Link 16 implementation
-
Will Link 16 be implemented in next version(s)?
-
@slient too complicated and a lot of things are classified. The DCS implementation is very arcade-like.
-
Stolen from Falcon Lounge discord because why not.
Where is my L-16?
Ah another very interesting topic…
Well before asking that, did you practice your Situation Awareness?
Do you master Bullseye calls? How to use IDM? IFF? AWACS calls?Well before asking where is L-16, please build your SA
L16 is very low on our priority list right now but if you have talent in C++ maybe you can prove us wrong and join us!
BMS out!
-
My post on it in Santa’s Wishlist thread. Again, BMS will never guess at implementation:
@Snake122 said in Santa’s wishlist for BMS:
@Dee-Jay said in Santa’s wishlist for BMS:
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa’s wishlist for BMS:
I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.
- You would certainly not be able to use L16 correctly because of its complexity.
- MWS do not work as you think.
- Towed decoys prevent hard manoeuvres.
Anyone that wants a glimpse into the Link16 setup should watch this, it’s the best explanation I’ve had on it (granted I haven’t really gone looking that much though):
Watch times 46:30-53:00 then especially 57:30-1:03:05In general what @ZoneStalker995 and everyone else that compares DCS/Eagle Dynamics’ design philosophy to BMS needs to understand that @Dee-Jay and the rest of the BMS design team are not going to give you a cool toy without the real pain of the setup and realistic integration of that system. IFF is a great example and was in these wishlist threads for years. When we finally got it even though most of us wanted just a nerfed interrogation capability (like DCS’s IFF method), the full Mode 4 was added was definitely deeper than most people expected, despite @Dee-Jay and others warned us the whole time. Overall though it is a much better implementation IMO than DCS and one of the reasons I only dabble in that sim and always focus on BMS. That’s what they are doing again with those listed systems.
Viper ECM operation right now is one of the rare systems that DCS is modeling more realistically than BMS and is an example of one of the few Falcon 4.0 legacy systems that still exist in a nerfed format. If BMS probably had their way, we would not have a jammer modeled at all and would have waited until there was more information on how the ECM panel actually works and everyone would be on the same jammerless level (and actually what ED did in their Viper and Hornet at first in a rare case of getting their system mostly right before giving an unrealistic capability). My understanding from posts here is ED only beat BMS to the release punch on this and internal BMS builds have the ECM panel finally modeled more realistically.
The other thing I would close with is that as I’ve gotten older I have became more at peace with my sims not having the latest and greatest “toys” of systems. I’m now ok with a decade+ lag now of when it gets into the jets to when it is modeled in a sim. That is at least what it takes for information on a system’s operation and effectiveness to come out to see how to truly implement it. Despite ED saying their Viper is specifically a 2005 Block 50, they already have mission creep away from that time snapshot into systems that they don’t have enough background information nor simulator engine to truly implement correctly. I really trust in the BMS guys to get it right when it’s time, but everyone should accept if you want true realism due to OPSEC, you have to be simming in the past, not right now. If you want right now, you will be only playing games, not completely simming. Playing games is fun too, don’t get me wrong, and I do it too sometimes in DCS.
This is pre 4.37 with the ECM implementation, and obviously BMS has done it better.
-
I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of BMS adding L16 someday…. It’s just not a priority right now. It IS immensely complex in how it works with dozens and dozens of messages in the J.X catalog, how it works (Time Division Multiple Access TDMA), and all of the back-end controls through the DED, surveillance track symbology, etc.
That being said, I would NOT say that the BMS “philosophy” is that something had to be done all the way or not at all. Quite the contrary. We still have many systems that are incomplete to one degree or another. Does that mean we should ditch them because every conceivable detail wasn’t added? No. I’d be happy to list some, but that’s not the point of my post.
Anyway, I don’t fly DCS, but it doesn’t seem like their L16 is “an arcade” to me—maybe I am wrong. What they have done is taken a very complex system and made it useable to a degree, even if it’s basic.
I have many ideas about the “what” that could be done with L16, and it doesn’t involve adding every detail. It would be a workable system, that could be made more complex over time. It would still be a very large project, and the coders with some “real power” are working hard on other projects right now.
-
@slient - the real issue is getting a genuine AI AWACS into BMS and having them in the mix, and making them relay to “friends” only…making it look/behave like MIDS shouldn’t be that hard, but I always consider new AI additions to be…er…difficult…at the very least.
-
What do you mean making AWACS “look/behave” like MIDS?
Genuine AI AWACS? The comm fragments we now use and how AWACS is much, much better at calling groups and threats is a tremendous improvement over the AWACS we used to have. I’m sure Boxer could write a multi-page essay on the pain he suffered to improve it.
@Stevie said in Link 16 implementation:
@slient - the real issue is getting a genuine AI AWACS into BMS and having them in the mix, and making them relay to “friends” only…making it look/behave like MIDS shouldn’t be that hard, but I always consider new AI additions to be…er…difficult…at the very least.
-
@mirv - so…it’s about air surveillance and passing info - C^2. So not only do you need C^2 players, but they also have to be “smart” enough to to know what to keep track of and whom to pass the data to within their AOR.
Yes - a lot of the problem is already solved in that AWACS does tracking and com transmissions, and all we are really talking about is another form of com that does not require voice - but now that you’ve made me think about it, there’s more going on than just “AWACS” as we’d think about it…'nuff said.
Anyway - back to “calls”…where MIDS is concerned there are no voice “calls” in using the system - just data transfer. However you could/can always still call C^2 for confirmation (DECLARE) prior to taking action…if you think you need to. But that defeats the point, really.
DCS appears to have some sort of MIDS implementation in it, which surprises me a bit, really…but that means enough information is out there…somewhere. This is a pull of the top level page for the DCS Hornet that I found on a Google -
-
I see what you mean… the AWACS “brain” would certainly come into play with what would come over the “link.”
You’re half-right when it comes to voice comms with MIDS… yes there generally no calls, but it depends on the platform as well, who’s putting something out on it, and if they are telling someone that they are… (think TACREP Echo and Juliet, as an example).
If you’ve ever read General Planning, attachment 1&2, there are still a ton of comms that take place when using MIDS… for example, asking an A-10 to investigate something. A track ID would be included in this call…
I think we are splitting hairs, but I have put data out on TADL-A and -J (and voice calls)…so I do know what I am talking about here.
@Stevie said in Link 16 implementation:
@mirv - so…it’s about air surveillance and passing info - C^2. So not only do you need C^2 players, but they also have to be “smart” enough to to know what to keep track of and whom to pass the data to within their AOR.
Yes - a lot of the problem is already solved in that AWACS does tracking and com transmissions, and all we are really talking about is another form of com that does not require voice - but now that you’ve made me think about it, there’s more going on than just “AWACS” as we’d think about it…'nuff said.
Anyway - back to “calls”…where MIDS is concerned there are no voice “calls” in using the system - just data transfer. However you could/can always still call C^2 for confirmation (DECLARE) prior to taking action…if you think you need to. But that defeats the point, really.
DCS appears to have some sort of MIDS implementation in it, which surprises me a bit, really…but that means enough information is out there…somewhere. This is a pull of the top level page for the DCS Hornet that I found on a Google -
-
@mirv - Yes, but none of those MIDS coms are actually voice related…or they don’t have to be. And even if they are, those voice coms are probably not conducted in the clear. Which would be yet another hard problem for BMS to solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16
So - how do you implement a ship to ship “network” of Friendlies within BMS, and even more difficult, do that within MP? And to complicate matters even further, EVERY participant within that net essentially becomes an “AWACS” to every other participant…which is a point I’d previously overlooked. And note that the list in the Wiki is only a partial list of eligibles.
…I’m curious now as to just what DCS has done, but I don’t hold much hope for it being anything close to “realistic”. And I seriously doubt BMS will ever get a decent model for it either, now that I’ve thought some more about it.
-
Interesting topic, definitely. As @mirv suggests, you could start small.
As a bare minimum (that could grow in sophistication and scope) you would have to code
a)
the list of eligible flights that constitute “the network”. For a start, say, only F-16s and any C2/AWACS assetsb)
the “information pool”, ie. the back-end database containing any targets marked as interesting by a network participant. Probably managed by the AWACS entity as “server”, who also makes sure the same target is not in the pool twice (distinct)c)
the avionics in the F-16 for broadcasting an interesting target to the information pool, and for looking at the state of the information pool. Basically set/get methods. -
Here’s it works in DCS for the user side, not how it “works” under the simulation hood obviously:
Setup of DED page for Link16 on pages 100-101.
Operation and features page 601 thru page 627 (I tried to direct link to the pages, but may not be actually working)F/A-18C 618 thru page 629.
A-10C has SADL A-G focused network, not Link 16. Pages 406-425
F-14 isn’t the D model so only has Link4. Pages 439-452Again, like the much of their implementation, there is probably a lot of “cheats” used to model the functionality with none of the burden of operational issues.
-
Don’t be too quick to promote secure or HAVE QUICK…both of those have their uses, but they also have some limitations. One is secure, and the other is hard to jam, both suck when communicating with many others, which is why we see over and over the use of clear frequencies and code words. Telling a HOG to investigate a certain track number is hardly something that needs to be said on a secure radio.
Back to the link discussion. BMS has code already for starting points…the IDM class would probably be a logical starting point. There is line-of-sight code as well (radio, IDM, and TACAN)… broadcasting these messages, even over MP should not be that hard, since BMS is doing it with many other features and messages.
I’m not suggesting it won’t be hard—I already said it would be…but we do have some code and framework that could serve as the beginning, by reusing/tweaking what we have.
@Stevie said in Link 16 implementation:
@mirv - Yes, but none of those MIDS coms are actually voice related…or they don’t have to be. And even if they are, those voice coms are probably not conducted in the clear. Which would be yet another hard problem for BMS to solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16
So - how do you implement a ship to ship “network” of Friendlies within BMS, and even more difficult, do that within MP? And to complicate matters even further, EVERY participant within that net essentially becomes an “AWACS” to every other participant…which is a point I’d previously overlooked. And note that the list in the Wiki is only a partial list of eligibles.
…I’m curious now as to just what DCS has done, but I don’t hold much hope for it being anything close to “realistic”. And I seriously doubt BMS will ever get a decent model for it either, now that I’ve thought some more about it.
-
@Snake122 said in Link 16 implementation:
F/A-18C
I 'll say it over and over - it’s doesn’t have to “work” like RL, it only has to behave like RL, to be a decent simulation.
DCS appears to be doing a scary -good job. I’m going to study these…
-
@mirv - What you are missing about Link 16 - it’s both secure AND hard to jam, and it’s automated. So you don’t have to “tell” someone to “investigate a track” - you just pass it off.
You are correct in BMS having established implementations for “radio”, however you miss the point of how those radios are used/compartmentalized within BMS - in particular the difference between voice and data traffic. It’s the data part that will require more resources…including voice as data.
Not to mention that there will also have to be some changes/additions to WDP. And looking at the DCS docs, they also point out some shortcomings in BMS RWR presentations which would have to be addressed, to be consistent. Pretty huge…and I don’t think the BMS devs have the recourses or inclination.
-
I’m not “missing” anything about Link16. I’ve had classes in formal courses on this datalink. I know how it works, what goes out on it, and I’m well aware that it’s secure and hard to jam. You seem to keep ignoring me when I’ve said I’ve put information out on this link. Stop acting like I don’t know what I’m talking about.
The example I mentioned is something the USAF DOES…. It’s not a hypothetical. Clearly you haven’t read the General Planning AFTTP, or you wouldn’t be arguing with me.
Don’t worry about WDP, or much of the RWR stuff. Any shortcomings (we are aware of some) would be dealt with. Right now the discussion is about a basic implementation…stop deviating from that topic.
PS, I am a BMS DEV and a coder (minor stuff)
@Stevie said in Link 16 implementation:
@mirv - What you are missing about Link 16 - it’s both secure AND hard to jam, and it’s automated. So you don’t have to “tell” someone to “investigate a track” - you just pass it off.
You are correct in BMS having established implementations for “radio”, however you miss the point of how those radios are used/compartmentalized within BMS - in particular the difference between voice and data traffic. It’s the data part that will require more resources…including voice as data.
Not to mention that there will also have to be some changes/additions to WDP. And looking at the DCS docs, they also point out some shortcomings in BMS RWR presentations which would have to be addressed, to be consistent. Pretty huge…and I don’t think the BMS devs have the recourses or inclination.
-
@mirv - So, I’m just like you…only I operate from a Navy perspective. Which appears to be far more automated (and integrated) than what the USAF is doing. So I’m not ignoring you - I’m leaning on MY experience.
And I’m trying to capture the whole problem…not just chunks of it.
-
@Stevie how much public information is available about link16 symbols and capabilities? Can you link them please?
-
@Stevie said in Link 16 implementation:
@Snake122 said in Link 16 implementation:
F/A-18C
I 'll say it over and over - it’s doesn’t have to “work” like RL, it only has to behave like RL, to be a decent simulation.
DCS appears to be doing a scary -good job. I’m going to study these…
Yes, but the devil is in the details as they say. It’s like their implementation of ECM since I mentioned it, XMIT position 1&2 have no difference and work the same (or at least last time I checked). Their ATC: knowing that there are approach, tower, and ground/Carrier Strike/Marshal, tower, LSO but then never making you switch frequencies, not to mention not dynamic enough to handle different types of approaches. AI wingman comms very limited to where you can’t even ask their fuel state. Granted unlike BMS dynamic campaign, there is no real incentive to bring their story based campaign wingies home.
I just don’t trust the shortcuts they probably have taken because they take them all over. BMS does their homework. Like I said in my cross post, if I want to play a game with eye candy, it’s DCS. If I want to simulate, it’s BMS.
-
@tiag - I think the symbols and displays vary from platform to platform…and I can’t readily think of any public sources. Which is why I was so surprised by what I saw of DCS. As an aside, you can compare the DCS manuals for the Viper vs the Hornet, just as an example.
Whenever I hear the devs say “but we don’t know how it works”, I generally interpret that as “we don’t know what the displays look like”. Which is only fair, really.