Datalink Differences - AWACS vs CVN?

[Steve Gee]

I was wondering what the major differences, if any, between having the datalink hosted by the carrier, as opposed to the AWACS?

[eatthis]

id like to know too,

carrier has less range for low alt tracks?

[BreaKKer]

Carrier won’t be able too see as far because of the radar horizon. E-2 has a very good EW radar. Up at 30,000 feet, it has a very long range capability.

[shagrat]

Carrier won’t be able too see as far because of the radar horizon. E-2 has a very good EW radar. Up at 30,000 feet, it has a very long range capability.

Did you test this? I am curious if the Carrier Datalink represents the boat's radar or the picture from CIC, that could integrate even more information... Strictly speaking, the AWACS has this information as well, as it has a Control component, as well.

I can't check myself, as I am away from my PC for a few days.

EDIT the radio connection to the Carrier when flying low can be blocked by terrain IRL. Need to check this as well, but that would be a reason, as well.

Edited September 24, 2020 by shagrat

[Steve Gee]

Carrier won’t be able too see as far because of the radar horizon. E-2 has a very good EW radar. Up at 30,000 feet, it has a very long range capability.

 

That was my initial thinking, E-2/E-3 aren't horizon limited but I was wondering just what the depth of ED's AWACS portrayal is? Are they...AWACS/ship radars/ground radar...linked in any way or are all assets standalone?

 

I can't see any sort of shared information network, so my guess is it's simplified.

[IronMike]

Carrier has less range and different line of sight ofc.

[Steve Gee]

Carrier has less range and different line of sight ofc.

 

Did some switching between the two today in a MP session...I know, not the best testbed, noticed the carrier would show the rescue helicopter assigned to it on the TID, AWACS (E-3) never did. Maybe just a mission design thing.

 

Range was definitely shorter for the carrier compared to the AWACS before they showed up as datalink targets.

[shagrat]

Carrier has less range and different line of sight ofc.

Not meant in anyway condescending, or negative, but shouldn't the Datalink to the Carrier represent the combined data sources of the network as in the CIC?

So the CIC gets input from AWACS, other Datalink sources as CAP Jets and maybe even Satellite downlink?

I am aware this should be the case for AWACS (airborne warning and Control system), as well in theory, but it would be cool to have at least the CIC represented, with its complete picture rather than just the carrier air surveillance radar.

And another point, while discussing carrier surveillance radar. AFAIK only one ship in a group had the radar active at a time for normal surveillance and not necessarily the Carrier, correct? The reason was to prevent the AEGIS from accidentally mistaking a friendly as a threat and make it easier to declutter the radar sources/not interfere.

That would be a nice option in the Mission Editor... Like binding ICLS and TACAN to a specific unit, have surveillance radar bind to a specific ship, as well.

Would reduce the clutter on the RWR for aircraft, as well.

[IronMike]

Not meant in anyway condescending, or negative, but shouldn't the Datalink to the Carrier represent the combined data sources of the network as in the CIC?

So the CIC gets input from AWACS, other Datalink sources as CAP Jets and maybe even Satellite downlink?

I am aware this should be the case for AWACS (airborne warning and Control system), as well in theory, but it would be cool to have at least the CIC represented, with its complete picture rather than just the carrier air surveillance radar.

And another point, while discussing carrier surveillance radar. AFAIK only one ship in a group had the radar active at a time for normal surveillance and not necessarily the Carrier, correct? The reason was to prevent the AEGIS from accidentally mistaking a friendly as a threat and make it easier to declutter the radar sources/not interfere.

That would be a nice option in the Mission Editor... Like binding ICLS and TACAN to a specific unit, have surveillance radar bind to a specific ship, as well.

Would reduce the clutter on the RWR for aircraft, as well.

 

 

It's in general something we have no influence on, all we can do is take the datalink from DCS. So these are great suggestions, but would have to be pointed towards ED instead. They are definitely great ideas. However I am not sure about how much interconnectivity link 16 and link 4 etc etc all had, I suppose they did, but not sure. In DCS it seems to be on a unit per unit basis - proven by the fact that the carrier will not show you what the awacs would see and vice versa, as seen above with the carrier not showing targets beyond a certain range (that would be seen by the awacs) and the awacs not seeing the low level helo, which was likely unsuccessful in notching the ship and thus got detected by it.

[Steve Gee]

I wonder if there's any sort of table/chart, giving the ranges of the radar sets emulated in DCS? Off to ask ED. :)

[The_Tau]

Wouldn't Arleigh Burke cruiser or Ticonderoga be better than CV radar? Due to Aegis system?

[Steve Gee]

Range wise, I would think so with Aegis and you can DL to a cruiser. Never have, but it's on the list now to try and compare.