be read by anyone other than AWACS and really only provides package information to reference against the ATO (Which you donât fly with so you wouldnât know if it was a valid reply or not), so thatâs useless for the most part, and Mode 3/a/c are only altitude/position indicators with a number attached to them (Think of other flight sims when they tell you to change your squawk) Mode 4/5 is encrypted, but itâs very pilot intensive for small aircraft, and not automated like most people think. When you as a pilot send an IFF interrogation (Which you have to do manually when you bug a target), the other pilot gets an indicator that they are being interrogated, IF and ONLY IF they have the same codes loaded. When they get the indication, their transponder may or may not respond based on the mode its in (You can always manually respond, there is a reason the HOTAS buttons are called IFF IN/IFF OUT), as L3Crusader mentioned itâs not always a good thing to have random RF leaving the airplane in some areas.
Im still not clear why its called that actually. Doesnt the comms switch control declutter on the FCR and HSD formats? IFF interogator uses the TMS hat⌠so why is the comms switch labeled with IFF IN/OUT?
-
J2.X and J3.X messages carry position reporting. For an F-16, J2.2 (Air PPLIâs), J3.0 (reference points) and J3.2 (air tracks) are the main ones expected. PPLIs every 12 seconds typically? tracks up to 20 second spacing?
Depends on the Network setup. J2 messages do position reporting, J3 messages contain position data, but not necessarily position reporting. Each transmission slot can only send so much info, one 3.2 does not encapsulate ALL known tracks from a sender, so the software will prioritize and send tracks in bursts. The spacing depends on how many slots a given player is allotted. A network trying to encompass 4 players cycles back to each player much sooner, but a network designed to encompass 20, or 100 players, obviously doesnât allow as many time slots to a given player in a given amount of time, even if there are only 4 players in the network because the transmit scheme has to be designed to allow dynamic entry and exit of players. PPLI messages are usually given a higher repetition rate, and thus transmit more frequently for every player in the network (Unless itâs a ground station, which doesnât move) Air tracks and ground tracks are almost always exclusively sent by C2, and target resolution (Whoâs going to shoot at who) is done internally based on the information provided from C2, or in some cases can be specifically designated by C2, depends on the RoE and SPINS in a given area.
A mockup of a typical transmit cycle might look something like this (On a much bigger scale):
| Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 1 | Player 3 | Player 1 | Player 1 | Player 1 |
| PPLI | PPLI | PPLI | Track Data | Message 1 | Track Data | Message 5 | Track Data | Message 25 | Timing |
| Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 1 | Player 3 | Player 1 | Player 1 | Player 1 |
| PPLI | PPLI | PPLI | Track Data | Message 16 | Track Data | Message 15 | Track Data | Message 2 | Timing |Where Player 1 is a C2 entity, and the âMessage xâ could be anything. As this cycle repeats PPLIs get sent every cycle, but the messages may not be the same kind of message in every cycle.
I was under the impression that the IFF integration was also something the C2 player had to correlate themself?
RoE and SPINS dependent. Typically AWACS is responsible for traversing the threat matrix and declaring bandits/hostiles because they have a much bigger picture, and more resources to work with.
If this was part of your job you could probably assist the devs quite a bit with this topic, if you were so inclined.
I wouldnât mind providing some technical background, but it doesnât sound like this is a high priority so I wonât wait by the inboxâŚ
-
-
Good reading here.
Well that right there knocks over any complaints about not being able to find open source documents about Link 16âŚ
Great find!
-
There is alot more I know of about detailed PDFâs on all modes aswell to much time on the search button and not enough chatting with Siri me thinkâs?
-
-
yknow the fourth one down is the last useful one, right� After that we get stuff about how to merge multiple PDFs lol XD
-
You know that was an example and if you use different search key words you will discover alot moreâŚâŚ Just saying and all.
Tj
-
I received this in a PM and asked permission to use it but wanted to ask another question to the guruâs out there.
I am still a little surprised at how much of the information Northrop Grumman were allowed to put in that actually. Covers at least two thirds of the stuff needed as well.
Is IFF becoming a thing of the past I mean I have searched a plenty in times gone by and yes NOTHING public.
With the new digital battle field concept and the inception of the new multi tracking aesa radars reporting real time to awac for a complete real time solution on anything land air sea also from my understanding all aesa can be coded in signature for friend or foe treatment will IFF in the future become a back up source of information?
Cheers
Tj -
Is IFF becoming a thing of the past I mean I have searched a plenty in times gone by and yes NOTHING public.
With the new digital battle field concept and the inception of the new multi tracking aesa radars reporting real time to awac for a complete real time solution on anything land air sea also from my understanding all aesa can be coded in signature for friend or foe treatment will IFF in the future become a back up source of information?
Cheers
TjI would qualify IFF as already being a âbackupâ source of information in that its not the sole primary source of information on identification. Older aircraft have an antenna for basically every different device on the aircraft. The F-35 by contrast has a great many functions in software, all using the same antenna (same one the radar uses). In that sense, IFF is relegated to a backup function. Given that IFF can never provide PEI and only PFI or LOF indications, its not really a primary source of info to start with.
I would assume that individual aircraft would use it less frequently though, as the proliferation of tactical datalinks has already given C2 the capacity to provide information on past IFF interrogations to aircrew. So, multiple flights could rely on less of them needing to interrogate a contact of interest.
Apologies for answering, I know you wanted gurus to reply but I thought Id throw my answer in as well XD
-
IFF mode and AIFF it is not so simple to be implement correctly âŚ. some try was in previous falcon versions with circles O and | |squares for friendly and unknown a/c with scan mode via ctrl+o âŚbut i think the whole system must be implemented from scratch not for all modes only for e.g M+/scan mode to return friendly and unknown a/c when in the INTG -interrogator and IFF ICP page the pilot enters the code for AIFF or from DTC-> IFF tab ⌠also the AIFF system collaborate with some data from UFC and LINK16 which is complicated systems. The data and the information are available but i do not know if the programmers wants to try!!!
in Addition the navigation map in HSD -> could be a good feature since we have Redog dynamic navigation map.
The pilot will access the load function via the HSD control page 3. HSD control
page 3 is accessed by selecting the HSD control page and depression and release of OSB 5 (CNTL) will display
the HSD control page 1. Pressing page 1 (OSB 10) twice will result in control page 3 being displayed . This page
contains the options and controls for the displayed map. The pilot now depression and release OSB 20 (Map Mode) to access the
map mode menu page.Also power up the MAP switch from right back console.
-
in Addition the navigation map in HSD -> could be a good feature since we have Redog dynamic navigation map.
The pilot will access the load function via the HSD control page 3. HSD control
page 3 is accessed by selecting the HSD control page and depression and release of OSB 5 (CNTL) will display
the HSD control page 1. Pressing page 1 (OSB 10) twice will result in control page 3 being displayed . This page
contains the options and controls for the displayed map. The pilot now depression and release OSB 20 (Map Mode) to access the
map mode menu page.Also power up the MAP switch from right back console.
Not all the jets have that - and Red Dogs stellar work is not high enough resolution for such a MAP display either sadly. Would need something at WAC scale or better.
-
and Red Dogs stellar work is not high enough resolution for such a MAP display either sadly
that would not be correct
with 4096x4096 current res itâs detailled enough and it has been tested already and works
and with todayâs tool i could do a 8192x8192 res map as well -
@Red:
with 4096x4096 current res itâs detailled enough and it has been tested already and works and with todayâs tool i could do a 8192x8192 res map as well
I am using the CPD-FG4 software and it can display the default maps very good with no viewing quality problems. I guess putting such a view within the mfd limits might also be good enough specially when MFDâs are extracted. Maybe in 3-4 weeksâŚ
In 16th we use in our internal setup custom UI maps with 10k x 10k resolution. Size is approx 80MB and can display much more details in UI design, with a small effect on loading times for some extra seconds.
-
@Red:
that would not be correct
with 4096x4096 current res itâs detailled enough and it has been tested already and works
and with todayâs tool i could do a 8192x8192 res map as wellWell, did you test with the 160 nm range scale?
Some of us fly with the 8 nm depressed scale you know! On this scale there is not much detailâŚ
-
On this scale there is not much detailâŚ
Well this system is not actually Google Earth⌠Donât expect to read (or have time & focus to read) map details like mountain heights, cities etc.