while I can't say almost anything because my contract isn't over and I don't want to go the way of war thundering my self, I will say that it would have been easier to hear them at a hundred miles than it would have been To see Godzilla destroying Tokyo while visiting the Tokyo Tower. I mean don't get me wrong You don't exactly need specialty equipment for it, put 40 supersonic bombers on the air flying really close to one another And you are going to be leaving Sonic booms on the sound level of a small nuclear bomb behind them. Seriously almost nobody talks about acoustics By the aircraft are not exactly stealthy when it comes to sound unless it's B2 that thing is fuckin scary.
28:12 It also could make it easier, because the SAM's don't have to turn that much, since the intercept arc is basically the arc the asm is already going
So this is more of a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile [i.e. the US planned scramjet powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM)] test than an anti-ship ALBM (Kinzhal) test.
It's really interesting to have the rough cost comparison. Traditionally, the attacker had to bear the larger cost in order to overcome the defenses. But with todays cost intensive defense technology, this appears to turn around. Imagine, that in this case the attacker could use almost 10x the resources to match the defenders cost. Which would 100% result in a successful attack. From a perspective of imposing cost on the adversary, modern defenses does not appear very feasible if confronted with large scale attacks, does they? Very insightful and interesting video. Huge thanks for all the effort you guys put into this content. Much appreciated.
Part of the reason that cost isn't a big talking point in warfare is because there is no equivalency. Russia would have already spent that much building those missiles with the intent that they would be expended, and likely already set aside resources to replace them. The carrier on the other hand was not intended to be expendable, not only would the loss of a CSG be a massive strategic blow, but also an unforseen one and it would likely take years to replace it.
you're forgetting russians are only on a 300usd/month salary. So the equipment is "'cheaper" but not comparable, because they can't produce the equipment in x10 the quantity.
@@Thatonedude90 Russia dont even have Kinzhals. Its russian propaganda. Many belive Russia managed steal patriot missiles in Afghansitan and make us belive they have hypersonic missiles. At this point Russia got nothing that can even fly above mach 2-3.
As good as this is there are some other Clancy books with some stellar sounding battles to be recreated. From Executive Orders, Bear & Dragon, Debt of Honor...hell, even the Hunt For Red October has some cool scenarios included. With Clancy, the sky is the limit.
23:09 Cap, SM-3 is not radar guided, it uses an infrared seeker for terminal homing. AEGIS provides mid-course updates to the missile until it goes terminal, and then the missile is on its own.
The first thing to consider about SM-3 in DCS should be the fact, that SM-3 was designed to be anti-TBMs weapon, and because of the way it works it can only work against targets that are effectively outside of Earth's atmosphere - so it couldn't be used against Kinzhau at all! IIRC an SM-3 missile is really a big booster for getting payload high and fast (several km/s) and out of Earth's atmosphere into the space, where the payload - small EKV (egzoatmospheric kill vehicle) is released and the EKV intercepts target (ballistic missile or warhead) using IIR seeker and rocket side thrusters to set itself precisely on collision course. The EKV can't work in the atmosphere, it has totally non-aerodynamic shape, if released inside the atmosphere at hipersonic speeds it would just desintegrate and burn from aerodynamic forces and the friction, also IIR seeker would not work if even thin atmosphere is present as the heat caused by air friction would heat up the seeker window and it could not detect targets anymore. Navy's primary weapon against endoatmospheric (aeroballistic, hypersonic) currently is the SM-6 missile. With aerodynamic steering, active radar seeker and terminal accuracy good-enough to be used against TBMs, it should also work fairly well against Kinzhau. Lately the Patriot PAC-3 was tested from naval VLS launchers and if the navy decides to integrate it with AEGIS it could be alternative, very good medium/close range (10-20nm) defence against very fast targets at the edge of the atmosphere. With proven combat record against Kinzhaus. PAC-3 has ARH seeker and with combined (aerodynamic & side-thrusters) controls it achieves direct-hit accuracy. Which SM-6 (which has only aerodynamic controls AFAIK?) is not capable of - instead relying on low miss-distance and proximity fusing to kill targets with it's big HE warhead (just like the older Patriot PAC-2 but with more modern guidance and fusing). Both missiles (SM-6 and PAC-3) could have their places in "defence envelope" where they perform best. SM-3 should be in game restricted to use against ballistic, egzoatmospheric targets (is it possible to set minimum target altitude or minimum intercept altitude for SM-3 to at least 50km?) Also an idea tor CAP - if you want to test anti-swarm capabilities of a carrier battle group - so a scenario where they would use cheaper med range ESSMs and not expensive, heavy, long range SM-6s) then in some cases maybe it would be better to just remove SM-6s (or both SM-6s and SM-2s) completely from ship's loadouts, then they would have to use ESSMs only for ship defence and we could see how effective they are. P.S. Is it possible to set a minimum launch range for SM-6s in a way that they are not used inside ESSMs envelope ? I know it would mean that a ship which spent all it's ESSMs can't continue defece using SM-6s, but such situation would rather not happen very often and in some scenarios such setting could be preferred and result in more logical SAM chose behaviour: Very Long range or long range over the horizon or difficult/advanced targets - use SM-6, long-med range, standard targets, moderate number of them - use SM-2s, med-close range and anti-swarm - use ESSMs.
@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186 ESSM Block II is already better than Patriot for what you are describing, and can be quadpacked. As far as I know, you are correct about SM-3, it cannot be used in the atmosphere.
@nomorerainbows Cool, but the max altitude seems very wrong on the otherwise very cool Tico load out image, it's the same as the max horizontal range (27nm) which is twice that of the SM2MR (13nm) and still much higher than the SM 6 (18nm), I would expect it is more like 9nm (couldn't find anything quickly but a 15,000m max altitude stat).
Co-pilot: Komrad Commander! we are under attack! Why are we not firing flares? Pilot: Komrad, see all those burning Blinders going down? Those ARE our flares.
DCS can be SO goddam pretty to look at sometimes. All those bombers coming out of the sunrise firing their missiles all at once is...c'est magnifique! *chef's kiss*. Great job expanding on the Dance of the Vampires, Cap and everyone else! Next suggestion: get in on the recent UFO hullabaloo somehow like when you did the Independence Day missions!
@@pike100 Fair enough. DCS IS a videogame however so I don't mind some fantastic scenarios from time to time. They make some of the funner scenarios to watch, quite often.
Love the book read it when first published , Tom Clancy was the master of millitary actions between the super powers & really did his research to make sure it was as realistic as possible just like you guys do here , however like we found out when the Berlin wall fell the Eastern bloc forces were virtually destroyed by bankrupcy & corruption without even a shot fired , frontline tanks with no engines , ships & submarines unable to go to sea & just rusting in port , aircraft grounded with no spares ! I think that the Russian federation as of now would have great problems mounting an attack anywhere near a quarter of this scale with the resources at hand & the constant updates on Western weapons systems will eventually nullify the hypersonic threat as the balance is eventually restored.
@@Valorius True , the two made a great team , but Clancy wove the narrative that held us captivated breathing believability & a realistic action into the story .
I suspect the true ballistic flight of the Kinzhals would be easier to intercept as the defending missiles wouldn't be arcing over them and trying to hit them from the side; they'd just go straight toward them, only having to make small lateral adjustments. You could easily test this by having the Kinzhals spawn in at 80,000 feet while 20 miles away and see if the fleet can defend itself.
That's something odd I have noticed as well with CH's PAC-2/3 Patriot, and SM-2, SM-6, SM-3 missiles....they always arc way over the incoming missiles and then dive down on them making the intercept more difficult.
Very impressive visually. I still say the Backfires would be picked up at least 100nm further outs and the response time would have been quicker. Throw in ECM and the decoys the fleet would be trailing and the survivability rate goes way up.
What he’s essentially done is taking a 1980s tactic and played it out on the Russian side while giving the Americans the advantage of knowing the tactic in advance, it’s not a realistic scenario in the slightest.
In previous video you asked how Clancy did his simulation: His co-author (Larry Bond) is an ex-USN officer and creator of the tabletop modern naval wargame "Harpoon" - they used that for all the battles in RSR.
I re-listened to this chapter tonight, these videos spurred me to redo the whole book. This would apply to both videos, just a fun thing I caught. They mention several times near the start of the chapter that there are several tankers and other aircraft up with buddy stores from the carrier to follow the 14s. So it wouldn't be a one way mission for them, I think they head to Scotland after the carrier is hit. I think the Russians had tankers too, but haven't got that far in the chapter. Do know the Backfires do attack again a few more times, so very likely it wasn't really a one way for any of them. Love the sims though keep up the great work 🙂.
Really enjoyed this series. Your comment about the biggst radar return sparked a memory of when the exocets were spoofed by the royal navy using chaff and I think decoy helicopters.. Is there a way you can test ship launched chaff against these things?
Dude, you're killing me! This is good stuff. I read Clancy as it was put into first printing. Now its a bit overcooked in appearance but 40 years ago it was really hot stuff.
One important point, even if JATM becomes a reality, it will not be carried by USMC aircraft, based on public info, this is a USN/USAF program only. Given that a large number of the aircraft on any US carrier are USMC jets, that is an important consideration.
Not that I think it would have necessarily resulted in a different outcome, as at such volume it just doesn't seem like anything could possibly have changed that ending in the second test run, but I just thought I'd mention that the SM-3 Block I was actually a single batch production of 11 missiles for testing purposes and is not in use. The SM-3 Block IB, which incorporates improved attitude control thrusters for increased mobility & accuracy together with a 2-color FLIR seeker (vs. none in Block I and a single-color seeker in Block IA), achieved IOC in 2013 and has been fully operational since 2015. Also, SM-3 Block IIA, which is equipped with 21" diameter booster & rocket stages for an increased range & ceiling of 25% over its predecessor, reaching speeds above 13 Mach, and still further improved FLIR seeker, computing power, and diverter/attitude control motor for even further improved accuracy, made its first operationally-representative intercept of an ICBM in 2021, successful complex ICBM intercepts were conducted by both the Japanese Maritime Defense Force & US Navy in cooperation with the MDA in the first half of 2022, and Raytheon (now RTX) was awarded a nearly $900 million contract for full-production of Block IIA missiles for both Japan & the U.S. in late 2022. Also, improved SM-6 Block II (over Blocks I & IA) are operational as well, with IB coming online in the next few months (Q1 2024).
At spending 10x the money the allies still are at a loss, for the resupply. The carrier group might be safe but they will have to retreat. If the resupply takes a month the group if effectively removed from battle. The Russians should fire just out side of range and retreat under full jamers and chaff. The operation should be to deplete resources of the carrier group. Also save some to attack the resupply group, that also cripples the carriers as they carry what 3 days worth of jet fuel?
@@Squirl513 It might be better but to conserve their planes they should fire from just outside the range and turn back sooner. All they have to do is force a reaction, most systems are automatic once the button is pushed. Put in a better battery so it can be fired farther and track a minute longer. The key is to then target the resupply ships from there on.
@@duanemckinley9353 You are making the assumption that there will be a replacement available and that they can be resupplied. What if neither is possible? The only time the Navy has a no retreat plan is in defense of the US coasts military bases.
@@duanemckinley9353 It's why I said they make a show of force to commit the US resources they launch at a longer range to save the bombers and the Escorts that should have been with them. Again with long range missiles. Then attack the resupply ships, as they travel to locations. Carriers only have about 3 days of fuel for flight Ops. It is pretty easy to run them dry without a resupply. Everyone is about the Group but it is the resupply that is key.
The JATMs are suppose to fly at MACH 5.. if they come out....Nice job! Important lesson here, interesting to see a US CARRIER GROUP defend with out their Jets.....
For a future video, you can test out the "Arsenal Ship" concept. It would seem that the two issues for fleet air defense are having enough missiles, and launching enough quickly (launch rate). An Arsenal ship (mid-1990's or so concept) might be the solution. It becomes extra capable now with CEC/datasharing; and in the 1990's the problem was affording the missiles, it would seem to me that not having enough becomes more expensive with ship losses.
Great video. Hypersonics cannot deal with SLQ-32 Jamming, CHAFF and NULKA decoys, as their sensors are too degraded from the high speeds which superheat the missile surface and generate blinding plasma. Too bad that SLQ-32 is not modeled, nor are chaff, Nulka and IR decoys, which would utterly confuse and blind the remaining swarm. DCS needs to integrate jamming, decoys and chaff. Plus every ship would have turned bow into or stern away from the missiles to reduce radar cross section. That is also where the CIWS mounts are, and those would fill that airspace with a cone of shrapnel. The hit rate is vastly reduced if all of these things are happening. The problem with hypersonics is that their sensors work poorly to begin with, and the short time on target does not give their sensors time to “burn through” jamming. They arrive blind….facts. Still, beautiful entertainment!
good luck jamming inertial guidance. there's no need for that shit. it's hypersonic. 100% will reach the target regardless of jamming. and no worries about the blast as it can carry nukes.
@@riskinhosyeah except its because their hypersonic that so much as moving an inch or doing anything that throws or distracts them is often more than enough to make them miss. Also unless you want full scale nuclear war, you wouldnt risk your self arming them with nukes just for the sake of stopping a single carrier group, let alone using a significant chunk of your stockpile of nuclear warheads over a single fleet, you'd run out of nukes relatively quickly if so... as one nuke is enough but 2 nukes is overkill but due to the advent of them being intercepted your gonna have to waste hundreds of nukes that would overkill a target and get destroyed in the process...
@@riskinhosinertial guidance cannot hit moving targets. It can only navigate to a point in space…where the ship no longer is. It needs an active sensor to hit anything moving, and the fleet would be at 32 knots.
23:12 This used to be true with early AEGIS SPY radars. With SPY-6, there's enough channels to guide and illuminate the entire fleet's stock of missiles off of a single ship's radar.
Can we get a 105c, where you take the leash off? Have the awacs actually detect the aircraft at proper ranges and see if the russians get through at that point?
The Tu-22's would be intercepted 400 miles out. The only way to make it happen like in the book is to make the Tu-22's invisible until the 0634Z point.
@@grimreapers A cool idea, possibly to throw at Kortana or similar, if she's still around, would be how to actually make this realisticly workable - it seems like her wheelhouse given previous videos by her design.
Of course, the problem for the fleet is that the Backfires survived, and can come back the next day with another 100+ antiship missiles. While the fleet cannot reload their VLS cells until they reach port. So all this just buys the fleet ~24 hours.
That’s why we do war games - to find out weak spots. Though I have a feeling in real life those bombers would have been detected and neutralized much further out.
the ballistic trajectory makes it simpler to defend against if you have enough computing power. It's a simple arc and radar will detect it earlier than say a sea skimming missile. They don't change direction so predicted position can be worked out with fairly basic physics.
Can the illumination radars not time slice between targets though? I thought they could, especially with the new AESA radars that can generate virtual illumination channels. They hop between targets, sending mid course guidance to each missile. As for which date active and semi active: RIM-67 Standard ER (SM-1ER/SM-2ER): INS/Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) RIM-161(SM-3): GPS, INS, SARH/Passive IR/Mid course guidance RIM-174 Standard ERAM(SM-6): INS/ARH/SARH
It is not clear to me that F-35's could have actually caught the backfires after they fired their missiles and turned and ran at mach 2. Shame that couldn't have been left in the simulation. Fat Amy is not much of a sprinter.
Are the naval version of the Kinzhal faster than the ground attack version? As the ones RU has been lobbing into UA struggle to get to Mach 4 so they would be slightly faster than the Kingfish missiles from the first test. I get you have to use the " official RU numbers " but in reality those missiles are not as good as they are claimed to be. At least the ones being currently fired.
Only thing is, how the hell are the Russians gonna get 160 working kinzhals 😂.Half of them would miss anyway and modern radar would detect them way before the bombers fired
Think of this as a proxy for the Chinese. Probably can get that many to fly, but US EAD is another matter. The US will optimize tactics, and we have no idea what that will be until it happens. And the real thing is never really simulatable as far as secret weapon performance from either side. Good fun to watch, and should probably be watched by the US congress, that will get the funding flowing.
@@dexlab7539 Patriot in Ukraine is in its 1980s variant has intercepted multiple Kinzhals. One Kinzhal lightly damaged a patriot launcher which was back in commission within two weeks. Idk how thats impressive by any stretch to you.
@@dexlab7539the patriots in Ukraine are like 40 years old aren't they? What's impressive to me is that it is intercepting the modern stuff and the damage the one unit sustained was minor and it was back in service pretty quick. Yes I'm impressed, at how freaking amazing 40 year old US tech is and how inept modern Russian tech is
Since I first read Red Storm Rising, I've wondered what professional U.S. Navy people thought of this attack in the book when it first came out. I imagine the initial reaction was that "it could never succeed", and then a slow wondering of "could it?" It certainly added to the narrative of the storyline, that the Soviets weren't completely incompetent, and the NATO forces wouldn't always have everything go their way.
Actually, if there’s one thing you can guarantee in Clancy’s writing things will always go the Americans way no matter what. In the actual dance of the vampires, the Ticonderoga expended all of her defensive missiles but luckily….. the Russians ran out as well so it didn’t matter that the fleet was basically defenseless the Russians couldn’t capitalize on it. If a single one of those Soviet bombers had fired 30 seconds later, they probably would have sank the Nimitz
I realize they are the ones launching the decoy attack but if they were in serious chance of being intercepted would they turn and run, abort the mission? Losing 80 bombers is a big price.
I honestly think you should scale back the number of SM-3s your ships are carrying, and add more ESSMs. SM-3 is designed for use against ballistic missiles, not atmospheric hypersonic anti ship missiles. I have not seen conclusive evidence it would even work at all in that role.
I don’t suppose you can take the warhead from the mig-21’s nuclear bomb and put it in the SM-3 or something. Kinda brings us back to the AIR-2 Genie/AIM-26 days. I know there aren’t graphics for the explosions so it won’t be high fidelity video wise, It’d kinda show a carrier group could make fast work of the missiles.
Why do I have doubts about the whole context of the chapter being absorbed? The Badgers dropped and turned around except for a small number of Jamming aircraft. From memory detection of incoming was restricted due to Jamming and due to EMCON.
F-22 is much faster than F-35. Given that the F-35s had missiles just 30 miles from Impact when the Backfires launched, im thinking yes. And honestly, it's entirely possible that F-14D's with JATMs couldve intercepted a lot of them in time too.
The Tu-22M3 carrying 4 of those missiles out to the middle of the Atlantic seems like a bit if a long shot. I would think that 1 or 2 is a more realistic payload when they can only carry two Kh-22.
@@Valorius In the book, they used Badgers as tankers. Presently Russia has about 20 Il-78 tankers, and probably less than that operational. The Tu-22M3 has had its refueling probes removed. Even if the Backfires had their refueling equipment reinstalled and every Il-78 was operational, it's pretty doubtful Russia would be able to support 40 fully loaded Backfires at that range with only 20 tankers.
They used tankers in the book and barely made it with a payload of 2 Kh-22. No way they make it with four of these and so many bombers. Tanker capacity would never have held up. Too many refueling sessions.
In this particular case I think the f-35 might actually be a downgrade. The Rafael is much faster much better acceleration and carries the meteor missile which as we know is just as good if not better than the American
So if this became a legitimate problem. Bring back battleships. Just bigger than carriers, use small disposable escort carriers full of drones or missle pods or vtols. And then have a massive armored compartmentalized AA platform in the sea to soak up the first hit on the missle wave.
Finally, a battle where the F-35s are carrying a 3 by three loadout of fox thress. When the Badgers went down in the first round, I said Macross Missile Massacre. Cue Japanese background music. The mass missile launches from the bombers in both rounds were wonderful displays of beautiful violence. That hypersonic missile hit on the carrier was brutal. Would a hit at Mach eight rip the ship apart IRL?
I am quite convinced that when we see the "Fleet" breaking down under massive missile swarm attacks, that what we see breaking is actually DCS. Also there is some extremely bizarre missile behavior, on the after action replay, you can see SM-6 missiles turning 180 degrees after missing and trying to tail chase the Kinzhals. I am pretty sure those missiles could not possibly execute such a manuever, and would just plow into the sea or, more likely, self destruct.
@@dexlab7539 At it's operational speed of mach 3.35, an SR-71 took an area the size of montana to make a 90 degree turn. At mach 10, I suspect the Kinzhal would require an area the size of the North Atlantic. There is no way that a Kinzhal is outmanuevering any modern high performance area air defense SAM.
@@grimreapers Grim Reapers seem to have found it. Well done Cap. :) It would be interesting (and time consuming, I know) to run that kinzhal repeatedly, starting with 10 planes (40x missiles)- or whatever number you are confident DCS can handle, and then increasing in 5 plane increments (+20 missiles) with each re-run, to see at what point DCS just breaks down (Not a few leakers, but rather mass failure like we saw in this scenario). Then run that failure point scenario in single player, to see if you still get the cascade failure. That would take a lot of time, but it would save you the time in the future of bothering to make gigantic scenarios where we already know in advance that DCS is just going to fall flat.
Yeah but each of those ships has lots more missiles. Each Ticonderoga has like 120 VLS tubes or something like that. More than enough missiles at hand.
Nice video. On critique is that the russian air force could probably never generate that big of a bomber formation, and if it could would likely not go undetected long enough get a full Salvo off.
@@pahtar7189 In the book the Tomcats were about 200 miles north of the fleet when they opened fire, so 300 miles is probably about right. I don't remember the exact specifics off the top of my head.
The Tac view was interesting, maybe if the flight path of the SAMs were able to be modelled correctly and they came straight down onto the missiles they may have a better strike rate, it does seem that they simply can't turn quickly enough in the terminal phase to hit them, where as if they came straight down, it may have an easier time adjusting it's flight path to intercept. Cap, have DCS said if they are ever going to change the engine so you can loft the bespoke missiles properly and not have to 'fudge' them?
I am not sure why you guys keep using JATMs, there is just nothing publicly known about it, not least of which is if it will even be built, or when. We don't even know what it looks like. IMO, even if it is built, it wont be in the fleet in any real numbers until 2030 anyway. IMO you should be using AMRAAM D3, which is a real missile, and still very capable.
They will absolutely be in the fleet by 2025. The industry is starting production this year. That means all the testing and prototyping has been completed to satisfaction.
They are expected to enter service at the end of this year. there are bits and pieces known and GR took all those bits and made what they believed is the best analog for it. I forget what video it was but they explained their reasoning.
@@viaticchart3139 Expected by whom? I have seen no documentation to that effect. There is no production order in the budget, no manufacturer has announced they are going into production either. There are no specifications, there is not even a picture of the missile. If you have that information, please post article headlines so i can search for the headlines. At this time, from all appearances, JATM is a "prototype missile" only, and appears to be many years from production, if it ever even enters service at all. AMRAAM D3 is a real missile, in production, and in the field. Until JATM is at least confirmed as a concrete thing that has been ordered into LRIP, I don't think it should be used. Just my opinion.
@@RES915SQD Please show me a press release from whatever company is building it saying it's going into LRIP. OR a line item in the budget ordering it into production. Because I can find absolutely nothing of the sort. It is still in testing, and an article from just 2 days ago says they hope to have them in production by *next* year, and even if that happens, it will be LRIP for at least one full year.
@@viaticchart3139 "On May 2, 2023, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told the Senate Armed Services Committee that JATM will "hopefully" enter production this year. [8]" *Hopefully* .... that's what you're all hanging your hat on? That is literally the only thing we've got. There is no LRIP order, and there is no manufacturer or DoD announcement of LRIP. Even if it enters LRIP in the end of 2023, it will not be available in useful fleet numbers in 2025, and sure as hell not in the numbers that GR uses them in. If it ever even enters production at all.
I think the flat trajectory of the Khinzal in game actually makes it harder to intercept than the real life ballistic trajectory of the missile. But yeah, 160 missiles or whatever is just too many, you'd get leakage. Hard to know how much better real Aegis and real US SAMs are than their in game counterparts. Of course a real attack of this scale is rather unlikely. I doubt Russia has even half that many Khinzals left. They are built with American sourced electronics, which are in rather short supply these days. They don't even have enough to breach the defenses of one Patriot site, let alone a carrier strike group defended by Aegis cruisers and destroyers.
I'd bet a plugged nickel that 2020 air defense can have more missiles *in the air* than it has control channels for. Either time share the channels (only guide each missiles 1/2 or 1/3 of the time) or blind fire them to "near" where they need to go and only start guiding them for the last xx% of the flight. About the only thing that would need that isn't already requires is the ability for a missiles to maintain a preset flight without guidance and the ability to pick up a command channel mid flight. And both of those are things that would be very useful anyway in the event that EMI makes it hard to maintain command links.
Aegis has always been able to have more missiles in the air than it can illuminate for. The illumination is only needed for missiles in terminal phase. ESSM Block II, SM-2MRIIIB and SM-6 all have their own onboard terminal seekers, and require no illumination at all, so theoretically, Aegis can control hundreds of them in the air at a time. GR is using SM-2MRIIIA, which does not have it's terminal seeker. But SM-2MRIIIB has been the fleet standard for well over a decade and it has an IIR terminal seeker, so they do need to address that issue.
Few more problems with this. First as someone wrote before KH-47M2 is not really how they clamed (guessing) but also F35 is not up to the task with mission capable rates, would say they will not make it. And second problem is cost SM3s SM etc... cost as hell, cost of defense with 100% success rate what would be next door to impossible, would deplete budget, question would be really who won this battle ?
Sidekick adapter allows F-35A and F-35C to carry six missiles internally (two instead of one AIM 120 -sized missile at internal weapons bay stations 4 and 8, or at least that was the info back in March).
@@WhiskeyTango84 yes a woman who went on to shoot down a satellite to get an ace was leading the ferry flight of F15s. In fact it was her warning to the carrier group that detected the southern attack. AWACS didn't detect the southern attack 1st, it was the F15s that detected them 1st.
@@thomasbentley4754 Thanks for the info. I can't look it up in my copy of the book right now, but I know she played a critical part in the story, and it was a big deal when she got her ace when she shot down her 2nd satelite.
It’s pretty much at the point where big ships are like tanks. Useful in some situations, but just big targets for missiles in others. The days of big carrier groups are numbered.
What isn't modeled that completely changes this is countermeasures on ships. They have really powerful jammers, decoys, all that fun stuff that DCS can't model.
@Valorius i agree. But I recognize ED had to pick a lane and so puts limitations on other aspects. SO! A redesign is necessary from the ground up as an all-purpose combat sim. It is built on very old architecture that JUST got multi-core functionality.
Hard to imagine a "stealth" attack from that many supersonic Backfires. Hell, submarines probably could have heard those things flying overhead.
while I can't say almost anything because my contract isn't over and I don't want to go the way of war thundering my self, I will say that it would have been easier to hear them at a hundred miles than it would have been To see Godzilla destroying Tokyo while visiting the Tokyo Tower.
I mean don't get me wrong You don't exactly need specialty equipment for it, put 40 supersonic bombers on the air flying really close to one another And you are going to be leaving Sonic booms on the sound level of a small nuclear bomb behind them.
Seriously almost nobody talks about acoustics By the aircraft are not exactly stealthy when it comes to sound unless it's B2 that thing is fuckin scary.
They were detected, but the American fighters in the book were misguided at the drones.
Modern day version, love it, ready to start watching NOW
We asked and you delivered!
Simba might be the people´s champ, But Cap is most definitely a man of the people!
awww
28:12 It also could make it easier, because the SAM's don't have to turn that much, since the intercept arc is basically the arc the asm is already going
So this is more of a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile [i.e. the US planned scramjet powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM)] test than an anti-ship ALBM (Kinzhal) test.
@@flashgordon6670That is an end of the world scenario you nimrod!
It's really interesting to have the rough cost comparison.
Traditionally, the attacker had to bear the larger cost in order to overcome the defenses. But with todays cost intensive defense technology, this appears to turn around.
Imagine, that in this case the attacker could use almost 10x the resources to match the defenders cost. Which would 100% result in a successful attack.
From a perspective of imposing cost on the adversary, modern defenses does not appear very feasible if confronted with large scale attacks, does they?
Very insightful and interesting video. Huge thanks for all the effort you guys put into this content. Much appreciated.
Part of the reason that cost isn't a big talking point in warfare is because there is no equivalency. Russia would have already spent that much building those missiles with the intent that they would be expended, and likely already set aside resources to replace them. The carrier on the other hand was not intended to be expendable, not only would the loss of a CSG be a massive strategic blow, but also an unforseen one and it would likely take years to replace it.
you're forgetting russians are only on a 300usd/month salary. So the equipment is "'cheaper" but not comparable, because they can't produce the equipment in x10 the quantity.
@@RonanP12or quality
@@Thatonedude90 Russia dont even have Kinzhals. Its russian propaganda. Many belive Russia managed steal patriot missiles in Afghansitan and make us belive they have hypersonic missiles. At this point Russia got nothing that can even fly above mach 2-3.
Yup, this is why US aircraft carriers are quickly become in a thing of the past
As good as this is there are some other Clancy books with some stellar sounding battles to be recreated. From Executive Orders, Bear & Dragon, Debt of Honor...hell, even the Hunt For Red October has some cool scenarios included. With Clancy, the sky is the limit.
Bear and the Dragon is an awesome book. To bad the neocons turn the Bear & the Dragon in to best friends. now we are f'd.
During one of the badass scenes I need cap to yell, “Are you not entertained?!” 🤣
23:09 Cap, SM-3 is not radar guided, it uses an infrared seeker for terminal homing. AEGIS provides mid-course updates to the missile until it goes terminal, and then the missile is on its own.
thx
@@grimreapers SM-2MRIIIB, which is the primary missile in US service, also uses a terminal IIR seeker.
It has dual mode SARH and IIR guidance.
The first thing to consider about SM-3 in DCS should be the fact, that SM-3 was designed to be anti-TBMs weapon, and because of the way it works it can only work against targets that are effectively outside of Earth's atmosphere - so it couldn't be used against Kinzhau at all!
IIRC an SM-3 missile is really a big booster for getting payload high and fast (several km/s) and out of Earth's atmosphere into the space, where the payload - small EKV (egzoatmospheric kill vehicle) is released and the EKV intercepts target (ballistic missile or warhead) using IIR seeker and rocket side thrusters to set itself precisely on collision course. The EKV can't work in the atmosphere, it has totally non-aerodynamic shape, if released inside the atmosphere at hipersonic speeds it would just desintegrate and burn from aerodynamic forces and the friction, also IIR seeker would not work if even thin atmosphere is present as the heat caused by air friction would heat up the seeker window and it could not detect targets anymore.
Navy's primary weapon against endoatmospheric (aeroballistic, hypersonic) currently is the SM-6 missile. With aerodynamic steering, active radar seeker and terminal accuracy good-enough to be used against TBMs, it should also work fairly well against Kinzhau.
Lately the Patriot PAC-3 was tested from naval VLS launchers and if the navy decides to integrate it with AEGIS it could be alternative, very good medium/close range (10-20nm) defence against very fast targets at the edge of the atmosphere. With proven combat record against Kinzhaus. PAC-3 has ARH seeker and with combined (aerodynamic & side-thrusters) controls it achieves direct-hit accuracy. Which SM-6 (which has only aerodynamic controls AFAIK?) is not capable of - instead relying on low miss-distance and proximity fusing to kill targets with it's big HE warhead (just like the older Patriot PAC-2 but with more modern guidance and fusing).
Both missiles (SM-6 and PAC-3) could have their places in "defence envelope" where they perform best.
SM-3 should be in game restricted to use against ballistic, egzoatmospheric targets (is it possible to set minimum target altitude or minimum intercept altitude for SM-3 to at least 50km?)
Also an idea tor CAP - if you want to test anti-swarm capabilities of a carrier battle group - so a scenario where they would use cheaper med range ESSMs and not expensive, heavy, long range SM-6s) then in some cases maybe it would be better to just remove SM-6s (or both SM-6s and SM-2s) completely from ship's loadouts, then they would have to use ESSMs only for ship defence and we could see how effective they are.
P.S. Is it possible to set a minimum launch range for SM-6s in a way that they are not used inside ESSMs envelope ? I know it would mean that a ship which spent all it's ESSMs can't continue defece using SM-6s, but such situation would rather not happen very often and in some scenarios such setting could be preferred and result in more logical SAM chose behaviour: Very Long range or long range over the horizon or difficult/advanced targets - use SM-6, long-med range, standard targets, moderate number of them - use SM-2s, med-close range and anti-swarm - use ESSMs.
@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186 ESSM Block II is already better than Patriot for what you are describing, and can be quadpacked.
As far as I know, you are correct about SM-3, it cannot be used in the atmosphere.
@nomorerainbows Cool, but the max altitude seems very wrong on the otherwise very cool Tico load out image, it's the same as the max horizontal range (27nm) which is twice that of the SM2MR (13nm) and still much higher than the SM 6 (18nm), I would expect it is more like 9nm (couldn't find anything quickly but a 15,000m max altitude stat).
Co-pilot: Komrad Commander! we are under attack! Why are we not firing flares?
Pilot: Komrad, see all those burning Blinders going down? Those ARE our flares.
DCS can be SO goddam pretty to look at sometimes. All those bombers coming out of the sunrise firing their missiles all at once is...c'est magnifique! *chef's kiss*. Great job expanding on the Dance of the Vampires, Cap and everyone else!
Next suggestion: get in on the recent UFO hullabaloo somehow like when you did the Independence Day missions!
No more scenarios with aliens or UFOs for me, please. I prefer engagements with military assets that are actually available.
@@pike100 Fair enough. DCS IS a videogame however so I don't mind some fantastic scenarios from time to time. They make some of the funner scenarios to watch, quite often.
Love the book read it when first published , Tom Clancy was the master of millitary actions between the super powers & really did his research to make sure it was as realistic as possible just like you guys do here , however like we found out when the Berlin wall fell the Eastern bloc forces were virtually destroyed by bankrupcy & corruption without even a shot fired , frontline tanks with no engines , ships & submarines unable to go to sea & just rusting in port , aircraft grounded with no spares ! I think that the Russian federation as of now would have great problems mounting an attack anywhere near a quarter of this scale with the resources at hand & the constant updates on Western weapons systems will eventually nullify the hypersonic threat as the balance is eventually restored.
Larry Bond researched the battle scenes, and Tom Clancy wrote them based on Bond's research. This is spelled out clearly in the RSR wiki.
@@Valorius
True , the two made a great team , but Clancy wove the narrative that held us captivated breathing believability & a realistic action into the story .
I suspect the true ballistic flight of the Kinzhals would be easier to intercept as the defending missiles wouldn't be arcing over them and trying to hit them from the side; they'd just go straight toward them, only having to make small lateral adjustments. You could easily test this by having the Kinzhals spawn in at 80,000 feet while 20 miles away and see if the fleet can defend itself.
That's something odd I have noticed as well with CH's PAC-2/3 Patriot, and SM-2, SM-6, SM-3 missiles....they always arc way over the incoming missiles and then dive down on them making the intercept more difficult.
@@vegabond5362 Core game limitations are my understanding, they would not do this in real life.
Very impressive visually. I still say the Backfires would be picked up at least 100nm further outs and the response time would have been quicker. Throw in ECM and the decoys the fleet would be trailing and the survivability rate goes way up.
Shoot an air burst nuke at the swarm. If you get a bunch of civilians, deal with it in court.
What he’s essentially done is taking a 1980s tactic and played it out on the Russian side while giving the Americans the advantage of knowing the tactic in advance, it’s not a realistic scenario in the slightest.
In previous video you asked how Clancy did his simulation:
His co-author (Larry Bond) is an ex-USN officer and creator of the tabletop modern naval wargame "Harpoon" - they used that for all the battles in RSR.
I think there's a scenario book for "Harpoon" covering RSR. I'll post the link if I can
Yeah, I love and miss the Harpoon video game, back in the day I had bought several versions of it as each version came with additional expansions.
Great Commentary Cap! Felt like I was there.
I re-listened to this chapter tonight, these videos spurred me to redo the whole book. This would apply to both videos, just a fun thing I caught. They mention several times near the start of the chapter that there are several tankers and other aircraft up with buddy stores from the carrier to follow the 14s. So it wouldn't be a one way mission for them, I think they head to Scotland after the carrier is hit. I think the Russians had tankers too, but haven't got that far in the chapter. Do know the Backfires do attack again a few more times, so very likely it wasn't really a one way for any of them. Love the sims though keep up the great work 🙂.
Awesome video. These bomber vs fleet ones are some of my favourites.
Would be cool if you could do a hybrid video? F-14 armed with the 260?
Really enjoyed this series. Your comment about the biggst radar return sparked a memory of when the exocets were spoofed by the royal navy using chaff and I think decoy helicopters.. Is there a way you can test ship launched chaff against these things?
Dude, you're killing me! This is good stuff. I read Clancy as it was put into first printing. Now its a bit overcooked in appearance but 40 years ago it was really hot stuff.
One important point, even if JATM becomes a reality, it will not be carried by USMC aircraft, based on public info, this is a USN/USAF program only.
Given that a large number of the aircraft on any US carrier are USMC jets, that is an important consideration.
One of my all time favorite books! Larry bond was a huge help with it as well! Own 2 in hard cover and had 2 now 1 in paper back!
Vortex. Fantastic novel 😊
Not that I think it would have necessarily resulted in a different outcome, as at such volume it just doesn't seem like anything could possibly have changed that ending in the second test run, but I just thought I'd mention that the SM-3 Block I was actually a single batch production of 11 missiles for testing purposes and is not in use. The SM-3 Block IB, which incorporates improved attitude control thrusters for increased mobility & accuracy together with a 2-color FLIR seeker (vs. none in Block I and a single-color seeker in Block IA), achieved IOC in 2013 and has been fully operational since 2015.
Also, SM-3 Block IIA, which is equipped with 21" diameter booster & rocket stages for an increased range & ceiling of 25% over its predecessor, reaching speeds above 13 Mach, and still further improved FLIR seeker, computing power, and diverter/attitude control motor for even further improved accuracy, made its first operationally-representative intercept of an ICBM in 2021, successful complex ICBM intercepts were conducted by both the Japanese Maritime Defense Force & US Navy in cooperation with the MDA in the first half of 2022, and Raytheon (now RTX) was awarded a nearly $900 million contract for full-production of Block IIA missiles for both Japan & the U.S. in late 2022.
Also, improved SM-6 Block II (over Blocks I & IA) are operational as well, with IB coming online in the next few months (Q1 2024).
Also note they are only capable of out of atmosphere interceptions.
At spending 10x the money the allies still are at a loss, for the resupply. The carrier group might be safe but they will have to retreat. If the resupply takes a month the group if effectively removed from battle. The Russians should fire just out side of range and retreat under full jamers and chaff. The operation should be to deplete resources of the carrier group. Also save some to attack the resupply group, that also cripples the carriers as they carry what 3 days worth of jet fuel?
I see your point but "destroyed" is always better than "mission kill".
Good luck trying to resupply a carrier that is sitting on the bottom.
@@Squirl513 It might be better but to conserve their planes they should fire from just outside the range and turn back sooner. All they have to do is force a reaction, most systems are automatic once the button is pushed. Put in a better battery so it can be fired farther and track a minute longer.
The key is to then target the resupply ships from there on.
@@duanemckinley9353 You are making the assumption that there will be a replacement available and that they can be resupplied. What if neither is possible?
The only time the Navy has a no retreat plan is in defense of the US coasts military bases.
@@gotafarmyet4691 you assume that they want to conserve their planes instead of winning a decisive victory. Have you read much about Russian doctrine?
@@duanemckinley9353 It's why I said they make a show of force to commit the US resources they launch at a longer range to save the bombers and the Escorts that should have been with them. Again with long range missiles. Then attack the resupply ships, as they travel to locations. Carriers only have about 3 days of fuel for flight Ops. It is pretty easy to run them dry without a resupply. Everyone is about the Group but it is the resupply that is key.
The JATMs are suppose to fly at MACH 5.. if they come out....Nice job! Important lesson here, interesting to see a US CARRIER GROUP defend with out their Jets.....
For a future video, you can test out the "Arsenal Ship" concept. It would seem that the two issues for fleet air defense are having enough missiles, and launching enough quickly (launch rate). An Arsenal ship (mid-1990's or so concept) might be the solution. It becomes extra capable now with CEC/datasharing; and in the 1990's the problem was affording the missiles, it would seem to me that not having enough becomes more expensive with ship losses.
Great video. Hypersonics cannot deal with SLQ-32 Jamming, CHAFF and NULKA decoys, as their sensors are too degraded from the high speeds which superheat the missile surface and generate blinding plasma. Too bad that SLQ-32 is not modeled, nor are chaff, Nulka and IR decoys, which would utterly confuse and blind the remaining swarm. DCS needs to integrate jamming, decoys and chaff. Plus every ship would have turned bow into or stern away from the missiles to reduce radar cross section. That is also where the CIWS mounts are, and those would fill that airspace with a cone of shrapnel.
The hit rate is vastly reduced if all of these things are happening.
The problem with hypersonics is that their sensors work poorly to begin with, and the short time on target does not give their sensors time to “burn through” jamming. They arrive blind….facts.
Still, beautiful entertainment!
good luck jamming inertial guidance. there's no need for that shit. it's hypersonic. 100% will reach the target regardless of jamming. and no worries about the blast as it can carry nukes.
With SLQ-32 operating in the original scenario, the raid would have failed early on. Same here.
@@riskinhosyeah except its because their hypersonic that so much as moving an inch or doing anything that throws or distracts them is often more than enough to make them miss. Also unless you want full scale nuclear war, you wouldnt risk your self arming them with nukes just for the sake of stopping a single carrier group, let alone using a significant chunk of your stockpile of nuclear warheads over a single fleet, you'd run out of nukes relatively quickly if so... as one nuke is enough but 2 nukes is overkill but due to the advent of them being intercepted your gonna have to waste hundreds of nukes that would overkill a target and get destroyed in the process...
@@riskinhosinertial guidance cannot hit moving targets. It can only navigate to a point in space…where the ship no longer is. It needs an active sensor to hit anything moving, and the fleet would be at 32 knots.
@@Echowhiskeyoneexactly. The system works so well that during Praying Mantis the US Navy relied only on jamming and decoys in several engagements.
Awesome work. Imagine if the AIM-154 on the F-14 or ST-21 lol....
23:12
This used to be true with early AEGIS SPY radars. With SPY-6, there's enough channels to guide and illuminate the entire fleet's stock of missiles off of a single ship's radar.
Can we get a 105c, where you take the leash off? Have the awacs actually detect the aircraft at proper ranges and see if the russians get through at that point?
The Tu-22's would be intercepted 400 miles out. The only way to make it happen like in the book is to make the Tu-22's invisible until the 0634Z point.
@@grimreapers A cool idea, possibly to throw at Kortana or similar, if she's still around, would be how to actually make this realisticly workable - it seems like her wheelhouse given previous videos by her design.
WOWEEE - that was AWESOME! Thx Cap
Of course, the problem for the fleet is that the Backfires survived, and can come back the next day with another 100+ antiship missiles. While the fleet cannot reload their VLS cells until they reach port. So all this just buys the fleet ~24 hours.
Loved this, looked like flak when the SM-3s were going in there were that many of them
That’s why we do war games - to find out weak spots. Though I have a feeling in real life those bombers would have been detected and neutralized much further out.
In real life Russia also doesnt even have 140 Kinzhals.
The Aussie camo is ok, it means youll win, and then get to take home The Ashes.......
What a spectacle! AMAZING!
the ballistic trajectory makes it simpler to defend against if you have enough computing power. It's a simple arc and radar will detect it earlier than say a sea skimming missile. They don't change direction so predicted position can be worked out with fairly basic physics.
SM-6 Block 1B is much needed lol CH!
Can the illumination radars not time slice between targets though?
I thought they could, especially with the new AESA radars that can generate virtual illumination channels.
They hop between targets, sending mid course guidance to each missile.
As for which date active and semi active:
RIM-67 Standard ER (SM-1ER/SM-2ER): INS/Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH)
RIM-161(SM-3): GPS, INS, SARH/Passive IR/Mid course guidance
RIM-174 Standard ERAM(SM-6): INS/ARH/SARH
It is not clear to me that F-35's could have actually caught the backfires after they fired their missiles and turned and ran at mach 2. Shame that couldn't have been left in the simulation. Fat Amy is not much of a sprinter.
Are the naval version of the Kinzhal faster than the ground attack version? As the ones RU has been lobbing into UA struggle to get to Mach 4 so they would be slightly faster than the Kingfish missiles from the first test. I get you have to use the " official RU numbers " but in reality those missiles are not as good as they are claimed to be. At least the ones being currently fired.
I disagree, the Russians have been striking ukraine whenever and wherever they want with the tu95 firing cruise missiles, I see new videos daily.
Rereading the book now. Thanks for the great videos.
Could the Lightnings have caught the supersonic Backfires as they fled the scene?
"No, one missile got through!"
CIWS: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
Only thing is, how the hell are the Russians gonna get 160 working kinzhals 😂.Half of them would miss anyway and modern radar would detect them way before the bombers fired
Think of this as a proxy for the Chinese. Probably can get that many to fly, but US EAD is another matter. The US will optimize tactics, and we have no idea what that will be until it happens. And the real thing is never really simulatable as far as secret weapon performance from either side. Good fun to watch, and should probably be watched by the US congress, that will get the funding flowing.
Have they even made 160??
Well at least one Kinzhal destroyed a Patriot battery already. Not a good sign for US
@@dexlab7539 Patriot in Ukraine is in its 1980s variant has intercepted multiple Kinzhals. One Kinzhal lightly damaged a patriot launcher which was back in commission within two weeks. Idk how thats impressive by any stretch to you.
@@dexlab7539the patriots in Ukraine are like 40 years old aren't they? What's impressive to me is that it is intercepting the modern stuff and the damage the one unit sustained was minor and it was back in service pretty quick. Yes I'm impressed, at how freaking amazing 40 year old US tech is and how inept modern Russian tech is
Could we have a follow one from this can have a russian/ Chinese strike against a British and US carrier group?
Since I first read Red Storm Rising, I've wondered what professional U.S. Navy people thought of this attack in the book when it first came out. I imagine the initial reaction was that "it could never succeed", and then a slow wondering of "could it?"
It certainly added to the narrative of the storyline, that the Soviets weren't completely incompetent, and the NATO forces wouldn't always have everything go their way.
Actually, if there’s one thing you can guarantee in Clancy’s writing things will always go the Americans way no matter what. In the actual dance of the vampires, the Ticonderoga expended all of her defensive missiles but luckily….. the Russians ran out as well so it didn’t matter that the fleet was basically defenseless the Russians couldn’t capitalize on it. If a single one of those Soviet bombers had fired 30 seconds later, they probably would have sank the Nimitz
Epic battle
I realize they are the ones launching the decoy attack but if they were in serious chance of being intercepted would they turn and run, abort the mission? Losing 80 bombers is a big price.
I honestly think you should scale back the number of SM-3s your ships are carrying, and add more ESSMs. SM-3 is designed for use against ballistic missiles, not atmospheric hypersonic anti ship missiles.
I have not seen conclusive evidence it would even work at all in that role.
Backfire is stealth or just stealth attack? What a great scale affect with you at camera cap! U is getting good…
nice video cap :)
I don’t suppose you can take the warhead from the mig-21’s nuclear bomb and put it in the SM-3 or something. Kinda brings us back to the AIR-2 Genie/AIM-26 days. I know there aren’t graphics for the explosions so it won’t be high fidelity video wise, It’d kinda show a carrier group could make fast work of the missiles.
Agreed would be cool.
Well, however it might turn out; this is way better than Napoleon having a modern MBT at Waterloo. 😂
Why do I have doubts about the whole context of the chapter being absorbed? The Badgers dropped and turned around except for a small number of Jamming aircraft.
From memory detection of incoming was restricted due to Jamming and due to EMCON.
I wonder if an F-22 with AIM 260 could intercept those Backfires in time? I guess it would be like simulating the future NGAD.
in time? no.
@@riskinhos yeah, the F-35's were pretty close. I guess I'd like to see at what range different interceptors could get there in time.
F-22 is much faster than F-35. Given that the F-35s had missiles just 30 miles from Impact when the Backfires launched, im thinking yes.
And honestly, it's entirely possible that F-14D's with JATMs couldve intercepted a lot of them in time too.
@@Valorius exactly. They don't need to kill all the bombers even. Just enough to give the fleet a chance.
@@neil168 spoiling shots to break up an attack are definitely a thing IRL.
I will forward this to Tom Clancy's co-author, Larry Bond
Woooo I requested this on the last video!
The Tu-22M3 carrying 4 of those missiles out to the middle of the Atlantic seems like a bit if a long shot. I would think that 1 or 2 is a more realistic payload when they can only carry two Kh-22.
The Russians managing to scrape together 40 working Tu-22M3s and 160 Kinzhals is a long shot.
They had tanker support, as spelled out clearly in the book.
@@Valorius In the book, they used Badgers as tankers. Presently Russia has about 20 Il-78 tankers, and probably less than that operational. The Tu-22M3 has had its refueling probes removed. Even if the Backfires had their refueling equipment reinstalled and every Il-78 was operational, it's pretty doubtful Russia would be able to support 40 fully loaded Backfires at that range with only 20 tankers.
@@jasonosmond6896 They could've done it in 1985, today, not so much. But Cap was just sticking to the plot.
They used tankers in the book and barely made it with a payload of 2 Kh-22. No way they make it with four of these and so many bombers. Tanker capacity would never have held up. Too many refueling sessions.
In this particular case I think the f-35 might actually be a downgrade. The Rafael is much faster much better acceleration and carries the meteor missile which as we know is just as good if not better than the American
Especially because JTAM isn't even in service yet, let alone integrated into any F35 variant. French Rafale's would be superior in this scenario.
So if this became a legitimate problem. Bring back battleships. Just bigger than carriers, use small disposable escort carriers full of drones or missle pods or vtols. And then have a massive armored compartmentalized AA platform in the sea to soak up the first hit on the missle wave.
The lightenings have superior ECM and ECCM than the bombers
Finally, a battle where the F-35s are carrying a 3 by three loadout of fox thress.
When the Badgers went down in the first round, I said Macross Missile Massacre. Cue Japanese background music.
The mass missile launches from the bombers in both rounds were wonderful displays of beautiful violence.
That hypersonic missile hit on the carrier was brutal. Would a hit at Mach eight rip the ship apart IRL?
I am quite convinced that when we see the "Fleet" breaking down under massive missile swarm attacks, that what we see breaking is actually DCS.
Also there is some extremely bizarre missile behavior, on the after action replay, you can see SM-6 missiles turning 180 degrees after missing and trying to tail chase the Kinzhals.
I am pretty sure those missiles could not possibly execute such a manuever, and would just plow into the sea or, more likely, self destruct.
On the other hand, the Kinzhal missiles maneuver too. So, SM-6 may not track in real life either
@@dexlab7539 At it's operational speed of mach 3.35, an SR-71 took an area the size of montana to make a 90 degree turn.
At mach 10, I suspect the Kinzhal would require an area the size of the North Atlantic.
There is no way that a Kinzhal is outmanuevering any modern high performance area air defense SAM.
There seems to be a tipping point at which game just breaks down.
@@grimreapers Grim Reapers seem to have found it. Well done Cap. :)
It would be interesting (and time consuming, I know) to run that kinzhal repeatedly, starting with 10 planes (40x missiles)- or whatever number you are confident DCS can handle, and then increasing in 5 plane increments (+20 missiles) with each re-run, to see at what point DCS just breaks down (Not a few leakers, but rather mass failure like we saw in this scenario).
Then run that failure point scenario in single player, to see if you still get the cascade failure.
That would take a lot of time, but it would save you the time in the future of bothering to make gigantic scenarios where we already know in advance that DCS is just going to fall flat.
I have to say I would’ve preferred seeing Rafale, we don’t get to see French gear too often. Otherwise great video once again.
Nice cliffhanger (:
Having some updated USN Livery on those Super Bugs would be siiiiiick
Really mean that the Russians fire King Charles Missiles!
Am i the only one always mishearing this?!
Wouldn't the decoy missiles have forced the fleet to expend a lot of ammo?
Yeah but each of those ships has lots more missiles. Each Ticonderoga has like 120 VLS tubes or something like that. More than enough missiles at hand.
No, in the book the Tomcats intercepted the decoys long before they entered SAM Range of the fleet.
Nice video. On critique is that the russian air force could probably never generate that big of a bomber formation, and if it could would likely not go undetected long enough get a full Salvo off.
Sometime I wold like to see the Nike Hercules SAM-A-25 vs ww2 biplanes and Cold War Flying Fortress
Fun fun fun.
How about a 1000 bomber raid against the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbour, all contemporary stuff, of course?
Why? They took out the pearl harbor fleet with a single B21.
@@nomorerainbows Fun
Just like WWII you need to put more and more anti-air on the ships.
How did the AWACS not detect the Backfires hundreds of miles away?
I had to script it so that they did not get detected until the 0634Z point like the book. Without that, they would be spotted 300+ miles away.
The AWACS were north of the fleet and the backfires came in low, and the fleet was operating in EMCON.
@@grimreapers: Ah, so the flaw was in the book. It's been a long time since I read it. Well done in any case.
@@Valorius: In which case the northern bombers would have been detected 300 miles away.
@@pahtar7189 In the book the Tomcats were about 200 miles north of the fleet when they opened fire, so 300 miles is probably about right. I don't remember the exact specifics off the top of my head.
The Tac view was interesting, maybe if the flight path of the SAMs were able to be modelled correctly and they came straight down onto the missiles they may have a better strike rate, it does seem that they simply can't turn quickly enough in the terminal phase to hit them, where as if they came straight down, it may have an easier time adjusting it's flight path to intercept.
Cap, have DCS said if they are ever going to change the engine so you can loft the bespoke missiles properly and not have to 'fudge' them?
Great videos, but what happens with the original scenario and accurate detection ranges from the E2s?
Every time I hear “what if” I think of Bypass. Are you gonna bring him back Cap?
Brill - Thank you.
That! Would be horrific as a sailor. That’s why I went Army, at least I can hear my stuff coming. 🇨🇦 veteran
Great video, but what was missing in the book was the "missle spunge button ".
20:59 just on uncle Sam's credit card. He gets points
Do the badgers not have working tail guns? Surely the F-18s would be at risk of being hit in guns range?
Does DCS model ship launched decoys, jammers, ect?
Sound general quarters. Send that pretty blond to the captains quarters. Ex O, the ship is yours.
but a second attack even if its smaller will probably get past the escorts defences due to all missiles used up in first attack
Did the RAM Point defense missile system kick in?
I am not sure why you guys keep using JATMs, there is just nothing publicly known about it, not least of which is if it will even be built, or when. We don't even know what it looks like. IMO, even if it is built, it wont be in the fleet in any real numbers until 2030 anyway.
IMO you should be using AMRAAM D3, which is a real missile, and still very capable.
They will absolutely be in the fleet by 2025. The industry is starting production this year. That means all the testing and prototyping has been completed to satisfaction.
They are expected to enter service at the end of this year. there are bits and pieces known and GR took all those bits and made what they believed is the best analog for it. I forget what video it was but they explained their reasoning.
@@viaticchart3139 Expected by whom? I have seen no documentation to that effect. There is no production order in the budget, no manufacturer has announced they are going into production either. There are no specifications, there is not even a picture of the missile.
If you have that information, please post article headlines so i can search for the headlines.
At this time, from all appearances, JATM is a "prototype missile" only, and appears to be many years from production, if it ever even enters service at all.
AMRAAM D3 is a real missile, in production, and in the field. Until JATM is at least confirmed as a concrete thing that has been ordered into LRIP, I don't think it should be used.
Just my opinion.
@@RES915SQD Please show me a press release from whatever company is building it saying it's going into LRIP. OR a line item in the budget ordering it into production. Because I can find absolutely nothing of the sort. It is still in testing, and an article from just 2 days ago says they hope to have them in production by *next* year, and even if that happens, it will be LRIP for at least one full year.
@@viaticchart3139 "On May 2, 2023, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told the Senate Armed Services Committee that JATM will "hopefully" enter production this year. [8]"
*Hopefully* .... that's what you're all hanging your hat on?
That is literally the only thing we've got. There is no LRIP order, and there is no manufacturer or DoD announcement of LRIP.
Even if it enters LRIP in the end of 2023, it will not be available in useful fleet numbers in 2025, and sure as hell not in the numbers that GR uses them in.
If it ever even enters production at all.
I think the flat trajectory of the Khinzal in game actually makes it harder to intercept than the real life ballistic trajectory of the missile. But yeah, 160 missiles or whatever is just too many, you'd get leakage. Hard to know how much better real Aegis and real US SAMs are than their in game counterparts. Of course a real attack of this scale is rather unlikely. I doubt Russia has even half that many Khinzals left. They are built with American sourced electronics, which are in rather short supply these days. They don't even have enough to breach the defenses of one Patriot site, let alone a carrier strike group defended by Aegis cruisers and destroyers.
20:10 barely. As if it was designed to be that close. Wow
Thx Cap...
Was sm-3 fired during the last defence?
I'd bet a plugged nickel that 2020 air defense can have more missiles *in the air* than it has control channels for. Either time share the channels (only guide each missiles 1/2 or 1/3 of the time) or blind fire them to "near" where they need to go and only start guiding them for the last xx% of the flight. About the only thing that would need that isn't already requires is the ability for a missiles to maintain a preset flight without guidance and the ability to pick up a command channel mid flight. And both of those are things that would be very useful anyway in the event that EMI makes it hard to maintain command links.
Aegis has always been able to have more missiles in the air than it can illuminate for. The illumination is only needed for missiles in terminal phase.
ESSM Block II, SM-2MRIIIB and SM-6 all have their own onboard terminal seekers, and require no illumination at all, so theoretically, Aegis can control hundreds of them in the air at a time.
GR is using SM-2MRIIIA, which does not have it's terminal seeker. But SM-2MRIIIB has been the fleet standard for well over a decade and it has an IIR terminal seeker, so they do need to address that issue.
Few more problems with this. First as someone wrote before KH-47M2 is not really how they clamed (guessing) but also F35 is not up to the task with mission capable rates, would say they will not make it. And second problem is cost SM3s SM etc... cost as hell, cost of defense with 100% success rate what would be next door to impossible, would deplete budget, question would be really who won this battle ?
do they even have that many kinzhals
doubt it. $$$$
Russia and China combined probably do
Question, how do you fit 6 weapons internally on an f35 that only had 4 internal hard points for that weapon?
Sidekick adapter allows F-35A and F-35C to carry six missiles internally (two instead of one AIM 120 -sized missile at internal weapons bay stations 4 and 8, or at least that was the info back in March).
Cause Australia Represents Bruh 💪✌👊
It looks more like zicron than kinzhal judging by their trajectory.
Was beautiful cap watching This 😊
If you forget the F15s ferry flight to the south intercepting the southern attack then you're missing a critical part of the story, sorry guys.
@@WhiskeyTango84 yes a woman who went on to shoot down a satellite to get an ace was leading the ferry flight of F15s. In fact it was her warning to the carrier group that detected the southern attack. AWACS didn't detect the southern attack 1st, it was the F15s that detected them 1st.
In the book, all of the Badgers except the dedicated jammer aircraft turned for home after a few minutes.
@@joeschmalhofer6109 Yep and her name was Major Amerlia "Buns" Nakamura
i stand corrected lol
@@thomasbentley4754 Thanks for the info. I can't look it up in my copy of the book right now, but I know she played a critical part in the story, and it was a big deal when she got her ace when she shot down her 2nd satelite.
It’s pretty much at the point where big ships are like tanks. Useful in some situations, but just big targets for missiles in others. The days of big carrier groups are numbered.
What isn't modeled that completely changes this is countermeasures on ships. They have really powerful jammers, decoys, all that fun stuff that DCS can't model.
@@mfreed40k Not too mention other goodies being developed, both on the active and passive fronts.
@@gregbrown3764 pew pew zap!!
@@mfreed40k DCS could, they just don't. I mean there are chaff and flares on fighters.
@Valorius i agree. But I recognize ED had to pick a lane and so puts limitations on other aspects. SO! A redesign is necessary from the ground up as an all-purpose combat sim. It is built on very old architecture that JUST got multi-core functionality.
might what to take a look at yout pricing figures it was only going up 500,000 for every H-63 lost.
Yeh I must have messed something up in scoreboard.