CEC feature

[Kobu]

Hi

Playing an scenario i noticed a problem with the CEC feature.
In the attached you can see a f-16 guiding an amraam from other f-16. In other version only platforms with aim120 CEC-Datalink capable are able to do this.

If you see the Aim-120 datalink in the Comms/Datalinks label in the DB of the F-16 guiding the amraam this dont say that is CEC capable as if it says the Aim-120 datalink in the E-2D unit.

Regards

[Kobu]

Testing more i noticed that is a general problem where the missiles (only tested with amraam) can be fired despite the unit firing not detecting the target.

Regards

[thewood1]

I think the issue here is how the USAF uses Link 16. Link 16 is message-centric, while CEC is network-centric. IMO, the way CMO abstracts CEC and comms makes them potentially indistinguishable in certain situations. As CMO rolls out comms details, We might start to see the distinction. The short of it that is, right now, if the missile has a property of CEC-capable AIM-120 datalink and an aircraft has an AIM-120 datalink, the aircraft can supply tracking data. What the missile can't do is guide off of the reflected energy of the second aircraft. But the second aircraft can supply a datalink that allows course correction on the enemy unit.

• CEC - Allows a CEC-capable missile to guide off of the radar energy or radar picture of a CEC-capable unit in a networked environment in real-time.

• AIM-120 datalink - A CEC-capable missile with an AIM-120 datalink can receive datalink guidance info from a unit that is illuminating an enemy unit.

Thats my understanding of how CEC works vs just datalinks. In the former, the firing unit and missile have a complete radar picture from the illuminating unit (and others). In the latter, the illuminating unit is just broadcasting a simple standard data message as mid-course updates.

Again, I think the abstraction of CEC and AIM-120 datalink blur why you have CEC and separate datalinks. Of course, this is mostly a wild-ass slightly-educated guess based on many sources.

[Kobu]

In the attached there is a F-16 without link-16 and with an amraam not CEC-capable in the exact same situation so lets stop justifiying everything.

There is a bug that it was not in the others versions. So that a fighter can launch a missile and this one can be guided by other plane the missile have to be CEC capable and the other platform must have the flag CEC-Capable in the aim 120 datalink if not there is no point in have the CEC-capable flag that units like the E-2D have in the Aim-120 datalink.

This last flag is what gives that ability along with the fact that the missile also has this flag.

Justifying all with the Link-16 datalink makes no sense, the best feature of Link-16 is the situational awareness it gives to the user.

See this image



The best is that right now CEC can be represented in CMO in a very precise way, with the CEC-Capable flag and the datalinks but at the moment there is a bug where every Amramm can be guided by any platform, wich is not correct.

Having Link-16 doesnt give you magic capabilities like guide missiles or cued sensors to targets, this feature called "sensor fusion" that planes like F-35 have require more systems apart the link-16 if not all the planes would have this feature and it would not be one of the main and most important characterisics of the F-35.

Regards

[thewood1]

In the attached there is a F-16 without link-16 and with an amraam not CEC-capable in the exact same situation so lets stop justifiying everything.

There is a bug that it was not in the others versions. So that a fighter can launch a missile and this one can be guided by other plane the missile have to be CEC capable and the other platform must have the flag CEC-Capable in the aim 120 datalink if not there is no point in have the CEC-capable flag that units like the E-2D have in the Aim-120 datalink.

This last flag is what gives that ability along with the fact that the missile also has this flag.

Justifying all with the Link-16 datalink makes no sense, the best feature of Link-16 is the situational awareness it gives to the user.

See this image



The best is that right now CEC can be represented in CMO in a very precise way, with the CEC-Capable flag and the datalinks but at the moment there is a bug where every Amramm can be guided by any platform, wich is not correct.

Having Link-16 doesnt give you magic capabilities like guide missiles or cued sensors to targets, this feature called "sensor fusion" that planes like F-35 have require more systems apart the link-16 if not all the planes would have this feature and it would not be one of the main and most important characterisics of the F-35.

Regards

Its not the Link 16 per se. Its the AIM-120 one way datalink. IRL, the Link 16 and AIM-120 datalink are somewhat related to each other. What I have read is that an aircraft with Link 16 with the AIM-120 datalink can provide mid-course guidance to another aircraft's missile. I assumed this was a change related to the more detailed comms modeling being developed. Its not CEC. CEC runs off Link 16 being the comms backbone, but CEC requires a very significant amount of modeling and compute power. But with current modeling CEC and the Link 16/AIM-120 data link look the same. Thats my theory.

btw, the image really doesn't tell us anything. I know CEC is a thing. My point is not every aircraft can datalink to an AIM-120. Only if it has the AIM-120 datalink. The datalink represents only a data comm to the missile. Its not a full guidance mode like if it was the firing aircraft. If you look at the details of the J message of the Link 16 message, there are specific words set up to deliver tracking info for guidance. CMO doesn't get to that level of detail so it just looks like the F-16 is doing direct guidance.

[Kobu]

We can discuss all you want about CEC (this is how you learn) and always is good to have two points of view but righ now there is a bug quite annoying and im afraid that in the meantime talk this is going to go unnoticed by the developers as in other occasions.


Having said this the image is a very good overview where you can see that other datalinks and a more advanced link-16 is needed to have CEC.
But like i said CMO actually have the tools to model this. The CEC flag is present in some link-16 and aim120 datalinks but right now it doesnt anything.

Regards

[thewood1]

Take a look at the IRST thread to see how advanced Link 16 is. If its a bug, its a fortuitous one. Because of it the AIM-120 datalink now provides a function that works in the real world.

This is one of the reasons for the USAF not moving full speed ahead to use CEC. They already get a significant capability in Link 16. The expect to keep developing Link 16 and eventually have CEC fusion-like capability with current comms. The downside, to me, of Link 16 vs CEC is that Link 16 is more 1 on 1 and message based. CEC is a real-time fusion-based modeling that provides great situational awareness of all units in theater at a pilots fingertips. Link 16 requires controlling units to disburse info.

[Kobu]

To clarify in my second attached there are a f16 without link-16 and with an AIM-120B firing and the missile being guided for other F-16. This is my complaint and there is the bug. To be able to continue moving forward, is this a bug or not for you???

As far as i know only the last D variant of the Amraam is CEC capable and not all the aircrafts have this capability.

So a F-18 with the D variant of the amraam still have to find an adequate platform to guide his missile.

Like you said a lot of computer power is needed to deliver this capability so my suggestion is limiting the units and weapons (already limited) that can benefit of this feature. Right now there is no limit.


Regards

[thewood1]

My guess at this is the big distinction here is the AIM-120 datalink. When I talk about abstraction, thats what I'm talking about. The AIM-120 datalink is abstracting what has to happen between the firing F-16, the AIM-120, and the illuminating F-16. Its not a simple datalink between the illuminating F-16 and the AIM-120, like with true CEC. IRL its actually a network between all three to make it happen. Thats the key difference in CEC. That network is fused and prebuilt with no distinction of who is illuminating. With non-CEC aircraft, the three units need to have active dedicated datalinks of some kind at some point. As an abstraction, CMO seems to only show link between the AIM-120 and the illuminating F-16. IRL, it would be a mix of AIM-120 datalink and Link 16. Until CMO fleshes out the comms model, as D has stated they will do, this abstraction has to suffice.

Granted, maybe it is a bug or premature. But my view is the game is better for it.

[Kobu]

I can not disagree more.

I dont know why fighters still carry radar when they no longer need it. Right know you can fight A-A engagements with the fighter´s radar completely off.
All my complaints are solved with the link 16 even when the system is not present.

In all sources consulted the only variant of Amraam that supports third party targeting is the D variant, and from there we would have to see what platforms can support this feature. Not any platform with Link-16 can have this capability.


Regards

[thewood1]

Part of why they all carry radar is most likely accuracy and redundancy. There all kinds of things that can go wrong in the RF realm. Its only in the last few years that processing power has allowed remote updates to happen fast enough to provide real-time guidance. Something like the AIM120 datalink or Link 16 does not provide real-time guidance. They are just updates to the other unit or the missile. Like mid-course correction. Accuracy levels should be firing aircraft continuous illumination, firing aircraft mid course correction only, CEC-like fused network, second aircraft illumination and periodic update to firing aircraft, second aircraft illumination and periodic data update to missile, and pitbull firing of active missile. Each should be a step down in final PoH until very recently.

So right now, I would imagine that self guiding is preferred IRL. But if Stealth is critical, sacrificing a little accuracy might be worth it. I've never looked to see if CMO makes that distinction.

[Kobu]

Some dev have looked into this?? Clearly there is a bug that it was not in previous versions.

The bug is:
-The CEC feature is broken, only the D variant of Amraam can support third party targeting, right now all amraam variants have this feature.
-The D variant of Amraam can be guided by planes that not supports CEC feature.

From this forum:

"In a simulation like CMANO and its older siblings, it is tempting to take the “easy route” for modelling this ability by simply allowing everyone to guide everything. This creates problems in the sense that it does not really highlight the increased combat capability of the new systems. What is the AIM-120D good for (other than improved kinematics) if older versions of the AMRAAM offer the same guidance flexibility in-sim? So something stricter becomes necessary.

The implementation followed by the CMANO dev team allows great flexibility (database-wise) in defining that a given datalink component may allow cooperative use when installed in platform-A but not so when installed on platform-B. The same goes for different generations of the same basic weapon (e.g. AMRAAM-D vs. earlier versions). This allows modelling the differences in capability without having to spawn multiple versions (CEC-enabled and non-CEC) of the very same datalink system. It also highlights the necessity of bringing all the basic pieces together to really exploit the new functionality. For example an F-15C may tote the new AIM-120D but without any CEC-compatible platform (such as an E-2D or CEC-updated Aegis cruiser/destroyer) in the vicinity, it cannot really do a true launch-and-leave."

https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4076

Regards

[blu3s]

Some dev have looked into this?? Clearly there is a bug that it was not in previous versions.

You created the report on Friday afternoon and on Sunday evening you are asking if any dev has looked at it?

I'm sorry, but fortunately we don't work on weekends, please review the guidelines: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=255656

Logged 0015300

[Kobu]

Fair enough, my fault.

[Kobu]

Hi

I have found where the problem is. The Aim-120 command datalink is what allows an aircraft without a CEC feature to guide missiles from other aircraft whose missiles dont have CEC feature.

If you remove the Aim-120 command datalink in the comms tab of the plane that guides the missile (not the one that fires it) then the operation is correct.

Regards

[Dimitris]

CEC issues should be resolved in Build 1328.10, please confirm.

[Kobu]

Thanks for the work but it is partially solved.

The problem now is only with the D variant of the amraam. Despite having CEC capability (Amraam D variant) this can be guided by aircraft that do not have CEC capability when it should not guide it. The problem is with the AIM-120 datalink that despite not having the CEC flag can still guide the Amraam D variant or weapons that supports CEC feature.


The other versions no longer have the problem.
In order to take advantage of the CEC feature, both the weapon and the plane (ship...) that will guide the weapon must have the CEC label.

CEC label weapons can still be guided by anything.


Regards

[SteveMcClaire]

Hi Kobu,

In the current implementation, CEC capable weapons are those weapons with a data link that is not 'parent specific.' Meaning it can link to a datalink on a platform other than the platform that launched the weapon. So a CEC-capable weapon should be able to receive guideance from any unit that has a compatible (i.e. the same type of) datalink. Is this not what you're seeing?

Changing the code to require that the guiding platform also have a non-parent-specific datalink would require database changes to match, and potentially break old scenarios using an earlier database -- things like F-35 guiding for another F-35 wouldn't work, for example.

CEC capability checks on the guiding platform is something we've been discussing internally and will probably be coming in the future as part of a larger communications DB and code revision.

[Kobu]

Hi Kobu,

In the current implementation, CEC capable weapons are those weapons with a data link that is not 'parent specific.' Meaning it can link to a datalink on a platform other than the platform that launched the weapon. So a CEC-capable weapon should be able to receive guideance from any unit that has a compatible (i.e. the same type of) datalink. Is this not what you're seeing?

Hi Steve,

Yes, this is what I am seeing but it is not what it was like in the previous versions where in my opinion it was much better represented.

Right now only the weapon needs to be labeled "CEC" so that as you said any unit that has the necessary datalink (aim120 datalink) can guide that weapon. Previously, the unit that was going to guide this weapon also had to have the "CEC" label on its datalink. Attached photos.






As I say in other versions, you needed this combination to be able to make CEC shots.

So the solution is already implemented in the game and it is to check that the platform that is going to guide the missile, apart from having the appropriate datalink, also has the label that supports CEC shots.


What is the problem right now? That very "old" units are capable of supporting CEC shots as in the attached where an F-16 Block 30 is supporting a CEC shot which makes no sense. I don't think a 1992 f-16 block 30 has the necessary software or hardware to support CEC fire.



The solution, as it was before, was to differentiate between the same units by putting the "Supports CEC" label on the datalink (of the unit that will support the CEC shot) , in this way we differentiate between units that, although they are the same plane and have the necessary datalink, at that time or that version it did not have the characteristic CEC.

For example, the E-2D is said to have this capability but perhaps the export versions do not have it, this way we can distinguish between units with a function that is already within CMO, only that in the last versions it is no longer used.

Another example would be a news story in the future where two F-15s have fired an amraam with third-party support, so just by putting the "supports CEC" label in the database we have already solved it and avoided the problem of include, as now, all the f-15s in the database which do not have this capability given that the for example 1990 f-15s, I do not believe they have the hardware or software to support CEC firing as well as export versions with limitations.

Before, the problem was that all missiles had CEC capability and now that all platforms (that have the correct datalink) have CEC capability and that is where the problem lies, not all platforms should have this capability, just as not all missiles should have it. have.
An aim-120A with CEC capability is just as rare as an F-16 block 30 guiding an aim-120 D fired by another F-16.



As it says in the image, a CEC-enabled platform is needed and this is where the "Support CEC" label comes in on the data link that that unit has as in the E-2D image above.

Changing the code to require that the guiding platform also have a non-parent-specific datalink would require database changes to match, and potentially break old scenarios using an earlier database -- things like F-35 guiding for another F-35 wouldn't work, for example.

As I say, there is no need to change anything, it is already implemented and it is a good implementation because it allows us to differentiate between the units and not do an "either all or none".

Thanks for looking into this.

Regards

[SteveMcClaire]

As I say in other versions, you needed this combination to be able to make CEC shots.

What version was it where you were seeing this behavior?