It would likely work the other way around, UAVs providing Kowsar with information on targets to attack. The data transmission capabilities of Kowsar could still be held in reserve in case it receives a targeting pod in future, or there are plans to control drones from the air.Other than radar, Kowsar-I platform has no other means of tracking a target so how it will track a target and provide data to a UCAV for attack?
Fighters use datalinks in BVR combat to gain SA (Situational Awareness). This is as much a defensive tool as it is an offensive one, perhaps more the former than the latter - very useful for defending airspace. This is why I say their use would differ significantly from that of ground targets, which pose much less of a threat to fighters than aerial targets - unless they are SAMs, which is a whole other topic (RWR is mainly used in that case).The data packets of a tracked mobile ground target is not different from aerial target. What matters is the fact that the channel can handle real time radar track data transfer and is Double Duplex (two way exchange). Aerial target only moves more faster but is easier to handle because:
- No Surface/ground clutter
- No terrain hiding advantage
Once tracked, an aerial target has no counter-strategy other than to resort to ECM/Jamming the tracking device.
For the same reasons above, the information required of a ground target is significantly different, which is why I say technical aspects would come into play. For example, most older datalinks have no or very basic functions for ground targets. Such capability is only in the latest systems.
CAP = Combat Air Patrolthe radars were kept off. How did they look for targets then during border CAPS? just radio operator was Cueing them ?
A patrol of a designated area. In peacetime, the radar does not need to be on all the time. Cueing via radio operators is sufficient.
Having additional MFD's has nothing to do with TDL. Installation of DL includes incorporation of an antenna and an added connection to the processing unit of the radar. The same screen which shows aircraft's self searched-tracked targets shows the data received targets too.
You are both mostly right. However the F-14A is a very old aircraft without significant use of digital electronics and interfaces. The fact that the cockpit shows no signs of upgrades (in ANY sense, not even the HUD or simple instruments) tells me that the upgrade has not been particularly extensive. It would be non-feasible/non-trivial to mate a modern digital datalink system with those old systems. The F-14A was designed to work with Link-4. It wasn't until the F-14D (a very significant upgrade in electronics, just look at the cockpits) that Link-16 was added.F14A already have datalink, Just Iranian F14 came without it integrated,any way there is not need for cockpit ugrade or any Change, to install datalink...expecually for aircraft as F14,that already have it but came without it instale
Note how past attempts to non-American weapons onto Iran's F-14A such as R-73 and R-27 have failed, whereas efforts to fit for example, Indian AAMs onto Su-30s have succeeded. It's because 2000s electronics are a lot easier to adapt to each other than 60s/70s electronics.
The idea is that an unarmed reconnaissance UAV - which are much more numerous than UCAVs - would find a target, and then feed that information to the nearest aircraft carrying weapons. The aircraft would then launch weapons on the coordinates of a stationary target or vector towards the target to engage it with bombs or other closer-range munitions.That makes no sense. Why do you need datalink between Fighter-UCAV if you already have information of the "waypoint or stationary target" ? whichever vehicle has ammunition can go there on its own and attack the target without needing any data from another vehicle.
Quote from Kopp. He has not ruled out A-50 networking with early flankers. Hence my point there is not sufficient information.It is not known whether the 5U15K-11 datalink designed for networking the A-50 AWACS and MiG-31 has been adapted to the Su-27/30, or whether a unique equivalent design is used.
Aside from the obvious Chinese example, India has done so much with their Flankers. They've integrated their own weapons into them, have had domestic and foreign upgrades on them for HMDs and MFDs. And from the point of manufacture their Su-30s were customised with French and Israeli equipment installed instead of Russian equipment. When you want to make a big order, the supplier isn't going to put obstacles in your way.There is not a single example where Russian 4th generation combat planes have ever received any local upgrade by their clients. Indians
I am not going to discuss the other claims you made such as those on the limitations of the Irbis' capability, which are way out of proportion considering the capabilities of that system.