Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
Ground reality is ground reality
PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion
- Thread starter amuqeetk
- Start date
- Status
HRK
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
At 4:00 AM Pakistani Standard Time.
damn, pakistani ground realities can break physics. amazing.
Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
if ur middle name is ,Ground then what you wish might come true
rafale
Registered Member
Baffles me that PAF doesn't keep heavy QTY of spares for all avionics for such important assets. And I can guarantee that the bhindians will do anything to damage them, buy anyone's loyalty (Read Mahrang baloch family member type namak haramis) to attack the SAAB Erieyes in a terrorist attack. Even a shoulder launched attempt cannot be ruled out.
BTW, you are referring to the previous damaged SAAB Erieye or this current Bholari one?
Michael
VIP Member
Yasser76
Elite Member
Great move by Pakistan, this internet influencer does a great job countering westenr narratives, Pak needs to push harder here rather then giving time to the likes of Sky News
Michael
VIP Member
Yasser76
Elite Member
He is becoming more well know globally
iblini
Trusted Member
Looking forward to the episode, the views are going to be very high.
Tariq Habib Afridi
Registered Member
I will ask again when are we going to get our remaining 16 J-10CE? And are we have put an extension to the order i mean more J-10 than 36?
PakShaheen_79
Trusted Member
PAF must have 4 J-10CE squadrons. One for each air command while the 4th one is providing cover to PN as now we know What IN will be flying in few years time.
Toxic
Trusted Member
Air cover role should be given to a J-35 squadron.
PakShaheen_79
Trusted Member
I think SEAD/DEAD operations will be primary tasks for J-35 after induction.
here was a text response i had written up elsewhere discussing why LINK-16, and by extension, link 17 cant be used for CEC/anything more than mid course guidance- for those who may be interested
"so LINK-16 can be used for targetting, but theres some very key differences;
CEC relies on and uses raw data, particularly raw radar data (ToD, RTT, Azimuth, Elev, Doppler shift, signal shift, SNR, Dwell ID)- the PAF's issue is the inability to feed raw data real time, but also, the inability to facilitate fused composite tracks- so these would be real time, Fire Control quality tracks, from various sensors, updated real time, with a track history, velocity vectors and also error elipses. Also, it would take hardware changes and youd have processors on both sides (CEP's), taking dwells from all units, building a unified, synchronized track to give enough info to actually launch a missile off of. Basically, youd have range resolution within meters, also you can do target handoffs in multi domains and then not even need to see the target yourself to actually engage.
Link 16 (and i assume 17) use a series of "J" Codes- its basically just data packets used to transfer information within the network. The issue is, these are pre filtered, slimmed down data packets- for example, air tracks are coded "J3.2" and theyd carry a track ID, latest pos, basic course/spd data, and IFF status. Youd be missing alot of the good stuff required for the resolution needed to be able to hand off a fire control quality track.
Also, LINK-16 and probably 17 uses a TDMA based priority system to reduce interference, so a 24 hour day is broken into 128 time frames per second, which is further divided into 1536 time slots, this basically means each unit is assigned a given Tx slot, but is Rx/Listening the remaining slots, so you're having to wait- again, no good for fire control tracks- Thats why LINK-16 only has periodic, not continuous updates
You basically have multi second refresh cycles, no good for high speed targets (brahmos ;p), but is sufficient for slower threats, due to the limitation of slot allocations. Basically, in current form, you could provide periodic guidance offboard- like a ship for SM6 or maybe BMD as you're tracking probably in its boost phase eventually, so you've got distance and also detection range on your side, but for fighter, shorter, high speed engagements ur cooked.
US CEC uses a CEP(processor) and DDS- data distribution system, the processor takes all the raw data i mentioned and combines into a common track file, then via DDS ( a UHF link) feeds it dwell by dwell (so a very high update cycle?) through the network. Also, EACH node run the same track fusion algos so they all get an identical picture. Link 16 only will distro processed track reports and each node will do its own track fusing, cec's 'net' will refresh on every dwell (imagine how crazy that is with like 1200 trm aesa's, every hit being fed), this then means that cec can hand off tracks and data even if it loses its own lock on the tgt, but link 16 cant, all the cec units recieve high quality tracks and data which are then stored locally on their own 'track' files. Basically in practice, it means youve got continuous fire control level tracks at each unit.
what all this means operationally is tdls are lower refresh, high latency, cec ranges are larger due to the fusing of data/track, MIDS has few hundred kb/s bandiwdth but cec has HUGE levels of bandwidth, no numbers but they say its got tracking accuracy seen never before. The other big thing is with LINK-16, its all decentralized, each asset is its own isolated node, with CEC, each co operating unit forms a battle group, uploading to a single, shared, high quality net, so the groups are smaller. Also, with stuff like Link-16, u can have nodes 'disagreeing' on the data/picture, this doesnt happen with CEC as its all centralised, so there is no disagreement, the track files are local, but the feed is all shared, commonly so all assets have identical pictures, this also means losing assets is no big deal as the picture is not effected. With CEC the integrated fire control pic allows EOR modes (remote eng), so again, i can fire someones missile using somene elses data, cant do this with link 16, just some basic midcourse updates.
This all means u need more hardware too- processors, dds, antennas around the airframes etc, new comms suites. Totally new CMS and software (during tests, the USN found conflicts btween cec and link16 data being fed into AEGIS simultaneously). New ECM kit and all the training jazz.
TDLs legit just lack the fidelity, a j3.2 track lacks covariance, doppler and dwell info, timestamps etc. CEC also shares dwell tme, echo strenght, beam angle, etc, all things needed for missile cueing, cant do this with LINK 16 since its not raw data. Sensor ownership is also local, if JF17 goes down, that link and pic is gone, if with CEC it goes down, the netted sensors will make do and probably not have any effect. Also, LINK-16 is very loosely integrated, its all local terminal based, unlike CEC which is deep hardware and software integration"
"so LINK-16 can be used for targetting, but theres some very key differences;
CEC relies on and uses raw data, particularly raw radar data (ToD, RTT, Azimuth, Elev, Doppler shift, signal shift, SNR, Dwell ID)- the PAF's issue is the inability to feed raw data real time, but also, the inability to facilitate fused composite tracks- so these would be real time, Fire Control quality tracks, from various sensors, updated real time, with a track history, velocity vectors and also error elipses. Also, it would take hardware changes and youd have processors on both sides (CEP's), taking dwells from all units, building a unified, synchronized track to give enough info to actually launch a missile off of. Basically, youd have range resolution within meters, also you can do target handoffs in multi domains and then not even need to see the target yourself to actually engage.
Link 16 (and i assume 17) use a series of "J" Codes- its basically just data packets used to transfer information within the network. The issue is, these are pre filtered, slimmed down data packets- for example, air tracks are coded "J3.2" and theyd carry a track ID, latest pos, basic course/spd data, and IFF status. Youd be missing alot of the good stuff required for the resolution needed to be able to hand off a fire control quality track.
Also, LINK-16 and probably 17 uses a TDMA based priority system to reduce interference, so a 24 hour day is broken into 128 time frames per second, which is further divided into 1536 time slots, this basically means each unit is assigned a given Tx slot, but is Rx/Listening the remaining slots, so you're having to wait- again, no good for fire control tracks- Thats why LINK-16 only has periodic, not continuous updates
You basically have multi second refresh cycles, no good for high speed targets (brahmos ;p), but is sufficient for slower threats, due to the limitation of slot allocations. Basically, in current form, you could provide periodic guidance offboard- like a ship for SM6 or maybe BMD as you're tracking probably in its boost phase eventually, so you've got distance and also detection range on your side, but for fighter, shorter, high speed engagements ur cooked.
US CEC uses a CEP(processor) and DDS- data distribution system, the processor takes all the raw data i mentioned and combines into a common track file, then via DDS ( a UHF link) feeds it dwell by dwell (so a very high update cycle?) through the network. Also, EACH node run the same track fusion algos so they all get an identical picture. Link 16 only will distro processed track reports and each node will do its own track fusing, cec's 'net' will refresh on every dwell (imagine how crazy that is with like 1200 trm aesa's, every hit being fed), this then means that cec can hand off tracks and data even if it loses its own lock on the tgt, but link 16 cant, all the cec units recieve high quality tracks and data which are then stored locally on their own 'track' files. Basically in practice, it means youve got continuous fire control level tracks at each unit.
what all this means operationally is tdls are lower refresh, high latency, cec ranges are larger due to the fusing of data/track, MIDS has few hundred kb/s bandiwdth but cec has HUGE levels of bandwidth, no numbers but they say its got tracking accuracy seen never before. The other big thing is with LINK-16, its all decentralized, each asset is its own isolated node, with CEC, each co operating unit forms a battle group, uploading to a single, shared, high quality net, so the groups are smaller. Also, with stuff like Link-16, u can have nodes 'disagreeing' on the data/picture, this doesnt happen with CEC as its all centralised, so there is no disagreement, the track files are local, but the feed is all shared, commonly so all assets have identical pictures, this also means losing assets is no big deal as the picture is not effected. With CEC the integrated fire control pic allows EOR modes (remote eng), so again, i can fire someones missile using somene elses data, cant do this with link 16, just some basic midcourse updates.
This all means u need more hardware too- processors, dds, antennas around the airframes etc, new comms suites. Totally new CMS and software (during tests, the USN found conflicts btween cec and link16 data being fed into AEGIS simultaneously). New ECM kit and all the training jazz.
TDLs legit just lack the fidelity, a j3.2 track lacks covariance, doppler and dwell info, timestamps etc. CEC also shares dwell tme, echo strenght, beam angle, etc, all things needed for missile cueing, cant do this with LINK 16 since its not raw data. Sensor ownership is also local, if JF17 goes down, that link and pic is gone, if with CEC it goes down, the netted sensors will make do and probably not have any effect. Also, LINK-16 is very loosely integrated, its all local terminal based, unlike CEC which is deep hardware and software integration"
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
-
-
-
-
Mamata Banerjee's Amit Shah claim on Hadi murder tests reset in India-Bangladesh ties (1 Viewer)- Latest: MNZGamerX
-
Country Watch Latest
-
-
Chinese Aircraft Carriers - Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian and the future (2 Viewers)
- Latest: ChineseTiger1986
-
-
-
