Back in 1990 I believe, A Udaloy and Sovremenny visited San Diego. My dad and I drove a few hours to watch them leave port. It was a pretty awesome experience for a high schooler and future sailor.
They moored at the same pier our ship was at. Got the non standard tour from their sailors. Their berthing compartments were similar to the ones on Adams class destroyers
The CIWS were literally slapped on as an afterthought because Phalanx was brand new and the US was building the originally six destroyers for the Imperial Iranian Navy. After the contracts were cancelled the US Navy completed 4 and scrapped 2.
I found a way for you to control the "enemy side" too! You can also make all units visible to you (not your units) and not rely on AWACS, so you can use more realistic scenarios with radar. You can also with the debug tool look "under the hood" and see all kind details about the damage model and such. It's quite cool. Simply while in a mission, click F10.. that enables the debug tool. With that, you can pretty much do ANYTHING.
The AN-SPY series is with regards to capacity, the successor of the AN/SPS 48E and due to its phased array design also a successor to Long Beach and Enterprise's SCANFAR systems,
What!? No Adams class!? That cuts me to the quick. I served in DDG-24 and DDG-13 of the class. FYI, the Australians had Adams class destroyers and they put phalanx on them. You are correct about the Sunburn being terrifying. When they came out, all of the fire controlmen got to attend the ship’s classified briefing on them. With the detection range being the horizon, the speed of the Sunburn and the range of the SM-1, successful interceptions were unlikely. Also, the SM-1 had and estimated 36% chance of downing any sea skimming missile except for the Styx. Not modeled in your game is the Sunburn’s terminal flight mode, which was a zig zag pattern specifically designed to defeat any sea skimming missile. Not modeled in your game is the terminal flight mode of the sunburn missile. It was a zigzag pattern design specifically designed to defeat phalanx
Something to remember that isn't factored into this game, yet maybe. All this ships are basically like a poker hand, they look really good, the cards u can actually see, but those hole cards can be real stinkers. In this case, hole cards refer to whether the systems are really at 100% operability. Any former sailor can tell you that getting spare parts at sea is very tricky. While the US is good at logistics, even back in the 80s, the USSR wasn't anywhere near our capability. So, well the USSR ships LOOK good and scary, chances were that they were lucky to have.50-75% of those weapons systems operating at full capability. I know a little bit as I was stationed on a Spruance class DD from 85-90 and worked as a Fire Control tech. Thanks for the videos and what a great game I've been waiting for so long for!
I met a retired Soviet naval officer in the late 1990s who immigrated to Israel after the Berlin Wall fell. Boris was a very nice man who still loved mother Russia but with a little vodka he would admit that their military was always behind on parts, fuel, ammo, training, and moral. Any shooting war would have led to them getting steam rolled after the "elite" units were taken out. The elite units were the ones shown off to everyone. They were staffed by the spoiled and politically connected but they had all the newest and best in shape stuff but few professional soldiers and sailors. I can't remember what he called them but it was basically the Russian equivalent of snowflake (they melt under a little heat).
The Soviets had some really nasty anti-ship missiles, SS-N-12 Sandbox, SS-N-19 Shipwreck and SS-N-22 Sunburn. All big, fast carrier killers. However, there are ways to defeat them.
Shipwrecks specifically, had an interval of about 8 years, where bo air defense systwm, including a Tico AEGIS could reasonably intercept them, with their mach3 final approach at wavetop level, even if you count with perfect accuracy for the SM2ER, there simply arnt enough target channels and launch rails to relyably down a salvo before they cross the 20km from radar horizon to target.
@@FlyMysticalDJ In a real battle, the US carrier would've sunk that destroyer far out of Sunburn range, which is why the Soviets never pressed their surface-surface missile advantage.
@@jimfrazier8104 In a real battle, the deciding factor would simply have been which side was more willing to risk escalation to a full scale nuclear war. Whoever starts shooting first is likely going to win the engagement, but if the shooting starts at all, there is a good chance the other side escalates their response. Historically, the Soviets have always been a bit more aggressive (or call it reckless if you will) in the various incidents over the years, so my money wouldn't be on the carrier to be honest. Which is why major combatants of both sides tended to give each other space, so that exact outcome could be avoided. Only thing close to US carrier groups would have been subs, and that was a whole game on its own and good times for all involved.
Kidd Class was Never deliverd to Iran because of the Revolution, with ist strong AA Focus it was more close to the Cruiser the USN had at that time. Tico was also meant as a destroyer Build on the same hull as Kidd and Spurance but later reclassified to a Cruiser to justify the cost of the expansive Aegis vessel
@CAP the Sovremney's carried the 3M80E version of the SS-N-22 sunburn missile which is FAR less capable than the specifications listed for the missile in the ship's menu, and displayed by the missiles in game performance. 3M80E has a range of only 65 nautical miles and a listed flight speed of mach 2.2 to 2.3 (1455-1520 knots). It has a 300kg penetrator warhead and only 150kg of explosive content. the real missile has a maximum flight speed of 1520 kts. The in game Sovremney has the wrong missile, with specifications well beyond those stated by multiple sources online.
one issue I've noticed with this game is that it waits until incoming missiles are in range to load the missile rails. this doesn't affect podded or VLS missiles, but the arm style launchers of the 60s-70s era USN lose quite a few seconds of intercept time. i think they should add some sort of 'Red Alert' function where if incoming fire is detected the whole fleet activates radar and loads missiles.
Why the huge shift from DCS? The videos are clearly doing well with the views but what set GR apart from the rest of DCS TH-camrs was the great mission setup and camaraderie, alongside the camera work. Wish you success but I miss the DCS content, especially the campaigns you all do!
I kind of understand this sentiment tbh, GR had a nice thing going for DCS and I am already seeing content from channels that are 1) closer to the developers 2) actual naval veterans and actually applying realistic naval doctrine. This is cute and all, but GR is roll-playing US taskforces that made MASSIVE mistakes by playing in Sovjet strengths.
Nice to see you discover the Sunburn. It is truly a beast of a missile. In addition to crazy speeds at really low altitudes, it can also pull 10G evasive maneuvers. Hopefully Sea Power will patch that in.
Considering that Sunbuns weren’t capable of even hitting a target until the early 90’s I doubt they should do anything but model its high failure rates.
yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Since games can only be developed on open source info do we take all weapons claims at face value when the US always undersells their stuff and the Russians/Chinese always massively oversell.
Having realistic failure rates for Soviet equipment would be super boring though. ”Sir! The rocket booster failed to ignite properly and the ramjet could never start. Sir! Due to bad tolerances the airframe couldn’t withstand the extreme speed. Sir! The missile couldn’t maintain radar lock because of sea clutter.” You might as well instantly roll for an auto-loss due to a corrupt admiral selling fuel oil on the black market, preventing the Soviets from even leaving port.
Believe the Kid class destroy was meant for Iran navy before their revolution. So the specifics was up to Iran standards since it was an upgrade version
The CIWS was added as an afterthought to the Kidd-Class. That weapon system wasn't added to the design until late in the process for the ship, so it wasn't part of the layout initially.
The Kidd-class destroyers were heavy because they had two Tartar-D missile launchers added to their Spruance-class predecessors, which increased their displacement by 700 tons. The Kidds were also upgraded with a heavier mainmast and a new superstructure as part of the "New Threat Upgrade".
no they have the Mk26 launcher and its associated SPG51 tracking radars but only 2 tracking radars means they can't control many missiles at once (until they got the NTU update later)
Thanks for the video, as always, Cap. I think this illustrates two things. First, the US doctrine relied on travelling in groups with adequate sensor coverage (and their combined arms philosophy, such as the USAF supporting the USN), especially due to sea-skimming ASM's threatening them. Second, the Soviets/Russians relied on super-deadly individual ships, while the US relied on comparatively less-deadly individual ships and insisted on travelling with a supercarrier at its core, therefore relying on air power as we've established earlier. I looked up the rough number of ships at roughly the same time and they have comparable numbers. The difference really does come down to the carriers and air wings, plus the advantage of USN submarines. After the Soviet Union collapse, the US generally maintained a large number of ships (several hundred), which was more than every other country (except for China as of a couple years ago, as they have more vessels overall, but the US dominates them in tonnage). The largest difference since 1990 is the significant technological advantage and the capability of each ship massively increasing its firepower per the birth of Aegis and VLS. Frigates, destroyers, and cruisers went from those 8 Harpoons and slow-arm launchers with relatively lackluster SM-1 missiles, to housing 96 to 128 missiles of various types and each being more more capable. Soviet Union Navy: Around 1990 5 aircraft carriers (comparable to amphibious carriers/helicopter carriers) 2 helicopter carriers 3 battlecruisers 30 cruisers 45 destroyers 113 frigates 124 corvettes 63 ballistic missile submarines 72 cruise missile submarine 68 nuclear attack submarine 63 conventional attack submarine 9 auxiliary submarines 35 amphibious warfare ships 425 patrol boats US Navy: Around September 1989 BATTLESHIPS 4 CARRIERS 14 CRUISERS 40 DESTROYERS 68 FRIGATES 100 SUBMARINES 99 SSBNS 39 COMMAND SHIPS 4 MINE WARFARE 23 PATROL 6 AMPHIBIOUS 61 AUXILIARY 137 SURFACE WARSHIPS 212 TOTAL ACTIVE 592
What these videos showcase is the fundamental differences between the Soviet and US navies. Soviet ships are almost always designed to be a carrier killer, so against almost any other surface vessel they're overpowered. US ships are designed to protect the carrier and it's air wing, which provides the primary striking power.
What!? No Adams class!? That cuts me to the quick. I served in DDG-24 and DDG-13 of the class. FYI, the Australians had Adams class destroyers and they put phalanx on them. You are correct about the Sunburn being terrifying. When they came out, all of the fire controlmen got to attend the ship’s classified briefing on them. With the detection range being the horizon, the speed of the Sunburn and the range of the SM-1, successful interceptions were unlikely. Also, the SM-1 had and estimated 36% chance of downing any sea skimming missile except for the Styx. Not modeled in your game is the Sunburn’s terminal flight mode, which was a zig zag pattern specifically designed to defeat any sea skimming missile. Not modeled in your game is the terminal flight mode of the sunburn missile. It was a zigzag pattern design specifically designed to defeat phalanx
I'm no expert when it comes to Naval Doctrine's, Technology and/or Armaments. But, with just watching this video and yes I know it's only a simulated game. With that just alone, the only flaw I've noticed in the USS Kidd was the lack anti-ship missile defense's (e.g. additional Sea-wiz) and also the ability to keep up with the Sovremenny's Sunburn missile speed. Besides all that was just said, I enjoyed watching this video. As always I will be and forever be a fan of Naval ships of classes and as always, thanks everyone in Grim Reapers for another grate video and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.
If memory serves, the Kidd class was originally suppose to be going to a nation that liked the USofA before the disappearance of the pro American government. It was said those 4 vessels were VERY well air conditioned because of the environment they were expected to perform in.
They were, 4 instead of 3 AC units so 33 % more capacity and far more capable gas turbine inlet air filter system (we don't want a lot of sand to destroy the gas engine compressor and turbine blades....)
The comment made by @RaiderCBR6.5, "The kid class was like if the USA built a Mustang just for Mexico" is pretty accurate. The 4 Kidd class destroyers were designed and built in the 70's for Iran when the Shah was still in power. When the Ayatollah took over, the US Navy decided to keep them. The technology of the Sunburn is at least 10 years ahead of the Kidds. The Aegis cruisers and destroyers were designed to defeat advanced anti-ship missile threats like the Sunburn. That being said, the Kidds are not Aegis platforms. I am a retired US Navy Electronic Warfare Technician. I can't say much because it's classified, but I can say that there are onboard assets and tactics, that Sea Power doesn't know about or just didn't use, that would have helped the Kidds survive. I'm not saying they would definitely would survive, but they would have had a better chance. Then again, this whole discussion is moot since the last of the 4 Kidd class destroyers, the USS Chandler, was decommissioned in 1999. Let's try this against 4 Ticonderoga class cruisers and see what happens. By the way, the Ticos would also have the same classified assets and tactics the Kidds had that Sea Power still wouldn't use. But I'd still like to see that battle.
@@mfreed40k the hilo's would also be airborne so that they did not add to the conflagration when they got hit with missiles. One thing cap should be doing and all these scenarios is launching the Helios immediately on every ship
The way damage and damage control works is going to change. The developers have stated they don't like way things work currently. A rework is expected at some time. Be patient.
the SA-N-7 single arm launchers are actually reverse engineered mk13 USN launchers the Soviets got hold of some of the plans back in the late 60s I think...
Lovely battle, the game just released into ea so the performance of missiles may not be perfect (harpoons going haywire) and i cant wait to see these battles again after full release.
Despite the Kidds being a major improvement over the Spruances in the AAW department, SM-1 wasn't particularly good against sea skimming missiles. Which is why it slated to be refitted with the NTU and SM-2.
@christopherchartier3017 The main difference between them is that SM-2 has a newer guidance system/auto pilot, thus improving it's probability of kill (especially against sea skimming threats) and longer range (due to more fuel-efficient pathing).
Man for the SN22 4.5 tons with almost 900ms only that KE would wreck most ships lmao. One really interesting thing about these kinds of game is to endlessly explore the armaments and arsenal onboard and you will always learn something new. Spectacular engineering (unfortunately used in the wrong way but yeah in games they are cool😅)
Before watching, I give the advantage to the Sovremenny DDGs and the SS-N-22 Sunburns. Nasty missiles. But the Kidd DDGs are capable of taking the Sunburns down.
Sea Power has a bit of a bias towards soviet military capabilities, soviets claims are so much stronger than the actual capabilities. As in these technically existed in 1983 they weren’t really going to hit anything, the main reason the Egyptian navy hated the export model, so expensive yet so useless.
@@josemiguel8149USS stark was hit by two Exocet's after stark failed to acquire them ciws and ECM also failed. I think the reality is sea skimming missiles in that era were very dangerous
@@bobyolo4912 you are comparing an OHP with 2D air search radar and a nonfunctional Phalanx (due to crew incompetence) that’s hands were tied due to poor rules of engagement(the stark was more than capable of shooting down the Falcon well before it came into Exocet range). To a Kidd with a 3D radar which believe it or not would see sea skimming missiles, now could the guns/cwis/sm1’s hit sea skimming Sunburns? Probably a few, but in the 1980’s they probably wouldn’t have to because the Russians didn’t get them to work until after the Gulf War.
My fellow Wargame Red Dragon players know just how much punishment a Sovremenny or Udaloy II can take. Ain't no way 1 Harpoon will come close to even sinking her, you'd need at least 5 or 6.
harpoons in sea power like to retarget themselves (not sure if that's feature irl) and they also hit hard on most (semi advanced) targets when fired in groups of about 3-4
How big of a fleet can you build on one side? I'd LOVE to see what happens if you took 2 or 3 Kirovs and a carrier with 9 or 10 cruisers and destroyers and put them up against a fleet with 2 or 3 Iowas, a Nimitz and a comparable Cruiser and Destroyer screen. Maybe toss in a couple subs for each side too.
Kidd is an older destroyer and were sold to Taiwan I believe, so the US never upgradred them I think. Burke are more equal when it comes to when it was built
I don't see any resource anywhere that states the Kidd's were armed with SM-1 missiles, they were armed with RIM-66 SM-2MR missiles. The version of P-270 that the Sov's had is also not the version that they have in Sea Power. Not sure what's going on here.
Hey Cap; in an effort to enhance the boom-boom factor, if it's possible to do so in Sea Power, can you add a new third stage as standard to these one vs. one test videos? I propose having a third round, where it's four vs. four ships, and missiles are disabled in the "missile age," as they all rush each other in a cannon/CIWS deathmatch. I really like the way the cannons and magazine cook-offs are modeled. However, there's a decent chance it isn't possible to force both sides to use specific weapons at this time. Maybe with some clever mission design to force both sides to exhaust their ASM's, but it would probably take too much effort.
4:10 9500 tons is lighter than the other 3D equipped ships of that era ... Enterprise and Long Beach while it is comparable to a bunch of the other cruisers with that radar.
Well in reality a mid80’s Harpoon wouldn’t be intercepted by any soviets but the failure rate would be around 10-15% so maybe they modeled that into it.
@@claytonanderson9665it is November 2024, as of yet the only Harpoons that have been intercepted by soviet designed weapons were in video games….it is far more likely that an early Harpoon Block I will fail and fall into the ocean than be intercepted by anything but NATO weaponry.
Couldn't the US DDGs launch their helos in order to extend their radar range and have more time to intercept the Sunburns within SM-1 range? (And of course IRL, the Kidds would have been part of a CSG. A-6s would have dealt with the Sovremenny before it could come within range.)
What I would like to see is what happens if they approach each other from outside radar range. Is there a benefir to the long range missiles without external targeting data?
Ka27 would pick up the Kidd's on radar or esm and feed the data back. Seasprite will pick up the Soviets as well but in a surface vs surface fight the Americans should never get in range. Add a carrier and it's the Soviets that should never get in range
This game clearly biases for Soviet ordnance. I've yet to see a Soviet malfunction in the videos I've watched. Also American ECM and countermeasures never seem to counter missiles. Meanwhile American missiles seem to go swimming instead of attack targets. We've seen first hand how well Soviet technology really works with Ukraine sinking the Moskva, etc.
The moskava was over half a century old and hadn't been taken care of. The Ukraine war showed us exactly what happens when you don't take care of your equipment and extends its life well past what it should have been.
They also conveniently stopped adding American ships JUST before we introduced the mk 41 vls system in 1986. That said the average Soviet ship was designed to pack a serious punch because they’re simply weren’t as many Soviet ships compared to US vessels. The Soviet navy was never a blue water navy and in case of war they were expected to fight extremely outnumbered. So to accurately replicate real life you’d have multiple American ships vs a handful of Soviet ones.
Its not bias, the soviets just had "better" missile and tech for their ships at the time. They didnt have as many US ships but their missiles on paper were alot better
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
Should've used an Adult destroyer instead.
naah use the Senior destroyer.
Back in 1990 I believe, A Udaloy and Sovremenny visited San Diego. My dad and I drove a few hours to watch them leave port. It was a pretty awesome experience for a high schooler and future sailor.
They moored at the same pier our ship was at. Got the non standard tour from their sailors. Their berthing compartments were similar to the ones on Adams class destroyers
The CIWS were literally slapped on as an afterthought because Phalanx was brand new and the US was building the originally six destroyers for the Imperial Iranian Navy. After the contracts were cancelled the US Navy completed 4 and scrapped 2.
The US only really nailed down on the CIWS placement w/ the flight I Arleigh Burkes.
@adamtruong1759 ya because that was the first class of ships designed from the keel up Completely after the Phalanx system was introduced
I found a way for you to control the "enemy side" too! You can also make all units visible to you (not your units) and not rely on AWACS, so you can use more realistic scenarios with radar.
You can also with the debug tool look "under the hood" and see all kind details about the damage model and such. It's quite cool.
Simply while in a mission, click F10.. that enables the debug tool. With that, you can pretty much do ANYTHING.
These videos really show the difference in Naval Doctrine between the Soviets and the Americans.
other than its a game
No way, really?
Yep, the USA was all about airpower with its supercarriers, and the USSR was all about destroying capital ships.
Now I'm starting to understand why the US developed AEGIS :'D
The NTU upgrade of the kidds made them far more powerful warships.
@@Fury-161 The NTU enabled the Tico cruisers to fire the Kidd's missiles remotely without the Kidd having to light up their own fire control radar.
@@FerroEquus-262 NTU also upgraded the kidds to sm2.
The AN-SPY series is with regards to capacity, the successor of the AN/SPS 48E and due to its phased array design also a successor to Long Beach and Enterprise's SCANFAR systems,
What!? No Adams class!? That cuts me to the quick. I served in DDG-24 and DDG-13 of the class. FYI, the Australians had Adams class destroyers and they put phalanx on them.
You are correct about the Sunburn being terrifying. When they came out, all of the fire controlmen got to attend the ship’s classified briefing on them. With the detection range being the horizon, the speed of the Sunburn and the range of the SM-1, successful interceptions were unlikely. Also, the SM-1 had and estimated 36% chance of downing any sea skimming missile except for the Styx.
Not modeled in your game is the Sunburn’s terminal flight mode, which was a zig zag pattern specifically designed to defeat any sea skimming missile.
Not modeled in your game is the terminal flight mode of the sunburn missile. It was a zigzag pattern design specifically designed to defeat phalanx
Something to remember that isn't factored into this game, yet maybe. All this ships are basically like a poker hand, they look really good, the cards u can actually see, but those hole cards can be real stinkers. In this case, hole cards refer to whether the systems are really at 100% operability. Any former sailor can tell you that getting spare parts at sea is very tricky. While the US is good at logistics, even back in the 80s, the USSR wasn't anywhere near our capability. So, well the USSR ships LOOK good and scary, chances were that they were lucky to have.50-75% of those weapons systems operating at full capability. I know a little bit as I was stationed on a Spruance class DD from 85-90 and worked as a Fire Control tech. Thanks for the videos and what a great game I've been waiting for so long for!
You know what they say... "How does a Russian admiral inspect his fleet? With a glass bottom boat!" lol
I met a retired Soviet naval officer in the late 1990s who immigrated to Israel after the Berlin Wall fell. Boris was a very nice man who still loved mother Russia but with a little vodka he would admit that their military was always behind on parts, fuel, ammo, training, and moral. Any shooting war would have led to them getting steam rolled after the "elite" units were taken out. The elite units were the ones shown off to everyone. They were staffed by the spoiled and politically connected but they had all the newest and best in shape stuff but few professional soldiers and sailors. I can't remember what he called them but it was basically the Russian equivalent of snowflake (they melt under a little heat).
The Soviets had some really nasty anti-ship missiles, SS-N-12 Sandbox, SS-N-19 Shipwreck and SS-N-22 Sunburn. All big, fast carrier killers. However, there are ways to defeat them.
There are ways to defeat every missile on this planet
Shipwrecks specifically, had an interval of about 8 years, where bo air defense systwm, including a Tico AEGIS could reasonably intercept them, with their mach3 final approach at wavetop level, even if you count with perfect accuracy for the SM2ER, there simply arnt enough target channels and launch rails to relyably down a salvo before they cross the 20km from radar horizon to target.
In an actual battle it would be unlikely that all 60 shipwrecks would be intercepted.
@@FlyMysticalDJ In a real battle, the US carrier would've sunk that destroyer far out of Sunburn range, which is why the Soviets never pressed their surface-surface missile advantage.
@@jimfrazier8104 In a real battle, the deciding factor would simply have been which side was more willing to risk escalation to a full scale nuclear war.
Whoever starts shooting first is likely going to win the engagement, but if the shooting starts at all, there is a good chance the other side escalates their response. Historically, the Soviets have always been a bit more aggressive (or call it reckless if you will) in the various incidents over the years, so my money wouldn't be on the carrier to be honest.
Which is why major combatants of both sides tended to give each other space, so that exact outcome could be avoided. Only thing close to US carrier groups would have been subs, and that was a whole game on its own and good times for all involved.
Kidd class were sold to Taiwan and are still in service.
And were originally built for Iran!
@ also basically an upgrade of the Spruance class (Tico is also based on a Spruance hull).
Kidd Class was Never deliverd to Iran because of the Revolution, with ist strong AA Focus it was more close to the Cruiser the USN had at that time. Tico was also meant as a destroyer Build on the same hull as Kidd and Spurance but later reclassified to a Cruiser to justify the cost of the expansive Aegis vessel
@@jakoburban2326 do you think the Zumwalt class should actually be a cruiser and not a destroyer?
Kidd, now named Tso Ying, is the oldest DDG in the world still in service, i believe.
Once the Kidds were transferred to USN service they had SM-2MR. Not SM-1-MR, as in the game.
I agree, I do not think Kidds ever sailed under the US flag with SM-1s.
@CAP the Sovremney's carried the 3M80E version of the SS-N-22 sunburn missile which is FAR less capable than the specifications listed for the missile in the ship's menu, and displayed by the missiles in game performance.
3M80E has a range of only 65 nautical miles and a listed flight speed of mach 2.2 to 2.3 (1455-1520 knots). It has a 300kg penetrator warhead and only 150kg of explosive content. the real missile has a maximum flight speed of 1520 kts.
The in game Sovremney has the wrong missile, with specifications well beyond those stated by multiple sources online.
This is just like Strike fleet on PC and c64 in the 90s.
I had that game!
The problem is these missiles have never been used in anger. So everything here is imaginary
one issue I've noticed with this game is that it waits until incoming missiles are in range to load the missile rails. this doesn't affect podded or VLS missiles, but the arm style launchers of the 60s-70s era USN lose quite a few seconds of intercept time. i think they should add some sort of 'Red Alert' function where if incoming fire is detected the whole fleet activates radar and loads missiles.
I live an hour away from the USS kidd, the fletcher class dd from ww2, and have been on her many times great little ship
I grew up there. Many a school field trips to the USS KIDD and nearby planetarium and science museum. 🤣👍
@MikeN-cs8qe yup
I’d love to see you do a video where you push the everything button (as large of a salvo as possible ) taking turns on both sides
Why the huge shift from DCS? The videos are clearly doing well with the views but what set GR apart from the rest of DCS TH-camrs was the great mission setup and camaraderie, alongside the camera work. Wish you success but I miss the DCS content, especially the campaigns you all do!
We have a nice DUNE Campigne!🪱🪱🪱
Grim is a war game nerd and this game is a nerds wet dream
I kind of understand this sentiment tbh, GR had a nice thing going for DCS and I am already seeing content from channels that are 1) closer to the developers 2) actual naval veterans and actually applying realistic naval doctrine. This is cute and all, but GR is roll-playing US taskforces that made MASSIVE mistakes by playing in Sovjet strengths.
@@gunzelloharris3348 loving that!
Sovremenny reminds me of a early ww2 cruiser with the bridge hid behind its armament.
Nice to see you discover the Sunburn. It is truly a beast of a missile. In addition to crazy speeds at really low altitudes, it can also pull 10G evasive maneuvers. Hopefully Sea Power will patch that in.
Considering that Sunbuns weren’t capable of even hitting a target until the early 90’s I doubt they should do anything but model its high failure rates.
yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Since games can only be developed on open source info do we take all weapons claims at face value when the US always undersells their stuff and the Russians/Chinese always massively oversell.
@@kennethschlegel870you have no proof that the Chinese or Russians oversell the weapons capabilities. That is pure cope
Having realistic failure rates for Soviet equipment would be super boring though. ”Sir! The rocket booster failed to ignite properly and the ramjet could never start. Sir! Due to bad tolerances the airframe couldn’t withstand the extreme speed. Sir! The missile couldn’t maintain radar lock because of sea clutter.” You might as well instantly roll for an auto-loss due to a corrupt admiral selling fuel oil on the black market, preventing the Soviets from even leaving port.
@@Bot101101 that's a fair point
Believe the Kid class destroy was meant for Iran navy before their revolution.
So the specifics was up to Iran standards since it was an upgrade version
The CIWS was added as an afterthought to the Kidd-Class. That weapon system wasn't added to the design until late in the process for the ship, so it wasn't part of the layout initially.
The Kidd-class destroyers were heavy because they had two Tartar-D missile launchers added to their Spruance-class predecessors, which increased their displacement by 700 tons. The Kidds were also upgraded with a heavier mainmast and a new superstructure as part of the "New Threat Upgrade".
no they have the Mk26 launcher and its associated SPG51 tracking radars but only 2 tracking radars means they can't control many missiles at once (until they got the NTU update later)
@Wolfe351 the new threat package was added in 88' not sure what time frame this is. If it's early 80's or late 80's.
If DDG absorbed the missiles then it did its job.
Thanks for the video, as always, Cap.
I think this illustrates two things. First, the US doctrine relied on travelling in groups with adequate sensor coverage (and their combined arms philosophy, such as the USAF supporting the USN), especially due to sea-skimming ASM's threatening them. Second, the Soviets/Russians relied on super-deadly individual ships, while the US relied on comparatively less-deadly individual ships and insisted on travelling with a supercarrier at its core, therefore relying on air power as we've established earlier.
I looked up the rough number of ships at roughly the same time and they have comparable numbers. The difference really does come down to the carriers and air wings, plus the advantage of USN submarines.
After the Soviet Union collapse, the US generally maintained a large number of ships (several hundred), which was more than every other country (except for China as of a couple years ago, as they have more vessels overall, but the US dominates them in tonnage). The largest difference since 1990 is the significant technological advantage and the capability of each ship massively increasing its firepower per the birth of Aegis and VLS. Frigates, destroyers, and cruisers went from those 8 Harpoons and slow-arm launchers with relatively lackluster SM-1 missiles, to housing 96 to 128 missiles of various types and each being more more capable.
Soviet Union Navy: Around 1990
5 aircraft carriers (comparable to amphibious carriers/helicopter carriers)
2 helicopter carriers
3 battlecruisers
30 cruisers
45 destroyers
113 frigates
124 corvettes
63 ballistic missile submarines
72 cruise missile submarine
68 nuclear attack submarine
63 conventional attack submarine
9 auxiliary submarines
35 amphibious warfare ships
425 patrol boats
US Navy: Around September 1989
BATTLESHIPS 4
CARRIERS 14
CRUISERS 40
DESTROYERS 68
FRIGATES 100
SUBMARINES 99
SSBNS 39
COMMAND SHIPS 4
MINE WARFARE 23
PATROL 6
AMPHIBIOUS 61
AUXILIARY 137
SURFACE WARSHIPS 212
TOTAL ACTIVE 592
There were 4 kidd class destroyers that we referred to the ayatola class because we sold them to the shah of iran. Never delivered.
They were also known as the 'Dead Admiral' class as they were named after admirals killed in combat.
What these videos showcase is the fundamental differences between the Soviet and US navies. Soviet ships are almost always designed to be a carrier killer, so against almost any other surface vessel they're overpowered. US ships are designed to protect the carrier and it's air wing, which provides the primary striking power.
What!? No Adams class!? That cuts me to the quick. I served in DDG-24 and DDG-13 of the class. FYI, the Australians had Adams class destroyers and they put phalanx on them.
You are correct about the Sunburn being terrifying. When they came out, all of the fire controlmen got to attend the ship’s classified briefing on them. With the detection range being the horizon, the speed of the Sunburn and the range of the SM-1, successful interceptions were unlikely. Also, the SM-1 had and estimated 36% chance of downing any sea skimming missile except for the Styx.
Not modeled in your game is the Sunburn’s terminal flight mode, which was a zig zag pattern specifically designed to defeat any sea skimming missile.
Not modeled in your game is the terminal flight mode of the sunburn missile. It was a zigzag pattern design specifically designed to defeat phalanx
The Sovremenny class was very impressive for its time. Those Sunburn missiles were well ahead of their time.
The AK-130 isn’t ‚radar guided‘, it uses RADAR (and other sensors) for fire control. Big difference!
I was listening to Kidd Destroyer before he made it big.
the kidd class is a spruence with duel arm lanchers, the tico cruzers had them to, first like 5 of the class
Be nicevto see the Sverdlovs. Maybe against the cg conversions and FRAM II Gearings.
I'm no expert when it comes to Naval Doctrine's, Technology and/or Armaments. But, with just watching this video and yes I know it's only a simulated game. With that just alone, the only flaw I've noticed in the USS Kidd was the lack anti-ship missile defense's (e.g. additional Sea-wiz) and also the ability to keep up with the Sovremenny's Sunburn missile speed. Besides all that was just said, I enjoyed watching this video. As always I will be and forever be a fan of Naval ships of classes and as always, thanks everyone in Grim Reapers for another grate video and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.
If memory serves, the Kidd class was originally suppose to be going to a nation that liked the USofA before the disappearance of the pro American government. It was said those 4 vessels were VERY well air conditioned because of the environment they were expected to perform in.
They were, 4 instead of 3 AC units so 33 % more capacity and far more capable gas turbine inlet air filter system (we don't want a lot of sand to destroy the gas engine compressor and turbine blades....)
The comment made by @RaiderCBR6.5, "The kid class was like if the USA built a Mustang just for Mexico" is pretty accurate. The 4 Kidd class destroyers were designed and built in the 70's for Iran when the Shah was still in power. When the Ayatollah took over, the US Navy decided to keep them. The technology of the Sunburn is at least 10 years ahead of the Kidds. The Aegis cruisers and destroyers were designed to defeat advanced anti-ship missile threats like the Sunburn. That being said, the Kidds are not Aegis platforms. I am a retired US Navy Electronic Warfare Technician. I can't say much because it's classified, but I can say that there are onboard assets and tactics, that Sea Power doesn't know about or just didn't use, that would have helped the Kidds survive. I'm not saying they would definitely would survive, but they would have had a better chance. Then again, this whole discussion is moot since the last of the 4 Kidd class destroyers, the USS Chandler, was decommissioned in 1999. Let's try this against 4 Ticonderoga class cruisers and see what happens. By the way, the Ticos would also have the same classified assets and tactics the Kidds had that Sea Power still wouldn't use. But I'd still like to see that battle.
Again, I think the helos onboard would be airborne and aiding in search and track.
@@mfreed40k the hilo's would also be airborne so that they did not add to the conflagration when they got hit with missiles. One thing cap should be doing and all these scenarios is launching the Helios immediately on every ship
The way damage and damage control works is going to change. The developers have stated they don't like way things work currently. A rework is expected at some time. Be patient.
I feel like the ultimate admiral war gaming in sea power
The reason Kidd was so big is that it was a modified Spruance-class. They were huge destroyers.
the SA-N-7 single arm launchers are actually reverse engineered mk13 USN launchers the Soviets got hold of some of the plans back in the late 60s I think...
Now do one of each of the four ships from the last 4 face offs in the same fleet
Lovely battle, the game just released into ea so the performance of missiles may not be perfect (harpoons going haywire) and i cant wait to see these battles again after full release.
Cap you are a master at picking total mismatches
I know there’s a lot that still can be done with the game but to let you know, VLS tico is available now.
Maybe have a tournament based series… with all ships vs all ships. Winner takes all?
It's interesting to see that the Kidds put their helos up.
Just realised, the soviets were EMCON during their defense against the harpoons.
Despite the Kidds being a major improvement over the Spruances in the AAW department, SM-1 wasn't particularly good against sea skimming missiles. Which is why it slated to be refitted with the NTU and SM-2.
What’re the differences between the SM-2 and SM-1 btw?
@christopherchartier3017 The main difference between them is that SM-2 has a newer guidance system/auto pilot, thus improving it's probability of kill (especially against sea skimming threats) and longer range (due to more fuel-efficient pathing).
@@adamtruong1759 K, got it. So basically in all scenarios you’d want SM-2 over SM-1
@@christopherchartier3017 Ideally anyway
Man for the SN22 4.5 tons with almost 900ms only that KE would wreck most ships lmao. One really interesting thing about these kinds of game is to endlessly explore the armaments and arsenal onboard and you will always learn something new. Spectacular engineering (unfortunately used in the wrong way but yeah in games they are cool😅)
Keelung class my beloved
Before watching, I give the advantage to the Sovremenny DDGs and the SS-N-22 Sunburns. Nasty missiles. But the Kidd DDGs are capable of taking the Sunburns down.
Sea Power has a bit of a bias towards soviet military capabilities, soviets claims are so much stronger than the actual capabilities. As in these technically existed in 1983 they weren’t really going to hit anything, the main reason the Egyptian navy hated the export model, so expensive yet so useless.
Missiles are generally op as shit, because they have unrealistically low radar signiture.
@@josemiguel8149USS stark was hit by two Exocet's after stark failed to acquire them ciws and ECM also failed. I think the reality is sea skimming missiles in that era were very dangerous
@@bobyolo4912 you are comparing an OHP with 2D air search radar and a nonfunctional Phalanx (due to crew incompetence) that’s hands were tied due to poor rules of engagement(the stark was more than capable of shooting down the Falcon well before it came into Exocet range). To a Kidd with a 3D radar which believe it or not would see sea skimming missiles, now could the guns/cwis/sm1’s hit sea skimming Sunburns? Probably a few, but in the 1980’s they probably wouldn’t have to because the Russians didn’t get them to work until after the Gulf War.
My fellow Wargame Red Dragon players know just how much punishment a Sovremenny or Udaloy II can take. Ain't no way 1 Harpoon will come close to even sinking her, you'd need at least 5 or 6.
Early access AI has a problem defending itself regardless of which side you play. There's no point in not having the air search radar turned on.
Kidd destroyers were the nicknames for my scouts leader
harpoons in sea power like to retarget themselves (not sure if that's feature irl) and they also hit hard on most (semi advanced) targets when fired in groups of about 3-4
Nice signal flags there Cap!!! xxxx Yeah they are... Did you choose the signal flags on the USS KIDD? Has anybody else decoded them?
How big of a fleet can you build on one side? I'd LOVE to see what happens if you took 2 or 3 Kirovs and a carrier with 9 or 10 cruisers and destroyers and put them up against a fleet with 2 or 3 Iowas, a Nimitz and a comparable Cruiser and Destroyer screen. Maybe toss in a couple subs for each side too.
Kidd is an older destroyer and were sold to Taiwan I believe, so the US never upgradred them I think. Burke are more equal when it comes to when it was built
I don't see any resource anywhere that states the Kidd's were armed with SM-1 missiles, they were armed with RIM-66 SM-2MR missiles.
The version of P-270 that the Sov's had is also not the version that they have in Sea Power.
Not sure what's going on here.
Since the sunburns fly so low, could you set up a defensive formation where you sacrifice one ship and the rest hide behind it?
If you have time try 3 Russian ships versus two of every American destroyer.
Although I don't think it will make much of a difference.
all i will say is i wouldnt want to be a HT having to clean out the cht stuff afterwards lol
Hey Cap; in an effort to enhance the boom-boom factor, if it's possible to do so in Sea Power, can you add a new third stage as standard to these one vs. one test videos?
I propose having a third round, where it's four vs. four ships, and missiles are disabled in the "missile age," as they all rush each other in a cannon/CIWS deathmatch. I really like the way the cannons and magazine cook-offs are modeled.
However, there's a decent chance it isn't possible to force both sides to use specific weapons at this time. Maybe with some clever mission design to force both sides to exhaust their ASM's, but it would probably take too much effort.
I've done this for the next battle and onwards.
I can;t disable missiles but can move into guns range.
can you in the future add the version of Sea Power you are using?
I guess it will help ppl determine if stuff is still relevant as the game balances
I think it show version number at top right of vid? Should do.
A fun exercise, more please!
4:10 9500 tons is lighter than the other 3D equipped ships of that era ... Enterprise and Long Beach while it is comparable to a bunch of the other cruisers with that radar.
Any chance of a guns-only battleship/heavy cruiser/frigate standoff? Many may enter, only one may leave...
Looks like the Sea Power devs have Nerfed American ships and weapons.
or we could have been effected by propaganda.. thats the problem..
I think what happened was it got confused with the chaff and the mother ships gone so it's radars aren't as good
SP would be much nicer in widescreen format
My first question after watching only a few minutes...both shops carry a helo, can tbe helo be used for ECM against the incoming missles in this game?
4 Iowas vs 2 Bismarck at once
4 Iowas vs 2 Yamato at once
4 Iowas vs the “admiral class”
Definitely not a biased American here shh 🤐🤫
I would be curious if the Sunburns can keep that low and fast at a higher range to target.
Nice work. Bit of a hard battle for the American destroyers, still put the Soviet destroyers out of action though, oops, three of them.
I’ve had the harpoons do weird stuff as well. Also some that inexplicably just disappear
I had a harpoon miss a tarautual and then picked up a low flying mig-23 and then shot straight up to the stratosphere lol
@ 😂😂
Well in reality a mid80’s Harpoon wouldn’t be intercepted by any soviets but the failure rate would be around 10-15% so maybe they modeled that into it.
@@josephwhiskeybeale You really think the Soviets wouldn't be able to shoot down a harpoon?
@@claytonanderson9665it is November 2024, as of yet the only Harpoons that have been intercepted by soviet designed weapons were in video games….it is far more likely that an early Harpoon Block I will fail and fall into the ocean than be intercepted by anything but NATO weaponry.
If Russia can use 1984 missiles then the American carrier can use legacy hornets in the battles with carriers.
I think Sunburns are supposed to do some wild jinking
Cap, for the firepower tests you ought to do start with 1v1 then add ships to the losing side intil they win.
The Royal Navy designed GWS25 Seawolf to counter P-270 Moskhit
its nice... but very short range. hope you dont miss
Were the Kidd's radars on? I didn't see the radar antenna rotating.
the radar was not on the US ships 14:42
Good catch! type and edit it as 14:42 and it will show it with a link
The Russian destroyers would never get in range of the American ships.
You'll notice the videos with the Americans lose do a lot worse than the videos when the Soviets or Chinese lose
Cool video!
Cap, could we get a Cuban missile crisis gone wrong? USSR turned back, but what if they hadn’t??!!!
Thanks!
Couldn't the US DDGs launch their helos in order to extend their radar range and have more time to intercept the Sunburns within SM-1 range?
(And of course IRL, the Kidds would have been part of a CSG. A-6s would have dealt with the Sovremenny before it could come within range.)
Well WOW!!! those MF's Are brutal🤯!!! Cool Vid CAP! 😎🤓
What I would like to see is what happens if they approach each other from outside radar range. Is there a benefir to the long range missiles without external targeting data?
Ka27 would pick up the Kidd's on radar or esm and feed the data back. Seasprite will pick up the Soviets as well but in a surface vs surface fight the Americans should never get in range. Add a carrier and it's the Soviets that should never get in range
Its amazing how worthless the USN CIWS is in this game.
Should the Americans turn into the missiles to reduce the target area?
This game clearly biases for Soviet ordnance. I've yet to see a Soviet malfunction in the videos I've watched. Also American ECM and countermeasures never seem to counter missiles. Meanwhile American missiles seem to go swimming instead of attack targets. We've seen first hand how well Soviet technology really works with Ukraine sinking the Moskva, etc.
Cold Waters Epic Mod is the same way, making Soviet/Russian ships overpowered while Nerfing their NATO counterparts.
That is why I stick with Dot Mod.
The moskava was over half a century old and hadn't been taken care of. The Ukraine war showed us exactly what happens when you don't take care of your equipment and extends its life well past what it should have been.
They also conveniently stopped adding American ships JUST before we introduced the mk 41 vls system in 1986. That said the average Soviet ship was designed to pack a serious punch because they’re simply weren’t as many Soviet ships compared to US vessels. The Soviet navy was never a blue water navy and in case of war they were expected to fight extremely outnumbered. So to accurately replicate real life you’d have multiple American ships vs a handful of Soviet ones.
Its not bias, the soviets just had "better" missile and tech for their ships at the time. They didnt have as many US ships but their missiles on paper were alot better
the whole game is pretty much an on paper war
This is not the most one-sided battle so far. Placing a ship commissioned in the 1950s up against a ship commissioned in the 1980s takes the Cake.😂
? Kidd-class destroyers entered service in the late 1970s and early 1980s
@@tonieistotne9471 last video: 1960s Kynda vs 1980's 'leap in technology' Tico.
Glad the cold War stayed cold
I think this one needs another go lol
wonder what they'd do to an Iowa? scratch paint,, or blow the upperworks off?
Could the flight 1 Arleigh Burk's stand up to these?
Soviets v
british and or French 1980s?
Pretty unbelievable.
How about Kanin vs Charles F. Adams?
could the harpoons be being effected by ECM?