KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,853
- Points
- 1,260
Yes good idea, adopt another orphan fleet that has no other user for that role...
So then you would be well over 1B but heck you do you...
CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
So then you would be well over 1B but heck you do you...
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,710
- Points
- 1,210
I was more suggesting it might be better to cut our losses, platform is irrelevant at the moment.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
Yes; sorry, I use them interchangeably
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,175
- Points
- 1,010
So did I earlier. I thought everybody understood, so I'll also be more careful in the future.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,853
- Points
- 1,260
I would suggest that the Platform is very relevant, the entire orphan platform is what got you into this mess in the start.
You could have the -60R which would give a platform in use with pretty much every Ally in the Pacific, and the USN in the Atlantic - which already has the sensor fusion that seems to be lacking in the 148.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
I would argue the platform level sensor fusion is better in the Cyclone then the 60R, although more dependant on having a battle manager onboard.
It’s the force level picture compilation which is in doubt, and never really got there with Link-11 either.
But regardless, picking any old platform and throwing some ASW boxes in it won’t get you there. Integration isn’t trivial.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,853
- Points
- 1,260
Not being a Pilot or Navy guy - I am kind of lost as to the differences.
Please don’t feel a need to dumb yourselves down in my behalf- I’m just lurking this one, J can always ask if needed. Thanks for the explanations gents.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
There are three big parts to any Link system:
- the bearer nad a way for multiple platforms to use it (ie for Link-16 a netted RF system in the 1 GHz range)
- the formatted messages (ie for Link-16 J-Series)
- the way to use it to create a common operating picture (ie correlation, reporting responsibility, track quality, etc)
The way I always described it it to picture a sector station in the RCAF in World War II. Each of the people are talking to a sensor or a shooter, and have a big stick. The big stick allows them to put the picture together on a big map so commanders can make decisions. Link allows you to all use the same big map, but you don't have to be sitting around it.
TCDL (Tactical Common Data Link) is for all intents and purposes a point to point, two way, ethernet connection. You can move whatever you want up and down it: imagery, acoustics, video, tactical info (ie JREAP-C or OTH-Gold [Over The Horizon - Gold] messges), etc. So you cn provide pretty much all of your tactical information down it.
What it doesn't have is the built in means of picture compilation (and C2) Link-11/16/22 have.
On the Sea King we had chossen to use an enhanced version of OTH-Gold for both data sharing between the TACCO and AESOP, and data save/load, and they were connected by ethernet. So by adding TCDL we were able to put customized workstations on the ship using the aircraft software. In effect the ship was an extension of the aircraft and vice versa.
So TCDL is great for point to point data sharing, and Link-11/16/22 for picture compilation. The complement each other very nicely.
By the way, it's all that picture compilation stuff which makes link integration harder to do and essential to get right.
The present talk on the forum is centred on the obsolescence of link 11 and replacement with link 16. If we are in need of updating then why not link 22? Or is that too forward thinking? Silly me, right? I’m guessing nothing is going to happen until mid-life refit; about the time River Class comes online.
By mode 5, I assume you’re referring to IFF. Doesn’t the Telephonics radar not have that option included?
- Reaction score
- 25,713
- Points
- 1,360
Re: TCDlL - Depending on the surveillance platform’s CDL/TCDL (STANAG 7085) transceiver, the platform can simulcast to multiple receivers (including individuals on ROVER or TNR) in any one or more of the VHF/UHF, L-band, S-band, C-band and Ka/Ku bands and even support MANET in a number of waveforms. 
Aside, I would have thought NILE/-22 would have been a must-have on an ASW platform.
Aside, I would have thought NILE/-22 would have been a must-have on an ASW platform.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
Link-22 is not "better" than Link-16. It was designed when Link-16 was really expensive (because it contained it's own, sophisticated radio) as a "poor man's Link-16." The reason is it could use existing UHF and HF radios. It actually reuses a bunch of the Link-16 J-Series messages as NJ-Series. It was originally called NILE (NATO Improved Link Eleven), notice that doesn't imply superseding Link-16.
Since it was NATO led and not US led it took a long time. As well, for a long time, the US wasn't issuing codes. It also needs a box colled an SNC (System Network Controller) and they took a long time to develop. It also has no where near the bandwidth of Link-16, because it uses non specialized radios in the low UHF band (225-400 MHz) wheras Link-16 uses specialized radios higher up (1 GHz).
So, when the cost of Link-16 equipment came down Link-22 stagnated. It has been revitalized lately (my latest knowledge) for HF (I think the Germans pushed it) to, in effect, give a range extension for Link-16.
So, Link-16 is the much better choice. It's also what is ubiqutous.
The radar has an IFF interogator, but it is only Modes 1, 2, 3A, 3C, and 4. Mode 5 had to be added to it, as the Aurora did as well. The radar is much too old to already have it.
However, it's not the interogator I'm concerned with, it's the transponder. The Mode 5 transponder part of Cyclone MFATMA (Multi Fleet Air Traffic Management Avionics Project) has been quite slow to mature. I think (don't quote me) that Cyclone has actually been decoupled from MFATMA.
Mode 4 sunsetted in 2020 and codes were stopped being issued in favour of Mode 5. ADS-B is also required in US Domestic Controlled Arspace. The Cyclone needs both.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
Yep, but there are two limitations:Re: TCDlL - Depending on the surveillance platform’s CDL/TCDL (STANAG 7085) transceiver, the platform can simulcast to multiple receivers (including individuals on ROVER or TNR) in any one or more of the VHF/UHF, L-band, S-band, C-band and Ka/Ku bands and even support MANET in a number of waveforms.
Aside, I would have thought NILE/-22 would have been a must-have on an ASW platform.
- can't use high gain directional antennas
- can't do two way (although there was some work going on, haven't kept up)
The Sea King was capable of C-Band and non-directional Ku. During trials I actually had a laptop out on the outer ramp at Shearwater and was looking at the Sea King's raw (digitized) radar.
Low cost / capability ASW platforms were leaning towards NILE, but as discussed above, lower cost Link-16 terminals like the L-3 Harris Small Tactical Terminal changed that. Link-16 has a bunch of capabilites that make it a much better choice. Plus, it's what everyone else is doing...
- Reaction score
- 25,713
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
The 148 has no TCDL at all. Last I heard (2 1/2 years ago) they were just developing a requirement.Do you mean the 148 that can’t use high-gain directional CDL? 2-way? That’s a shame. 7085 is pretty practical, although the user set is notable different than ASW (until it isn’t…)
Hard to get people who think "ASW is just underwater ISR" to understand actual ISR requirements. Plus, historically, it wasn't part of the Navy's thought process. Until it was...
The Sea King didn't have a high gain antenna, but we were getting better ranges than the Griffin on their antenna when they first got it. They couldn't beleive it and asked us why; yes, the reason is funny...
... and there is also a story about how the Sea King got TCDL, which involves a certain fighter pilot Comd RCAF who has been in the news again lately...
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Points
- 1,160
What about the Leonardo AW159 . Upgraded version of the Lynx MH used by the RN for decades.
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
Not to be pedantic, but if we’re throwing away the MH CONOPs because we feel it can’t be met by our current helicopter or any logical replacement, shouldn’t we decide on what we want to do and have a new CONOPs before thinking about which helicopter?
