Link 16 operates in an enormous number of modes, and can in fact operate them simultaneously.
The idea of "one message every 12 seconds" is not the case at all. The time slots relate to when data can be transmitted or received yes, but on which actual network? Link 16 data is transmitted in a burst capacity of 7.5 milliseconds (or perhaps even quicker with the newer terminals, that was the time achieved back in 2000), for security and anti-jamming reasons. Anyway, who ever said that each JU can only access one slot at a time?
FYI, Link 16 works in fighter to fighter, air control, surveillance, EW, mission management/weapons coordination, secure voice, navigation, positive friendly identification (IFF) and network management operations and multi-access modes are most defintely possible...
Ok, took one more look on "tadilj.pdf ". They discuss single and multichannel radios and data encryption devices. I'm guessing that you are referring to the 'multichannel' here, right? As far as I understand, the way you transmit in 'micro bursts' has nothing to do with with any radios ability to transmit in 'realtime', rather the opposite. That technique was first used in the second world war if I remember right.
To create those 'bursts' you need to 'prerecord' them first. I believe I said that to get down to a 'three second update' you needed to open four channels and time plan their updates so that you would get one (12 S. update) from each of the four channels making them come in a three seconds interval. On the other hand I'm not sure that's possible yet?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...d53945c19ecb3b7327e955937aa&tab=core&_cview=0
"Concurrent Multi-Netting (CMN) addresses an operational need to simultaneously participate on multiple Link-16 nets. The CMN objective is to provide a capability to receive on multiple Link-16 nets, up to four, simultaneously, while retaining the capability to transmit on one Link-16 net."
Then you also wrote " Link 16 operates in an enormous number of modes, and can in fact operate them simultaneously. " that made me very interested, even though I, so far, have been unable to confirm it reading the pdf?
Found this though?
" A Tactical digital information link.
A Joint Staff approved, standardized communications link suitable for transmission of digital information. Current practice is to characterize a tactical digital information link (TADIL) by its standardized message formats and transmission characteristics. TADILs interface two or more command and control or weapon systems via a single or multiple network architecture and multiple communication media for exchange of tactical information
e. Army Tactical Data Link 1 (ATDL-1) a secure full-duplex, point-to-
point digital data link utilizing serial transmission frame characteristics and standard message formats at a basic speed of 1200 bits per second. It interconnects tactical air control systems and Army or Marine surface-to-air missile systems f. Interim JTIDS Message Specification (IJMS) a secure high capacity, jam-resistant, nodeless interim message specification that uses the MIL-STD-6016 transmission characteristics and the protocols, conventions, and fixed-length message formats defined by the IJMS. See also Data Link. (Joint Pub 1-02) The transmission characteristics and standards for the TADILs are set forth in the following documents:
TADIL-A = MIL-STD-6011 and MIL-STD-188-203-1A.
TADIL-B = MIL-STD-6011 and MIL-STD-188-212.
TADIL-C = MIL-STD-6004 and MIL-STD-188-203-3.
TADIL-J = MIL-STD-6016.
ATDL-1 = MIL-STD 6013
NATO Link 1 = STANAG 5501 "
---
TADIL J a secure, high capacity, jam-resistant, nodeless data link
which uses the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) transmission characteristics and the protocols, conventions, and fixed-length message formats defined by the MIL-STD-6016.
NATO’s equivalent is Link16
"The US system uses a near-real time transmission method whereby data is collected into packets, known as Demand Assigned Multiple Access and it operates via UHF Satcom. This compares with the UK Satellite Tactical Data Link (STDL) which uses real rime Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) as for Link 16 and transmits at Super High Frequency (SHF) Satcom." with a "Nodeless multi-netting support for up to 127 nets (but practical limit is stated to be 20)."
"With the deployment of S-TADIL J , operational units will have three possible data link paths that can be used to support multi-ship data link coordinated operations. S-TADIL J supports the same levels of surveillance and weapon coordination data exchange provided by Link-11 and Link-16. The TADIL J message standard is implemented on S-TADIL J to provide for the same level of information content as Link-16."
And "Utilising time division architecture, Link 16 JUs have pre-assigned sets of multiple time slots in which to transmit their data and to receive data from other units. The time slots of a net can be parcelled out to one or more Network Participation Group (NPG), which are defined by operational function and by the types of messages that will be transmitted in it"
Sounds like 'Token Ring' to me, a very safe way of communicating, but slow. I haven't been able to find any transmission speed though so there I will trust in what I heard from our own tests, according to those the transmission rate and ability to handle connections still are second to our Swedish solution. Never mind, we will throw it away any way, it seems, just so we too can play Cowboys and Indians with those 'big boys'. in NATO.
What that will have to do with defending my Sweden in case of a sudden attack beats me?
The best trained forces will be outside of Sweden.
The code keys will be in the States :
)
Fook**g brilliant.
Let me guess. A voice from the other side perhaps?
Whispering "No war in our time" ??
But we need to differ between them. Link16 - 11 etc etc comes under TADIL J who is a acronym of a 'high speed' data linking net, but it's definitely not our Swedish Data link. So yes In a way we are very much comparing apples with oranges. That our system is perfectly adapted for our needs and is our equivalent of a central steered AWACS defense doesn't seem to stop our military and political geniuses from exchanging our fifteen year 'new' system for Link16 with its, from my perspective, more limited possibilities, as it's adapted to a more centralized fighting mode..
http://www.synthesys.co.uk/tactical_data_links.htm
http://www.lm-isgs.co.uk/defence/datalinks/satellite.htm
('spoon feeding' Or information? You tell me.)
