We made it through the cold war hopefully we can make it through this. The US and China are big trade partners so its in each other's interests to be chill. The US could potentially solve much of China's energy problems also. Basically we have to see what happens when leadership changes in both countries.
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIALspeaking as someone who came from China and is still in contact with friends back home: almost no Chinese thinks the US wants a direct war with China, but will want to provoke a proxy war between China and one of China’s neighbors to force manufacturing industries to flee the destabilized Asia. Not saying whether this view is correct or not, but this is how we think. The very obvious counter to that is to bring America into the war no matter how far away should a proxy war occur in Asia, hence developing the non-nuclear means to hit even as far as Guam. The hope is that the US will be deterred from provoking proxy war.
In the last missile spam battle, all I can see is that little mutant weapons officer from Gurrenn Lagann screaming and slamming his hands down repeatedly on every button around him, firing everything possible. 😁
@@Dirtyharry70585we don't need nukes to handle the Chinese. They aren't worth that much. Lol. A fleet of B-2's loaded with conventional munitions will turn the Chinese mainland into molten slag and cratered landscape.
same to the big us cities like nyc, la, and dc. Wake up! u r not the usa several decades ago. China is getting more and more lead on weapon technologies. Try to accept it and shake off ur ignorance and arrogance! This is a spam battle. It will not be like this is real battles.
A lot of people either don't know or "forget" when talking US Carrier defense vs hyper-sonic missile that the SM6 was designed for hyper-sonic intercept...it was the original reason it was built.
@Corey Leander tested with conventional MRBM not glidning nor manuevering and with a salvor of 2 sm6s per missile, sounds NOT proven to me as those are not the actual threats.
@@federicorodriguez5705 There are no maneuverable or glide body missiles in service currently. They are all in the experimental stage, the chinese missiles in the video are ballistic ones, not glide bodies
@@megakedar Terminal maneuvering is not a thing in hypersonics. Hypersonics maneuver during the mid-course portion of the flight. But they go way too fast for terminal maneuvers. Some slower cruise missiles have terminal maneuvers but hypersonics do not. That's why hypersonics are much more susceptible to terminal interception than to mid-course interception.
Keep in mind that the USN has other systems on board that are not going to be modelled in this simulation that greatly affect intercept performance, so much so that our CG's can and have shot down satellites from surface to orbit while hitting the satellite in such a way that the Kessler debris falls to earth and burns up in orbit. My cousin was on board the USS Lake Erie when they did that new test back in 2016, and those satellites are moving MUCH faster than hypersonic ballistic missiles do. This is just the information that is publicly available, there are things we don't know about that greatly affect the battlespace.
keep in mind hypersonic weapons aren't Just about speed but about maneuverability. Even doing some basic evasive maneuvers would drastically decrease PK on these missiles.
Also let’s not forget that we can shoot down a satellite using a naval vessel which is cool but Russia shot down a satellite with their newest AA system from the ground.
@@hughmungus2760 PHYSICS is the biggest issue for maneuvering hypersonic projectiles, they MIGHT have SOME "maneuverability" at super high altitudes where the air is thinner, but on terminal phase it would be negligible course correction maneuverability unless they slow down to Khinzal speeds which are clearly easy enough for a PAC-3 CRI to hit and they were never designed to hit hypersonic weapons. You can try to tell me China has some kind of "dark tech magic" that makes it possible but as a pilot I can tell you from practical experience physics does not give a shit about made up stats.
It occours to me that a decoy system would be an effective defense against saturation attacks with balistic missiles. You know the missiels are inbound well before they land yet the missiles are blind durring atmospheric entry and need to aquire targets in a small area and then engage terminal guidance with very little window for correction, we know the shape of the carriers deck and radar reflection are what they target because of chinese target ranges. So deploying a short lived reflective foil parachute in the shape of the carrier deck could likely attract many of the attacking missiles leaving far fewer that need to be intercepted. Each decoy gives you a chance that a 'leakage' missile wastes itself.
I would love to know how a hypersonic missile can be guided onto a target at that speed. At Mach 5 the stagnation temperature in front of an object moving through the air is hotter than 1,000 celsius and at sea level the air is incredibly thick so the rate of heat transfer would be enormous. Mounting a sensitive camera on the front of such a weapon would be very difficult engineering. Likewise I imagine the air around the missile would also become ionised, which would be a problem for radar or radio guidance. Inertial guidance would be a possibility, but if the target is a ship all they'd have to do is change course slightly and the missile would be going to the wrong place. Presumably the Chinese claim to have a solution to this if they have working missiles, but I'd love to know what it is.
We have just recently seen what the super duper wunderwaffe hypersonic Kinczhal of the Russians, that was supposed to be impossible to intercept, did in real life when they launched 6 of them at the Patriot battery in Kiev.
Thank you guys for many hours of entertainment and as missile on missile engagments may appeal to the younger audience, an A6 intruder night time mission at tree top level over hanoi (nod here to Flight of the Intruder) would get the old blood pumping at turbine speed in this old bomb jockey. It would make Apache nape of the earth operations look like a church outing!
I am a Chinese and have two questions: 1. Why do US carrier based fighter jets not take off, provide early warning and attack the People's Liberation Army. 2. Why does the People's Liberation Army only launch 80 anti-ship missiles? According to the PLA's code, when facing a US carrier battle group, the minimum projection is no less than 400 anti-ship missiles of various types.
It also could be that as many other tests and war games, the Chinese have decided to "prove a point" and fashioned a scenario in which they would fare favorably..... Wouldn't be the first time.
I think all sides bias their test to some degree but according to the CSIS the best that America can hope for in a war in the South China Sea is a pyrrhic victory where it sustains enormous naval and air losses to damage Chinese military assets, but the problem with even that barely favorable outcome is that it relies on key factor that won't actually come into existence if this happens for real. That is Japanese involvement in the war, and the reason that won't happen is that China's public policy when it comes to nuclear weapons is a no first strike, with ONE exception and if you guessed that the exception involves Japan joining in a conflict against China you win the prize. The Japanese are well aware of this policy and that is why they will not join America in this foolish endeavor. If the American military was smart it wouldn't even consider venturing into China's back yard, instead it would simply keep China from pushing out past a certain parameter where the Chinese cannot bring their most formidable capabilities into the play. That is a band aid solution however as China will complete it's belt and road initiative and will no longer rely on maritime access to keep it's economy going, the truth is that China's rise as a super power cannot be contained or stopped, America is just going to have to learn how to accept the existence of an equal power that doesn't bow to it's dictates like the rest of the world.
Reminds me of a certain other Asian naval power in WWII. Fantastic planning and execution, but if one little thing went wrong, the Japanese navy fell apart. And they had some _extremely_ optimistic assumptions in many of their wargames, like the Battle of Midway where they assumed they wouldn't be spotted by American carriers or recon planes, and stuck with that assumption well beyond reasonable bounds. As in, the original battleplan was a go, even after American planes started bombing their decks.
Thank you for finally fixing the YJ-21s, they were stupidly nerfed before. Impressive performance from the CV battle group. Although if they deplete their missile stocks too much trying to defend the hypersonics, then YJ-18s or land based/air launched missles can just mop up the remaining ships.
This is disregarding that the carrier would be scrambling its bugs/fat Amy's which with awacs would be capable of missile interception as well, particularly aim120ds and aim260s. And it's also ignoring submarines.
@@Velanestar literally zero chance a carrier is scrambling jets while under attack with hundreds if missiles popping around it + performing evasive manoeuvres. Only after the attack ( if it survived ) it would launch jets for a counter attack.
@@marinuslubbe3993 the carrier would turn and get behind the escort and scramble. And it wouldn't take that long honestly, the pilots would be readying for takeoff and by the time two or three were ready to launch it'd be safe for them to do so- the pilots would fly lower, and to the side of the sams as well.. If the scenario played out like this where they stood Still and the carrier stayed in the center yeah no kidding no pilots gonna give the sams a closer juicer target- but this entire scenario is far from realistic.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 typically a small airwing would be airborne at all times bit they would mostly be equipped with an air to air loadoad with no antiship capabilities.
@@timneaves519 Did you watch till the end, He had 9 ships launch all their missiles as fast as possible and it still only let 1 missile through. and the reason why they did it as one ship launches a volley is due to AI limitations. In addition, the Chinese wargaming they based it off of said the Chinese launched in 3 volleys. Lastly, it is doubtful that if they launch 3 salvo's as a group would be much different than each launching separately, they are already coming in fast as is and the slight vector offset is insignificant for weapon targeting.
I am with Mike on the IR guided suff. That tip must get real hot coming down. The American ir missiles maybe not. But Like the South African Umkhunto might do something
I had a buddy that used to be in the Navy. He said one of the missiles hit mach 2 before it actually got away from the ship. He said you'd hear 2 sonic booms and then it was just gone basically
Thank you very much for the daily informative entertainment!!!! You really don’t know how much it means to some of us! I’ve been watching for a few months and I’m trying to catch up with all your previous videos. Thank you so much again!!!!!!
it's very possible that they might bring back the patriot missle system with hypersonic missle threats and build a small destroyer sized craft or add to carrier, nevermind lasers and railguns
Not sure if modeled or not, but all of the Nimitz Class and Ford Class carriers have upgraded the Legacy Seasparrow system to fire the ESSM. The difference is the ESSM fires from the 8-cell launcher vs VLS. I can provide a little more detail via PM if wanted, as I work with it.
And are fired out of a four pack of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. One four pack per cell so one module of the launcher could house as many as 32 ESSMs. And with Thrust Vector Control steering for the rocket motor, the missiles do not need to launch as high as a Standard Missile and then dive in on the target.
@@Geno-xj9vt You're right, and VLS is much more efficient than the old school which were and still upgrading Legacy Launchers to support ESSM. They want to be able to fire the Block 2 with the TVC, but is proving to be challenging since it's heavier and longer than Block 1 because of the TVC. The Launchers can barely support loading Block 1 cause of weight, but it works, just a pain for the sailors doing the evolution. There are designs on the drawing boards to replace these Launchers on the flat tops with something else simply because we are reaching design limits of 70s tech.
Could type 26 and type 45 defend against this I wonder Also it's incredibly easy to intercept something heading directly for you but if those missiles even slightly attempt to evade then I reckon it's effectiveness will probably double
Nope. I tested it out already. 2 Type 45 and 2 Type 26 vs 2 Type 055. All British ships got deleted from the YJ-21s I ran it 5 times 5/5 times the Type 055 won. Which basically tells you the real probability. Type 45 Destroyer is an old ship with old defense compared to the Type 055 and the Type 26 is made for anti-submarine warfare not for anti-air. It can still help but not vs hypersonic targets. However, It done well vs supersonic sea skimming missiles. The 2 Type 45 and the 2 Type 26 actually defeated 80 supersonic anti-ship missiles. None of them got through.
No shot. First of all consider that Type 45 has half of Burkes VLS cells, worse radar and a significantly less sophisticated combat management system. Also, Aster 15 is probably useless against this and Aster 30 far inferior to SM-6.
The Russians said the same for the Kinzhal vs Patriot, then Patriot swatted them out of the sky irl. Obv its a game of chances and statistically a 45 doesnt have as many chances as a burke, but I wouldnt count them out. Besides DCS can only go so far, and China is a notorious liar
The YJ-21 isn't a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's a ballistic missile. As such they only have very limited maneuverability, good enough for tracking a ship going evasive at 30 knots but nowhere near enough to evade a SAM (SM-3 in particular is capable of mach 10+.) Still an impressive piece of tech but not quite as capable as you seem to think.
Tye thing about evasion at high speed is that you cannot turn near as aggressive at high speeds due to the sheer amount of resistance the air provides. It's like when an aircraft turns hard and rips its wings off. Same thing but imagine 5x faster. The best you can get is a slight deviation in path since it still needs to correct to hit the target. Speed is what kills so no point in bleeding off speed
I'm literally dying of laughter. Each Type 055 destroyer has 112 vertical launch units, but they can only fire eight missiles at a time, and they must be launched simultaneously in the same direction. The distribution pattern of the missiles is like a rectangle. Meanwhile, the Arleigh Burke-class launches several times the number of intercepting missiles like a Gatling gun. The YJ-21 has the capability of ballistic maneuvering, but in this video, it's just moving along a straight line at a uniform speed. Even my grandma could figure out how to intercept such a missile. But as long as you guys are enjoying it, that's all that matters. It would be even better if the Pentagon also believed in this simulation. Good luck~
Would you be able to do a video/scenario showing what a couple of F-35s running as hive-mind with a handful of missile truck F-15/18s by sharing radar via Link 16? And what that might look like against, for example, a Russian air wing made up of a couple Felons running with other Russian Gen4 similar missile trucks? Guessing you'd have to run an AWACS to simulate Link16?
if and its a big IF hypersonic can be intercepted its easy, just send drones, aka Geraniums, .. they cost 20k apiece.. put anti ship missile on them, .. and for one inteceptor missile that costs 1 million ..do the match.. for 1 billion USD you get carrier groupd destroyed 10000% .. while a carrier group costs up to 50 billion USD.. 1 billion USD gives you 50k drones.. seriosuly... carrier groupd literally has no such amount of missiles even if one missile hits and destroys a drone.. 4 destroyers -up to 200 missiles, so 800 missiles, and carrier up to 150 missiles, .. so that is what..good 1k missiles.. well too bad you got another 49 THOUSAND drones going after you.. and you can add up some hypersonic missiles now that carrier group is depleted. this gaming play OP does is lame..doesn't mean anything in real life
Interestingly we've seen in real life combat against hypersonics too. In a recent interview done with a Patriot operator in Ukraine, who shot down a Kinzhal, it was reported the Kinzhal was only at Mach 3.6 when they detected it. The thick air really does degrade the performance of these missiles.
@@xpk0228 @Mark Wilhelmsson It's one thing to travel mach 5 at 40 km altitude. It's quite another to fly mach 5 near the surface of the earth. Your missile WILL burn up, even if it was made of solid tungsten, it life of a missile at mach 5 could be counted in seconds. Not to mention the plasma would blind any guidance. It's also not what Russia OR China claims. They claim transit speeds. That being the TOP speed the missile travels to the target with. NOT striking speed. The amount of energy to maintain mach 5 below 40 km altitude is insane and usually requires a rocket the size of... well, space rockets to maintain. Only reason a Kinzhal can even reach mach 10 is because it is launched from the air and piggyback off of the launch vehicles speed and then it FALLS down to the target, it does NOT boost into the target. Otherwise, feel free to provide some sources claiming otherwise.
Also ive just had a thought. Given the massive heat signature these things have, is it completely implausible that a massively juiced up heat seeking missile lauched by fighters could add a further layer of defense?
Recent real world demostrations have shown that when a "hypersonic" missile is sent to attack the Interceptor launcher, the launcher's PK is between 90-100% when they launch 2 missiles at the hypersonic missile.
hugh mungus yes, with decoys, 90%, you do know that the patriot interceptor has anti countermeasure subroutines built into it's software right? It's designed to operate against aircraft that have jammers, chaff and flare dispensers and towed decoys and other countermeasures. From what we see, after the operators give the system the authorization to launch, the system allocates as many interceptors as needed to get a 90% pk solution then launches them without any futher human intervention until the targets are destroyed.
A while back when hypersonic missiles became a big deal I remember an interview where a Navy spokesman said that they could defend a carrier battle group against a hypersonic missile attack with SM-6 missiles. I guess he had it right. At least in the gaming world.
@@stealth7545 Ballistic Missiles are not Hyperonic Missiles since free fall at hypersonic speed doesn't count, you need to maneuver. Things like Pershing II are borderline case since the warhead do some maneuvering, but it's nowhere comparable to YJ-21(Skip glider) or DF-17(HDV)
Last part of the flight needs to be slow bc of the blackout doing hypersonic speeds .. They talks about it her in the midt to end part of the video .. th-cam.com/video/yOE0-sL0nQ4/w-d-xo.html
@@rasmusmeng2363 that's not right,in the terminal phase,the missile don't need any guide from radio electromagnetic wave signal，they finds the target by themselves。
Sorry to break it to you but the US Naval War College has conducted simulated wargames for four decades of a US attack on China and the US loses every single one of them due to the swarms after swarms after swarms of cheap anti-ship missiles China can launch at the US. And those aren't even hypersonic.
Sadly this is not very accurate. The DF-21 is a maneuverable re-entry vehicle. It has a zig-zagged randomized path and the ability to turn sharply at mach 8+. The SM-6s can't intercept an evading hypersonic threat.
These are YJ-21 which are a significantly modified version of the DF-21. The DF-21D does not maneuver randomly in its terminal phase, it keeps a linear path but its maneuverability allows it to change direction to hit a moving target, that is it.
Hmmm those Chinese missiles fly more like regular ICBMs in game hypersonic missiles don’t fly like that, they bounce up and down near the edge of stratosphere using it's speed similar to stone skipping effect on water And also If the battle happens near Taiwan, it will be within the range of land-based Hypersonic missiles as well as the bomber version, so in the end, the US won’t have enough ammo to fully counter all missiles, and the carrier group won’t be able to get close enough to help Taiwan
If Taiwan are attacked the west's best defence would be to bomb every Taiwanese factory to dust before the Chinese get their hands on them. I can't believe the west have managed to build up such a dependency on Taiwan - particularly as we put the technology and factories there in the first place (Well, Phillips did!)
I think the way to beat a USA Carrier Group is to have a large amount of cheap decoy missiles fired first or mixed in with better missiles to soak up the sm2&3's , exact same strategy as the boghammer scenario used in wargames. It's a simple idea & could be relatively cheap & effective.
You'd have to have cheap hypersonic decoys. Radars can and do identify threats based on speed and altitudes. You'd be able to see which missile is which. Sure, you would still have to go for all of them. But you could designate which missiles are going for the hypersonic targets and which go for the slower ones. If you are going to build a hypersonic decoy....you might as well throw a fuse and some explosives in it too and just make it a legit missile.
Problem with cheap dummy missles is they aren't that cheap once the flight and guidance are factored and each still needs a expensive launch platform with its own logistical footprint.
@@mrspeigle1 Exactly my point. After spending that much to make a decoy...you aren't far off from just finishing it and making an actual weapon. Might as well just make the real thing.
Why do you think UA ran dry of AA missiles? Cheap drones. Any army whose leader have half a neuron or more would be taking notes and should be revising their strategies. The Ukraine war is the first large scale modern warfare in human history, where modern weaponry were matched against each other and against attrition.
That's the issue with these simulation. It assumes a Carrier Strike group will be transiting so close to China and without maneuvers. Realistically the U.S has enough intelligence capabilities to detect a possible attack well in advanced. Just look at the war in Ukraine. U.S knew the invasion was going to happen months ahead and is able to provide Ukraine with possible effective targets. Never underestimate U.S logistical and intelligence capabilities. It's second to none.
The Chinese did put carrier sized target onto S shaped rails to simulate evasive maneuver at 30+ knot. How good is the accuracy? No one knows, maneuvering target is something they considered when testing the missiles.
@@thomaszhang3101 There is actually no proof the their DF-17 can hit a moving ship. They built the mock carrier in the desert, but nothing really came of it. I find it hard to image the CCP wouldn't brag about hitting a moving target with a DF-17 if they did it. China loves its propaganda and a video of a moving mock carrier being hit would be too good to pass.
Well... while active manoeuvring added on the fleet, think about the same ability and real speed(M10~15) back on those YJ21... I prefer not, this simulation is fine enough...
17:12 The entire PLAN's 055 fleet in about a year (they only have 8 of those relatively cheap Super DDGs or Cruisers right now; at least when compared to Burke Flight III costs), as of now they plan 16 total, so that is the theoretical max---for the near future at least.
Sorry to keep commenting. Another scenario you could consider is the F-35's airborne to defend the carrier. I have no idea what added benefit they offer - but possibly a combination of sensor and AAM capabilities (but this capability needs to be developed). Could also be interesting to see what would happen if the Chinese also launched various types of anti-ship missiles from a different direction (and then add to that, defending carrier aircraft).
Something tells me a ship based radar is much more capable than a fighter based one. And no weapon f-35 carries can touch a hypersonic vehicle. So it would become reasonable either against slower threats, or with the advent of aircraft-based direct energy weapons, though again, a ship based DEW will be more capable than an aircraft based one.
Aim120ds and aim260s with awacs guidance could likely shoot down missiles. And if I were the pilot of the jet and it meant saving hundreds to thousands of lives....well....lay on the grenade so to speak.
Could the SM6 be re-program to a different target if they miss the initial intercept? i.e. if a SM6 miss the intended target, it can be retargeted to a different target?
IRL yes but I don’t think DCS could handle something like that. In general, US missile systems (especially USN’s AEGIS) and missiles themselves are all DataLinked, so they can detect targets collectively, hand off missile guidance to one another, and change targets as they see fit. I think Navy has had a similar capability for years now thanks to the AEGIS but a land-based example of that networking would be that now, thanks to IBCS, Patriot missiles not only are going to be able to be guided by different ground-based radars (they could do that for a while) but also by aircraft like the F-35.
Really great video here. The one thing I kept in the back of my mind that I don’t know if DCS can model very well (though I don’t have a way of testing this) is the ability for a hypersonic missile to effective hit a moving target on open ocean across vast distances. How accurate and precise will these hypersonic missiles be? That alone might account for some misses, but I know DCS-while seemingly quite an accurate simulation using publicly available information in many situations-is still limited on all of the things it can do.
Why does DCS not simulate use of chaff dispensers and Nulka decoys? These are historically effective, particularly against such a fast moving target with limited sensor abilities.
DCS unfortunately severely lags behind in modeling naval systems, as it's first and foremost a flight simulator. I would like to see the SLQ-32 modeled as well. It's kind of silly not having naval electronic warfare modeled at all.
@@surefresh8412 exactly. I am a CMO fan, and I run similar engagements testing different ROE and threat priorities, and it uses optimistic specs for Chinese weapons, but also attempts to model the SLQ-32 which is perhaps the most classified hardware in the US military, and can turn radar fidelity to hash for at least a short period of time, which is all you need. The Nulka has been successfully deployed against Houthi missiles fired on USS Mason and it decoyed them as expected. Presumably it can create false radar targets for a nearly blind hypersonic missile whose sensors are degraded by a massive pressure wave at the nose of the projectile. Chaff is a mixed bag, because it can also interfere with CIWS tracking, but a ballistic missile is not going to be engaged with CIWS, so Chaff would be generously deployed in these scenarios, creating dozens of false returns. There is a reason why the US Navy prefers slower sea skimmers. Missile speed and sensor performance and ability to course correct are inversely proportional. Fast missile sensors lose fidelity by increasingly dense heated air at sea level which creates friction and heating problems that radar transparent surfaces have problems with. Likewise, at hypersonic speeds at low altitude any minor air disturbance has the potential to steer the projectile off course by hundreds to thousands of meters in an instant.
Your hypersonic missiles are just ballistic, they have zero maneuverability. They do not make changes on their trajectory neither do they perform velocity changes. They are also slower than what China's specs claim. The slowing down because of the atmosphere is over exaggerated, such missiles only expose themselves the last 2-5 seconds to "deep" atmosphere (let's say less than 5km altitude). They typically fly at 20+km altitude. Hypersonic missiles might also carry decoys to trick the defenses. The whole simulation is good for our pleasure to watch but it's in no way close to a military class simulation.
Why wouldn't any attacking force fire a barrage of cheaper missile that they expected to be intercepted first; and then once the defensive missile stockpiles are depleted fire the more expensive hypersonic ones?
@@BaseSerpentMessmer I wonder how difficult it would be for CH to take Grim Reapers version of F-22 Raptor and Mod it into The Super Raptor! Through The NGAD program The Raptor is receiving a slew of upgrades, as its being used as a stop gap solution for The NGAD program! Upgrades-- GR already have AIM-260 JATM in DCS, HMD, Link 16, Functioning Thrust Vectoring Model, and Chrome Stealth Coating! Giving The Super Raptor moderate reduction of IR signature, slight reduction of RCS, faster acceleration, and top end speed not having to worry about melting the RAM off! Lol that's just what I've been able to research, I'm sure I may have missed something, lol and I'm sure there's more that is simply classified ;)
SM-3s are much more potent than what most people think, reference "Operation Burnt Frost" where one shot down a satellite. It will be decades before a missile is fast enough to reliably evade anti-air capabilities.
The official simba fan club would like to thank GR and CH for showing the defensive capabilities of an American Carrier Battle Group, and it's important to note the carrier had no birds in the air which is almost certainly unreleastic, however little difference they may make. Combined arms warfare also means you're not just getting hit with Hypersonic weapons but electronic warfare and attack from submarines and even potentially space platforms. This simulation is a very small piece of a much larger picture that would be going in an actual offensive by China. America has spent a lot of effort learning how to effectively utilize it's combined arms making their coordination the best in the world. USA USA USA
@Grim Reapers - CAP, I definitey love the video! The U.S. Navy would not put its ships that close together in formation, even in an attempt to protect the carrier. About the only time you will see a CSG that close together in formation is for "photo ops" (i.e., taking photos of the CSG). LOL Multiple different reasons exist as well for not doing that. 1.) It makes all the ships an easier target (collectively) when they are close together. 2.) It defeats the effective use of radars and sensor engagement capabilities. 3.)The carrier would not be able to execute evasive maneuvers, and 4.) Ships that close together would not have the ability to shoot multiple times. They are all firing at the same time from the same general bearing/vector. Spreading out ships within a CSG allows different units the ability to engage targets at different distances, time intervals, from different vectors, and gives more chances to engage and destroy the target before it actually makes it to the carrier. 6:50 - He is talking about the Navy's RIM-116 "Rolling Airframe Missile" (RAM) - it is considered a point defense weapon.
Of the original Chinese claim, an interesting approach to these rare opportunities to learn and grow. Whereas a similar wargame in a western armed force would almost certainly have been tailored to ensure the failure of the Blue Force, thus to optimise the learning opportunity, the PLA treat these as a platform for political statements and an opportunity to gain political capital. [Shrugs].
Exactly. It was a propaganda piece and that's it. The U.S Military does war games all the time, but rarely do you hear about the outcomes. The reason is because the U.S conducts war games to learn and improve not to pat themselves in the back. The U.S intentionally makes the scenarios extremely difficult.
Thats just what youd think but I read the article and it says the opposite. The simulation was conducted by researchers from North University from China and not the PLA. Their lead researcher Cao said The underlying principle of the war game was to be “lenient with the enemy and strict with oneself". They claimed several constraints were placed on the Chinese military in the simulation, such as a lack of access to spy satellites stationed in space and a limited number of hypersonic missiles. I think it would be naive to think China doesnt try to learn from war games similar to the US and merely rigs it to win everytime simply to make themselves feel good, they might have political intentions but Chinese arent stupid people.
@@FloofyMinariThats just what you WANT to believe, reality is China isnt much different from US in their mentality. Read the original article about the simulation, its obvious many people commenting here havent bothered reading it and making assumptions thinking theyre all right about it.
Well, this isn't surprising, we knew the US could shoot down hypersonics in the terminal phase but what we don't know is how the US will use non-kinetic means to dispute the kill chain. We also don't know how the hypersonic would react to the ships moving, EW, other countermeasures. We also know the US is working on extending that same capability further out, meaning they want to hit these hypersonics like the YJ-21/other before they enter the terminal phase. What the US needs is more satellites capable of detecting, tracking, and locking these missiles to knock them out. The problem is time, they move so fast it would be hard for even the best to get everything right with so little time.
A maneouvreing hypersonic makes your notion that you suggest of intercepting them further out completely fruitless. Interceptors would be getting sent to false locations.
@@jamesrowlands8971 At the end of the day you just need to put *something* in the way of the missile. Difficult, but not impossible. And when you have the kind of budget America does it isn't a matter of "if" they'll find a way to counter, it's "when". This is ignoring the most obvious answer, a directed-energy system. And with the nuclear power of American Super-Carriers, there's no issues with making sure it has the energy to do its job. Also, remember. In a real-world scenario, China isn't getting more than one shot, because there's no way for them to defend their launchers from American airstrikes.
@@jamesrowlands8971 No one said it would be easy, but that is why the new satellite program is so important. They need to be able to track/lock exactly where it is or may be for the missile to also change course. Another aspect is that if these hypersonic missiles are moving at extreme speeds they will not be turning on a dime and will certainly slowdown everytime they maneuver. So, yes it will be difficult but not impossible. After they get the right systems in place they will likely start testing. They are already developing an upgrades SM-3/6 with extended range. I can also imagine they are devoping other classifed ways of defeating "hypersonics".
@@rickjames18 it's not a question of whether it's easy or not. It's a question of very basic geometry. It's just not possible and no amount of magical thinking makes it so.
@@RaptorJesus ok. So you're going to build and place a missile system more capable than Patriot over every 10 sq km of vulnerable territory? I mean you're technically correct (the best kind) that it's possible to put something in between a hypersonic and it's target but there's a point at which economic considerations come into play. Can you deploy 10,000 missiles over your territory to defend your 1,000 point targets against a barrage of 10 hypersonics? Assuming your missiles can hit and intercept every incoming target. Should you build this many systems to defend against so few? Or should you just learn to accept the fact that you can't defend everything all at once and adapt to the new reality?
Ballistic missile defense isn't easy, but it is possible and the US has been improving theirs for decades. What I want to see is how they'd fare against hypersonic glide vehicles... or better yet, ramjet powered hypersonic cruise missiles.
Why didn't you run the test to its end? It would have been interesting to see how the chinese ship defend against the carrier group once they have fired all their missiles 🙂
cn ships got more missiles at base cause the ship is larger, i remember they did a test and both sides just fired all of their missiles and did no damage
@@hkfoo3333 the YJ-21 are classed as hypersonics, and this simulation was partially realistic. There is a defence against them as all you have to do is intercept the misiles.
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman It is impossible to Intercept the YJ21 . It approaches the ships at hypesonic and terminal evading measures like zig zaging to its target. Today there is no defence. Fact is fact. China today can beat any US carrier group anywhere on earth once there are enough Type 055 carrying the yj21. China is building more and more. Know this there is no defence against China's df17, df21, yj21 and df26 hypersonic missile. It is like getting a 70 year old man running to try to stop an Olympic 100 meters champion esp when the champion runs in a zig zag manner. See my point?
the PC seems to be so low because of the targets already being destroyed instead of missiles losing track. with datalink between ships the PC would probably be closer to 50%
It's a big if that these ballistic missiles can hit moving targets in the first place. Conventional wisdom says that it's very hard for an object in a ballistic arc (like an artillery shell) to be guided towards a moving target thousands of miles away.
What about trying to model energy weapons? Already operational in the US navy. Technically it's not kinetic so probably easier to model, considering lensin or dimming should also be pretty streight forward. I always wonder about the effect of non kinetic defense as a countermeasures to hypersonics.
Directed energy weapons are absolutely the future...my sense is that this is the reason the US is trailing in hypersonic weapons, because they are so much closer to Lasers being available. No missile will be a problem for weapons shooting beams traveling at the speed of LIGHT
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 Wouldn't the energy from the laser be additive to the already high heat the missiles are dealing with? There will be a max heat level the missiles can take. I imagine a small amount of damage to the heat shield could be catastrophic.
The carrier itself would defend itself better if the RIM-116s actually worked and didn’t just plunge into the sea instantly. For future vids, I think your best video in recent memory was the N Korea versus S Korea. While the AI did admirably it overloaded the server so humans couldn’t play. Maybe you could redo that but scale down proportionally the AI components.
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman i think you're picturing a missile doing sharp angle maneuvers when all it takes is changing the course by a few degrees in one or multiple directions midair to make it no longer a ballistic trajectory. also ive seen videos that china has been testing a new missile that goes hypersonic and then seemingly flip 180 degrees.
@@lyin4rmu A missile going Hypersonic and flipping 180? Im not a physics Master but thats impossible. As for the first part, no anything more than maybe 2 or 3 degrees at that speed would destroy it or make it malfunction, and that slight change of course wont get you that far from where it was orginally going,
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman china is also developing a supersonic boron powered submersible missile that cruises at commercial airline altitudes and then descends into sea skimming mode just above the water and then finally dives under the water for its final approach.
What you are considering is that the Chinese simulation depends on the Carrier remaining stationary. also, the massive retaliation from our icbm missiles from submarines, B2 bombers and other assets.
I'd love to see the PAC3 added to both the destroyers and cruisers since it has been announced that they're being configured for the launch tubes on those ships.
@@gamm8939 The USN should deploy them, if for no other reason than to break Raytheon's near-monopoly over missiles launched from those VLS cells. Also, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see a Patriot battery just set up on an amphibious assault ship's deck sometime in the future, because that's just how the Marines roll.
@@mage3690 yeah let’s deploy a far inferior system just to mess with Raytheon. I have no clue what capability the PAC-3 is supposed to have that isn’t covered by SM-2, 3 and 6.
@@gamm8939 you know, I was assuming that the PAC-3 MSE missiles would be a lot cheaper than an SM-6, but it turns out they're not. SM-3s _are_ massively expensive, though, at double an SM-6 or PAC-3 MSE, which are roughly equal.
I wonder if we could ever see what a full, coordinated attack and defense would look like, with ballistic missiles/YJ-21s on the red side that are followed up with air-launched antiship cruise missiles like the YJ-12 and YJ-100 combined with a wing of fighters screening the missiles, while the blue CV would have the entire carrier wing active in BARCAP defense mode. Might be too resource-intensive.
Technically, ballistic missiles with greater than around 300 km range are hypersonic. I think these are in hypersonic cruise mode, though, with the rocket providing continuous thrust most of the way to the target, and a much flatter trajectory.
Most long range ballistic missiles are hypersonic - that essentially what Kinzhal is - a 1970s ballistic missile turned on its side and launched from an aircraft. It's hopelessly inaccurate - but you only have to get lucky once!
@@LondonSteveLee Sure, but they don't have to be particularly long-range. The German V-2 could reach Mach 5 on the way down at its longest range of about 300 km. As ballistic missiles just get faster the longer range they have, _everything_ longer-ranged than a V-2 is hypersonic. As to _Kinzhal_ I think it depends on how advanced the tech used in the missile is. When the Russians use it as a terror-weapon against civilian targets - very V-2 like - they don't bother with much beyond the inertial platform. If they've got a worthwhile target, like a regimental HQ or a _Patriot_ battery, say, they'll unpack the Western electronics and let it use satellite nav and terminal homing. But that's expensive, and irreplaceable at the moment. Meanwhile we don't really know how accurate they are, since so few of them have reached worthwhile targets. The _Patriot_ launcher that was damaged last month seems to have been hit by debris from a late interception, and the Russians may have put all the optional extras in those.
Yes, aircraft carriers have been obsolete for decades now. We keep building them because they represent an unimaginable level of expense in two simple words justifying astronomical levels of spending. Which is why we have eleven of them and you will never see one near Russia or China.
Western wargames and exercises are for training. Chinese and Russian war games and exercises are for demonstration. Two different purposes. Tbe US always loses (or gets beat up winning) in US war games b/c the game is designed such that the US must be almost perfect and every benefit is given to the enemy. The whole purpose of this Chinese game was propoganda. I mean, they’ve never put out info about any times they have lost…only when they win.
Exactly. China and Russia publicize their winning games for domestic propaganda as well as for deterrence, since they know they're not as advanced as the US. The US publicizes its losses and rough wins to justify higher defense spending. Since they exist in a democracy, the US military knows they at least need some public support for their enormous budget. They also use these results to persuade congressmen to fund whatever it is the military thinks is highest priority.
Many people fail to understand that winning a war game should be impossible if done correctly. Its meant to show what your deficient in not what works, all US war games are made to be basically impossible to win so the military planners can see what failed and why. Whenever you see Russia or China win a war game that means that they made the game incorrectly and any data gained is worthless.
Correct, exercises and wargames only have value if you can learn something from it and expose weaknesses you wouldn’t have otherwise seen. It’s one of the only opportunities to stress-test your doctrine and organisation in worst case scenarios other than the real thing. It would serve no purpose to conduct wargames just to make things easier than how they would play out in real life just to make you feel better about yourself.
Looks like the Navy should work on a "secondary target" software. All those missiles that missed the incoming hypersonic, should then continue to the firing point of the hyper so they're not wasted.
depending on the missile, the ability for beam riding missiles to switch targets in mid flight has been around since the late sixties. More modern missiles tend to use semi active guidance or a GPS/active homing system which reduces ships radio emmisions signature and defeats RWR systems until the missile goes active in the terminal phase of the attack. AEGIS has the capability to signal outgoing missiles to alter the flight profile of the GPS system to rearget the missile. You must remember that this is DCS and not real life, its a simulator on a small computer with limited capability. The fact that missiles do not reaquire new targets is down to the fact that it's not in the game.
This is a rather odd simulation - don't you think? You have one missile at first - and it evades like 20 counter missiles before getting hit. In the final simulation, you fire 80 hypersonic missiles and they get shot down at nearly 1-1 ratio. You don't think this is rather odd? Another oddity is that the hypersonic missiles appear to be shot down with ease right next to the ships, before the counter missiles are able to gain any speed. Essentially, there's something seriously off about these numbers and the simulation in general. Not your fault, but the software.
I'm advertising my ignorance here but if they're ballistic missiles, can they maneuver? I thought the whole point of a ballistic missile is that it went straight at what you pointed them at?
@@joelrasdall7662 Ballistic missiles ar a category that use ballistic trajectory to reach destination. This does not exluce possibility for them to maneuver along the way. Some can do that....
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman except that they have to because they are guided.... they have to compensate for the differrence in presure, temperature, wind... so they are guided and they do maneuver.
A large enough swarm of anything will take down a Carrier, even with the integrated Air and Missile defense provided by its support group. The question isn't "Could the thing blah, blah, blah?" The question is "How many of the things are necessary to ensure blah, blah, blah?" If the Chinese have enough of the things (which they might not) the next question is, "Have they reached level of FAaFO yet?" That said, this looks like a pretty good depiction of such an engagement. Well done 😁!
A more realistic attack would be to attack from multiple vectors with a variety of different missiles and decoys and then launch the hypersonic missile at the right moment, this attack has no strategy behind it.
Yea and the us navy has no planes in the air at all other than an awacs that would also be attacking the Chinese ships in this situation or (depending on aesa f35 and f18 radar) even be targeting the missiles as well.
They are just testing individual elements. In any case, how would an enemy force achieve this "multiple vector" attack? The Chinese ships are going to be 300 miles apart by themselves? Does that sound smart?
@@bagelmaster2498 strictly speaking in this simulation the chinese ships are suppose to represent land based launchers from 2000+ km away. US planes wouldn't even be able to go that far let alone loiter over chinese airspace to find and destroy the launchers.
CH got it wrong again, the YJ-21 does not slow down in its terminal phase, it actually speeds up to Mach ten. It can also be launched from H6 bombers. In the future, the Chinese might put them on their 095 submarines. If you really want to win against the CSG, go full combined arms once the kinks with the subs are ironed out. We also need the DF-21 and DF-26 in the game. DCS has a lot of catching up to do with the times.
It won't really matter much even if it was Mach 10, the YJ-21 is a ballistic hypersonic missile, so the path is not that unpredictable. Anyways it is developed from the DF-21D so it's very similar and comparing that to this won't yield drastically different results. Same goes for the DF-26. Now, the DF-ZF on the other hand, would prove to be a very difficult challenge because it is a maneuverable glide body, when it comes out, of course.
can't America use airplanes for missile defense? I imagine they have better reaction time, because you drop the boost time, and ofcourse, more is always better
because planes don't carry any missile designed to operate outside of the atmosphere. Which is where the DF21d and DF26 will be travelling for the majority of their flight.
The problem with this test is everything I have read about hypersonic weapons is that hypersonic weapons has an unpredictable trajectory to its target. These missiles appear to be on a standard ballistic missile trajectory. We know the carrier group can defend against this type of threat. Remember the German V2 rocket was traveling faster than Mach 5 in the 1940s on re-entry. It is the up, down, left, right that occurs during flight that makes it difficult to shoot down. Russia Kinzhal missile is said to be hypersonic by Russian officials, but patriot batteries are having a level of success taking them out because of the standard trajectory.
The Kinzhal and YJ-21 are just called hypersonic missiles for propaganda purposes. The Kinzhal is just an air launched version of the Iskander short range ballistic missile and the YJ-21 is just a ship launched version of the DF-21 medium range ballistic missile.
@@collinwood6573yeah that is exactly what I read. I wonder if GS / DCS could replicate a real hypersonic missile? They are basically testing a ballistic missile defense in this video.
Why? How? The CCP would be more than happy to have a nuclear exchange with anyone if the winner gets to take all - they have a huge land mass and lots and lots of people - a hundred+ million people outside their borders too. Bomb three or four US cities and the country would immediately collapse - the Chinese people are used to misery, hunger, shortages, tyranny - they would soldier on dutifully to the last breath.
Fun fact, the f35 intigrates with the agis system, in theory it should be possible for a f35 to act as a additional counter missle platform.
Sensor fusion and data link is a total cheat code lmao
F35's are a fantastic mini AWACS platform!
THIS, AMRAAM's can be used to target incoming missiles when programmed correctly.
Up up down down a b start
true but i doubt an amraam could hit a missile at mach 7
I would like to see a combined attack with hypersonic balistics, cruiser and super sonic low altitude missiles
See HypOps
china wont be able to pull off such an attack anyway, that's quite hard to pull off
Tall order son.
@@OscarZheng50You should have said that to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not here.
@@OscarZheng50 Get close enough to the chinese coast and its quite possible.
This is both entertaining and terrifying! I hope we never have to see if GR is right.
From latest US wargames and simulations the US would win in the end but at the loss of at least 2 carriers
We made it through the cold war hopefully we can make it through this. The US and China are big trade partners so its in each other's interests to be chill. The US could potentially solve much of China's energy problems also. Basically we have to see what happens when leadership changes in both countries.
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIALspeaking as someone who came from China and is still in contact with friends back home: almost no Chinese thinks the US wants a direct war with China, but will want to provoke a proxy war between China and one of China’s neighbors to force manufacturing industries to flee the destabilized Asia.
Not saying whether this view is correct or not, but this is how we think.
The very obvious counter to that is to bring America into the war no matter how far away should a proxy war occur in Asia, hence developing the non-nuclear means to hit even as far as Guam.
The hope is that the US will be deterred from provoking proxy war.
If GR would have shown China winning. Then China would launch their attack....lol
@@thomaszhang3101 as long a China doesn’t attack Taiwan the US will keep to themselves
In the last missile spam battle, all I can see is that little mutant weapons officer from Gurrenn Lagann screaming and slamming his hands down repeatedly on every button around him, firing everything possible. 😁
It’s the multiple launch from the Ohio class sub setting the top ten Chinese cities and bases into 10,000 degrees sun spots.
@@Dirtyharry70585we don't need nukes to handle the Chinese.
They aren't worth that much. Lol.
A fleet of B-2's loaded with conventional munitions will turn the Chinese mainland into molten slag and cratered landscape.
same to the big us cities like nyc, la, and dc. Wake up! u r not the usa several decades ago. China is getting more and more lead on weapon technologies. Try to accept it and shake off ur ignorance and arrogance! This is a spam battle. It will not be like this is real battles.
Na just the AEGIS program crunching numbers
@@Dirtyharry70585nuclear war bad
A lot of people either don't know or "forget" when talking US Carrier defense vs hyper-sonic missile that the SM6 was designed for hyper-sonic intercept...it was the original reason it was built.
Designed, but not successfully tested
@@federicorodriguez5705 wdym? Look at the test record, plenty of MRBM intercepts, amongst many other target types
@Corey Leander tested with conventional MRBM not glidning nor manuevering and with a salvor of 2 sm6s per missile, sounds NOT proven to me as those are not the actual threats.
@@federicorodriguez5705 There are no maneuverable or glide body missiles in service currently. They are all in the experimental stage, the chinese missiles in the video are ballistic ones, not glide bodies
@@nicholaslee5473chinese had glided hypersonic missiles for years
Holy cow I am throughly impressed by the carrier group's and aegis' ability at defending the carrier against 80 hypersonic missiles
i mean its never been tried so this is at best conjecture.
@@islandwills2778 None of these simulations take into account terminal maneuvering, so they are treated as simple ballistic missiles.
@@megakedar Terminal maneuvering is not a thing in hypersonics. Hypersonics maneuver during the mid-course portion of the flight. But they go way too fast for terminal maneuvers. Some slower cruise missiles have terminal maneuvers but hypersonics do not. That's why hypersonics are much more susceptible to terminal interception than to mid-course interception.
@@megakedar yeah because they are? You cant maneuver while being hypersonic in lower atmosphere.
And now imagine Carrier Strike Group 5 at full potential, the Reagan, three Ticos and nine Burkes.
Keep in mind that the USN has other systems on board that are not going to be modelled in this simulation that greatly affect intercept performance, so much so that our CG's can and have shot down satellites from surface to orbit while hitting the satellite in such a way that the Kessler debris falls to earth and burns up in orbit. My cousin was on board the USS Lake Erie when they did that new test back in 2016, and those satellites are moving MUCH faster than hypersonic ballistic missiles do. This is just the information that is publicly available, there are things we don't know about that greatly affect the battlespace.
keep in mind hypersonic weapons aren't Just about speed but about maneuverability. Even doing some basic evasive maneuvers would drastically decrease PK on these missiles.
Also let’s not forget that we can shoot down a satellite using a naval vessel which is cool but Russia shot down a satellite with their newest AA system from the ground.
And also electronic jammer that is also classified capabilities
@@hughmungus2760 PHYSICS is the biggest issue for maneuvering hypersonic projectiles, they MIGHT have SOME "maneuverability" at super high altitudes where the air is thinner, but on terminal phase it would be negligible course correction maneuverability unless they slow down to Khinzal speeds which are clearly easy enough for a PAC-3 CRI to hit and they were never designed to hit hypersonic weapons.
You can try to tell me China has some kind of "dark tech magic" that makes it possible but as a pilot I can tell you from practical experience physics does not give a shit about made up stats.
@@Spartan536 Yeah, wouldn't any attempt to make drastic maneuvers at that velocity tear the missile apart due to atmospheric friction?
“This outcome can not be possible. The Chinese missiles were clearly pointy” Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen
The American weapons were pointier.
*bointy
Very Aladeen argument. I am Aladeenly convinced.
It occours to me that a decoy system would be an effective defense against saturation attacks with balistic missiles. You know the missiels are inbound well before they land yet the missiles are blind durring atmospheric entry and need to aquire targets in a small area and then engage terminal guidance with very little window for correction, we know the shape of the carriers deck and radar reflection are what they target because of chinese target ranges. So deploying a short lived reflective foil parachute in the shape of the carrier deck could likely attract many of the attacking missiles leaving far fewer that need to be intercepted. Each decoy gives you a chance that a 'leakage' missile wastes itself.
Definitely the US knows this their just not bragging about it
I would love to know how a hypersonic missile can be guided onto a target at that speed. At Mach 5 the stagnation temperature in front of an object moving through the air is hotter than 1,000 celsius and at sea level the air is incredibly thick so the rate of heat transfer would be enormous. Mounting a sensitive camera on the front of such a weapon would be very difficult engineering. Likewise I imagine the air around the missile would also become ionised, which would be a problem for radar or radio guidance. Inertial guidance would be a possibility, but if the target is a ship all they'd have to do is change course slightly and the missile would be going to the wrong place. Presumably the Chinese claim to have a solution to this if they have working missiles, but I'd love to know what it is.
“黑障”通讯技术已经在中国神舟飞船返回仓上使用很久，有相关论文以及发射过程中无间断的飞船舱内画面说明，可以自行查阅，不过是中文的。
Changing the frequency of the radar I think. At the same time that is one hot glowing ball that will show up on every radar and IR
It's a threat based weapon. And as we've seen in real life, don't underestimate the country that is decades ahead of everyone else in missile tech
We have just recently seen what the super duper wunderwaffe hypersonic Kinczhal of the Russians, that was supposed to be impossible to intercept, did in real life when they launched 6 of them at the Patriot battery in Kiev.
If I had to guess, probably some type of command guidance from a satellite with INS.
I can only imagine how hectic it would be in CIC onboard during this irl
Thank you guys for many hours of entertainment and as missile on missile engagments may appeal to the younger audience, an A6 intruder night time mission at tree top level over hanoi (nod here to Flight of the Intruder) would get the old blood pumping at turbine speed in this old bomb jockey. It would make Apache nape of the earth operations look like a church outing!
I am a Chinese and have two questions: 1. Why do US carrier based fighter jets not take off, provide early warning and attack the People's Liberation Army. 2. Why does the People's Liberation Army only launch 80 anti-ship missiles? According to the PLA's code, when facing a US carrier battle group, the minimum projection is no less than 400 anti-ship missiles of various types.
He just wants to test the YJ21. He is NOT testing a saturation attack with multiple different systems.
It also could be that as many other tests and war games, the Chinese have decided to "prove a point" and fashioned a scenario in which they would fare favorably..... Wouldn't be the first time.
Exactly this, they would never tell you if they ran a simulation and lost the battle.
I'm sure it was something akin to, "We ran *a scenario and won*..." Perhaps an EMP device just prior to the Hypersonic barrage?
@@ryanshannon6963 quite possible
I think all sides bias their test to some degree but according to the CSIS the best that America can hope for in a war in the South China Sea is a pyrrhic victory where it sustains enormous naval and air losses to damage Chinese military assets, but the problem with even that barely favorable outcome is that it relies on key factor that won't actually come into existence if this happens for real.
That is Japanese involvement in the war, and the reason that won't happen is that China's public policy when it comes to nuclear weapons is a no first strike, with ONE exception and if you guessed that the exception involves Japan joining in a conflict against China you win the prize.
The Japanese are well aware of this policy and that is why they will not join America in this foolish endeavor. If the American military was smart it wouldn't even consider venturing into China's back yard, instead it would simply keep China from pushing out past a certain parameter where the Chinese cannot bring their most formidable capabilities into the play.
That is a band aid solution however as China will complete it's belt and road initiative and will no longer rely on maritime access to keep it's economy going, the truth is that China's rise as a super power cannot be contained or stopped, America is just going to have to learn how to accept the existence of an equal power that doesn't bow to it's dictates like the rest of the world.
Reminds me of a certain other Asian naval power in WWII. Fantastic planning and execution, but if one little thing went wrong, the Japanese navy fell apart. And they had some _extremely_ optimistic assumptions in many of their wargames, like the Battle of Midway where they assumed they wouldn't be spotted by American carriers or recon planes, and stuck with that assumption well beyond reasonable bounds. As in, the original battleplan was a go, even after American planes started bombing their decks.
Thank you for finally fixing the YJ-21s, they were stupidly nerfed before.
Impressive performance from the CV battle group. Although if they deplete their missile stocks too much trying to defend the hypersonics, then YJ-18s or land based/air launched missles can just mop up the remaining ships.
This is disregarding that the carrier would be scrambling its bugs/fat Amy's which with awacs would be capable of missile interception as well, particularly aim120ds and aim260s.
And it's also ignoring submarines.
@@Velanestar literally zero chance a carrier is scrambling jets while under attack with hundreds if missiles popping around it + performing evasive manoeuvres. Only after the attack ( if it survived ) it would launch jets for a counter attack.
@@marinuslubbe3993 the carrier would turn and get behind the escort and scramble.
And it wouldn't take that long honestly, the pilots would be readying for takeoff and by the time two or three were ready to launch it'd be safe for them to do so- the pilots would fly lower, and to the side of the sams as well..
If the scenario played out like this where they stood Still and the carrier stayed in the center yeah no kidding no pilots gonna give the sams a closer juicer target- but this entire scenario is far from realistic.
@@marinuslubbe3993unrealistic scenario, aircraft would be kept in the air at all times in such a situation irl
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 typically a small airwing would be airborne at all times bit they would mostly be equipped with an air to air loadoad with no antiship capabilities.
My information said the Arleigh Burkes modeled were flight 2a and an older gen tyke. With only SM3 and SM6 missiles.
Shouldn't you have had 8 chinese ships each with 3 missiles to better replicate the 3 salvos of 8 missiles in each?
The Chinese don't have 8 Type 055 destroyers in the first place.
Be honest guys this is silly, can you imagine soldiers attacking a strong point one at a time?
@@carrier-buff they do
@@timneaves519 Did you watch till the end, He had 9 ships launch all their missiles as fast as possible and it still only let 1 missile through. and the reason why they did it as one ship launches a volley is due to AI limitations. In addition, the Chinese wargaming they based it off of said the Chinese launched in 3 volleys. Lastly, it is doubtful that if they launch 3 salvo's as a group would be much different than each launching separately, they are already coming in fast as is and the slight vector offset is insignificant for weapon targeting.
@@hhll8408 they don't have 8, they are having 16 soon
Thank you so much for trying this! Hopefully this never gets tested in the real world.
I am with Mike on the IR guided suff. That tip must get real hot coming down. The American ir missiles maybe not. But Like the South African Umkhunto might do something
The fact that there is no ecm and decoys makes this simulation impressive
I had a buddy that used to be in the Navy. He said one of the missiles hit mach 2 before it actually got away from the ship. He said you'd hear 2 sonic booms and then it was just gone basically
Thank you very much for the daily informative entertainment!!!! You really don’t know how much it means to some of us! I’ve been watching for a few months and I’m trying to catch up with all your previous videos. Thank you so much again!!!!!!
it's very possible that they might bring back the patriot missle system with hypersonic missle threats and build a small destroyer sized craft or add to carrier, nevermind lasers and railguns
Not sure if modeled or not, but all of the Nimitz Class and Ford Class carriers have upgraded the Legacy Seasparrow system to fire the ESSM. The difference is the ESSM fires from the 8-cell launcher vs VLS. I can provide a little more detail via PM if wanted, as I work with it.
And are fired out of a four pack of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. One four pack per cell so one module of the launcher could house as many as 32 ESSMs. And with Thrust Vector Control steering for the rocket motor, the missiles do not need to launch as high as a Standard Missile and then dive in on the target.
@@Geno-xj9vt You're right, and VLS is much more efficient than the old school which were and still upgrading Legacy Launchers to support ESSM. They want to be able to fire the Block 2 with the TVC, but is proving to be challenging since it's heavier and longer than Block 1 because of the TVC. The Launchers can barely support loading Block 1 cause of weight, but it works, just a pain for the sailors doing the evolution. There are designs on the drawing boards to replace these Launchers on the flat tops with something else simply because we are reaching design limits of 70s tech.
Could type 26 and type 45 defend against this I wonder
Also it's incredibly easy to intercept something heading directly for you but if those missiles even slightly attempt to evade then I reckon it's effectiveness will probably double
Nope. I tested it out already. 2 Type 45 and 2 Type 26 vs 2 Type 055. All British ships got deleted from the YJ-21s I ran it 5 times 5/5 times the Type 055 won. Which basically tells you the real probability. Type 45 Destroyer is an old ship with old defense compared to the Type 055 and the Type 26 is made for anti-submarine warfare not for anti-air. It can still help but not vs hypersonic targets. However, It done well vs supersonic sea skimming missiles. The 2 Type 45 and the 2 Type 26 actually defeated 80 supersonic anti-ship missiles. None of them got through.
No shot. First of all consider that Type 45 has half of Burkes VLS cells, worse radar and a significantly less sophisticated combat management system. Also, Aster 15 is probably useless against this and Aster 30 far inferior to SM-6.
The Russians said the same for the Kinzhal vs Patriot, then Patriot swatted them out of the sky irl. Obv its a game of chances and statistically a 45 doesnt have as many chances as a burke, but I wouldnt count them out. Besides DCS can only go so far, and China is a notorious liar
The YJ-21 isn't a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's a ballistic missile. As such they only have very limited maneuverability, good enough for tracking a ship going evasive at 30 knots but nowhere near enough to evade a SAM (SM-3 in particular is capable of mach 10+.) Still an impressive piece of tech but not quite as capable as you seem to think.
Tye thing about evasion at high speed is that you cannot turn near as aggressive at high speeds due to the sheer amount of resistance the air provides. It's like when an aircraft turns hard and rips its wings off. Same thing but imagine 5x faster. The best you can get is a slight deviation in path since it still needs to correct to hit the target. Speed is what kills so no point in bleeding off speed
I always feel so valued for my viewing here
This is important I find.
The missile guidance system went full tilt in this video
I'm literally dying of laughter. Each Type 055 destroyer has 112 vertical launch units, but they can only fire eight missiles at a time, and they must be launched simultaneously in the same direction. The distribution pattern of the missiles is like a rectangle.
Meanwhile, the Arleigh Burke-class launches several times the number of intercepting missiles like a Gatling gun. The YJ-21 has the capability of ballistic maneuvering, but in this video, it's just moving along a straight line at a uniform speed. Even my grandma could figure out how to intercept such a missile. But as long as you guys are enjoying it, that's all that matters. It would be even better if the Pentagon also believed in this simulation. Good luck~
Would you be able to do a video/scenario showing what a couple of F-35s running as hive-mind with a handful of missile truck F-15/18s by sharing radar via Link 16? And what that might look like against, for example, a Russian air wing made up of a couple Felons running with other Russian Gen4 similar missile trucks? Guessing you'd have to run an AWACS to simulate Link16?
if and its a big IF hypersonic can be intercepted its easy, just send drones, aka Geraniums, .. they cost 20k apiece.. put anti ship missile on them, .. and for one inteceptor missile that costs 1 million ..do the match.. for 1 billion USD you get carrier groupd destroyed 10000% .. while a carrier group costs up to 50 billion USD.. 1 billion USD gives you 50k drones.. seriosuly... carrier groupd literally has no such amount of missiles even if one missile hits and destroys a drone.. 4 destroyers -up to 200 missiles, so 800 missiles, and carrier up to 150 missiles, .. so that is what..good 1k missiles.. well too bad you got another 49 THOUSAND drones going after you.. and you can add up some hypersonic missiles now that carrier group is depleted.
this gaming play OP does is lame..doesn't mean anything in real life
Does DCS even model all that?
@CheapSushi I'm hoping they can mod it if its not that hard.
Interestingly we've seen in real life combat against hypersonics too. In a recent interview done with a Patriot operator in Ukraine, who shot down a Kinzhal, it was reported the Kinzhal was only at Mach 3.6 when they detected it. The thick air really does degrade the performance of these missiles.
The patriot did not shoot down the kinzal... west media is bullshit
Can you give a link to the interview? its a big news if its just mach 3 as most ballistic missile is faster than that.
@@xpk0228doubt there is a link, because it's false. If there is an actual interview, then it's full of lies lol.
@@xpk0228 @Mark Wilhelmsson It's one thing to travel mach 5 at 40 km altitude. It's quite another to fly mach 5 near the surface of the earth. Your missile WILL burn up, even if it was made of solid tungsten, it life of a missile at mach 5 could be counted in seconds. Not to mention the plasma would blind any guidance.
It's also not what Russia OR China claims. They claim transit speeds. That being the TOP speed the missile travels to the target with. NOT striking speed. The amount of energy to maintain mach 5 below 40 km altitude is insane and usually requires a rocket the size of... well, space rockets to maintain.
Only reason a Kinzhal can even reach mach 10 is because it is launched from the air and piggyback off of the launch vehicles speed and then it FALLS down to the target, it does NOT boost into the target. Otherwise, feel free to provide some sources claiming otherwise.
AFU didn't shoot down any kinzhal, the picture they showed with a man standing by it was of an empty 500 kg bunker buster bomb casing.
Also ive just had a thought. Given the massive heat signature these things have, is it completely implausible that a massively juiced up heat seeking missile lauched by fighters could add a further layer of defense?
Recent real world demostrations have shown that when a "hypersonic" missile is sent to attack the Interceptor launcher, the launcher's PK is between 90-100% when they launch 2 missiles at the hypersonic missile.
Hitting decoys don't count. You know the Khinzal drops those right?
@@hughmungus2760 Weird if they only hit decoys how come we didn't see any kinzhal hits around that patriot system?
hugh mungus yes, with decoys, 90%, you do know that the patriot interceptor has anti countermeasure subroutines built into it's software right? It's designed to operate against aircraft that have jammers, chaff and flare dispensers and towed decoys and other countermeasures. From what we see, after the operators give the system the authorization to launch, the system allocates as many interceptors as needed to get a 90% pk solution then launches them without any futher human intervention until the targets are destroyed.
@@hughmungus2760 has anyone checked to see if they are still sending kinzhal's after the Kyiv battery?
@@pogo1140 stuff is still blowing up in Kyiv.
A while back when hypersonic missiles became a big deal I remember an interview where a Navy spokesman said that they could defend a carrier battle group against a hypersonic missile attack with SM-6 missiles. I guess he had it right. At least in the gaming world.
You need 3-4 SM-6 to stop one
@@stealth7545 Ballistic Missiles are not Hyperonic Missiles since free fall at hypersonic speed doesn't count, you need to maneuver. Things like Pershing II are borderline case since the warhead do some maneuvering, but it's nowhere comparable to YJ-21(Skip glider) or DF-17(HDV)
Last part of the flight needs to be slow bc of the blackout doing hypersonic speeds ..
They talks about it her in the midt to end part of the video .. th-cam.com/video/yOE0-sL0nQ4/w-d-xo.html
@@rasmusmeng2363 that's not right,in the terminal phase,the missile don't need any guide from radio electromagnetic wave signal，they finds the target by themselves。
@@玉自寒-b7l okay but then it cant hit moving targets lika a carrier only a static target
Sorry to break it to you but the US Naval War College has conducted simulated wargames for four decades of a US attack on China and the US loses every single one of them due to the swarms after swarms after swarms of cheap anti-ship missiles China can launch at the US. And those aren't even hypersonic.
Sadly this is not very accurate. The DF-21 is a maneuverable re-entry vehicle. It has a zig-zagged randomized path and the ability to turn sharply at mach 8+. The SM-6s can't intercept an evading hypersonic threat.
These are YJ-21 which are a significantly modified version of the DF-21. The DF-21D does not maneuver randomly in its terminal phase, it keeps a linear path but its maneuverability allows it to change direction to hit a moving target, that is it.
Don't think hypersonic missiles are designed to fly in a straight line..... Lol
Hmmm those Chinese missiles fly more like regular ICBMs in game
hypersonic missiles don’t fly like that, they bounce up and down near the edge of stratosphere using it's speed similar to stone skipping effect on water
And also If the battle happens near Taiwan, it will be within the range of land-based Hypersonic missiles as well as the bomber version, so in the end, the US won’t have enough ammo to fully counter all missiles, and the carrier group won’t be able to get close enough to help Taiwan
If Taiwan are attacked the west's best defence would be to bomb every Taiwanese factory to dust before the Chinese get their hands on them. I can't believe the west have managed to build up such a dependency on Taiwan - particularly as we put the technology and factories there in the first place (Well, Phillips did!)
@@LondonSteveLee Yes, the West should bomb TSMC, they will have to import their chips from Mainland instead of Taiwan
they cant turn like that once they are in the atmosphere
Caps pumping out the videos. Love it
I think the way to beat a USA Carrier Group is to have a large amount of cheap decoy missiles fired first or mixed in with better missiles to soak up the sm2&3's , exact same strategy as the boghammer scenario used in wargames.
It's a simple idea & could be relatively cheap & effective.
You'd have to have cheap hypersonic decoys. Radars can and do identify threats based on speed and altitudes. You'd be able to see which missile is which. Sure, you would still have to go for all of them. But you could designate which missiles are going for the hypersonic targets and which go for the slower ones. If you are going to build a hypersonic decoy....you might as well throw a fuse and some explosives in it too and just make it a legit missile.
Problem with cheap dummy missles is they aren't that cheap once the flight and guidance are factored and each still needs a expensive launch platform with its own logistical footprint.
@@mrspeigle1 Exactly my point. After spending that much to make a decoy...you aren't far off from just finishing it and making an actual weapon. Might as well just make the real thing.
Why do you think UA ran dry of AA missiles? Cheap drones. Any army whose leader have half a neuron or more would be taking notes and should be revising their strategies. The Ukraine war is the first large scale modern warfare in human history, where modern weaponry were matched against each other and against attrition.
@@dharmdevil I'm pretty sure the Iraqi Republican Guard (or rather what's left of it) would disagree
What would happen if you add active maneuvering by the US fleet?
Yeah they made themselves as easy a target as possible by not changing heading or speed. But still only one at most getting through.
That's the issue with these simulation.
It assumes a Carrier Strike group will be transiting so close to China and without maneuvers.
Realistically the U.S has enough intelligence capabilities to detect a possible attack well in advanced.
Just look at the war in Ukraine. U.S knew the invasion was going to happen months ahead and is able to provide Ukraine with possible effective targets.
Never underestimate U.S logistical and intelligence capabilities. It's second to none.
The Chinese did put carrier sized target onto S shaped rails to simulate evasive maneuver at 30+ knot.
How good is the accuracy? No one knows, maneuvering target is something they considered when testing the missiles.
@@thomaszhang3101 There is actually no proof the their DF-17 can hit a moving ship.
They built the mock carrier in the desert, but nothing really came of it.
I find it hard to image the CCP wouldn't brag about hitting a moving target with a DF-17 if they did it.
China loves its propaganda and a video of a moving mock carrier being hit would be too good to pass.
Well... while active manoeuvring added on the fleet, think about the same ability and real speed(M10~15) back on those YJ21... I prefer not, this simulation is fine enough...
It would be interesting to see how it goes with the US Carrier Moving in a elusive pattern and at max speed (30+ knots)?
The missiles would fall into the ocean.
The Hypersonic misiles have little to 0 manoeuvrability, would make the sam even more effective likely
I really like the way cap talks, it’s delicious.
good work at always! btw, the last wave was 8x9=72 hypersonic missiles, right?
17:12 The entire PLAN's 055 fleet in about a year (they only have 8 of those relatively cheap Super DDGs or Cruisers right now; at least when compared to Burke Flight III costs), as of now they plan 16 total, so that is the theoretical max---for the near future at least.
Sorry to keep commenting. Another scenario you could consider is the F-35's airborne to defend the carrier. I have no idea what added benefit they offer - but possibly a combination of sensor and AAM capabilities (but this capability needs to be developed). Could also be interesting to see what would happen if the Chinese also launched various types of anti-ship missiles from a different direction (and then add to that, defending carrier aircraft).
Something tells me a ship based radar is much more capable than a fighter based one. And no weapon f-35 carries can touch a hypersonic vehicle.
So it would become reasonable either against slower threats, or with the advent of aircraft-based direct energy weapons, though again, a ship based DEW will be more capable than an aircraft based one.
Aim120ds and aim260s with awacs guidance could likely shoot down missiles.
And if I were the pilot of the jet and it meant saving hundreds to thousands of lives....well....lay on the grenade so to speak.
Lmao, the captions keep calling the Kinzhal ~ King Charles 😂😂😂😂👌
Could the SM6 be re-program to a different target if they miss the initial intercept? i.e. if a SM6 miss the intended target, it can be retargeted to a different target?
I think yes. But that likely applies for sea skimming missiles only.
IRL yes but I don’t think DCS could handle something like that. In general, US missile systems (especially USN’s AEGIS) and missiles themselves are all DataLinked, so they can detect targets collectively, hand off missile guidance to one another, and change targets as they see fit.
I think Navy has had a similar capability for years now thanks to the AEGIS but a land-based example of that networking would be that now, thanks to IBCS, Patriot missiles not only are going to be able to be guided by different ground-based radars (they could do that for a while) but also by aircraft like the F-35.
Really great video here. The one thing I kept in the back of my mind that I don’t know if DCS can model very well (though I don’t have a way of testing this) is the ability for a hypersonic missile to effective hit a moving target on open ocean across vast distances. How accurate and precise will these hypersonic missiles be? That alone might account for some misses, but I know DCS-while seemingly quite an accurate simulation using publicly available information in many situations-is still limited on all of the things it can do.
Why does DCS not simulate use of chaff dispensers and Nulka decoys? These are historically effective, particularly against such a fast moving target with limited sensor abilities.
DCS unfortunately severely lags behind in modeling naval systems, as it's first and foremost a flight simulator. I would like to see the SLQ-32 modeled as well. It's kind of silly not having naval electronic warfare modeled at all.
@@surefresh8412 exactly. I am a CMO fan, and I run similar engagements testing different ROE and threat priorities, and it uses optimistic specs for Chinese weapons, but also attempts to model the SLQ-32 which is perhaps the most classified hardware in the US military, and can turn radar fidelity to hash for at least a short period of time, which is all you need. The Nulka has been successfully deployed against Houthi missiles fired on USS Mason and it decoyed them as expected. Presumably it can create false radar targets for a nearly blind hypersonic missile whose sensors are degraded by a massive pressure wave at the nose of the projectile. Chaff is a mixed bag, because it can also interfere with CIWS tracking, but a ballistic missile is not going to be engaged with CIWS, so Chaff would be generously deployed in these scenarios, creating dozens of false returns.
There is a reason why the US Navy prefers slower sea skimmers. Missile speed and sensor performance and ability to course correct are inversely proportional. Fast missile sensors lose fidelity by increasingly dense heated air at sea level which creates friction and heating problems that radar transparent surfaces have problems with. Likewise, at hypersonic speeds at low altitude any minor air disturbance has the potential to steer the projectile off course by hundreds to thousands of meters in an instant.
Arent they built to avoid incomming missiles thats just a balistic missile
Your hypersonic missiles are just ballistic, they have zero maneuverability. They do not make changes on their trajectory neither do they perform velocity changes.
They are also slower than what China's specs claim. The slowing down because of the atmosphere is over exaggerated, such missiles only expose themselves the last 2-5 seconds to "deep" atmosphere (let's say less than 5km altitude). They typically fly at 20+km altitude.
Hypersonic missiles might also carry decoys to trick the defenses.
The whole simulation is good for our pleasure to watch but it's in no way close to a military class simulation.
They also forget black zone, but dcs probably can't simulate it
they also dont use american fighters that can shot doown missiles, or use american ECM or use proper american tactics
I... did not see that coming... Interesting.
American military industrial complex says "Hold my beer" Lex Friedman
Why wouldn't any attacking force fire a barrage of cheaper missile that they expected to be intercepted first; and then once the defensive missile stockpiles are depleted fire the more expensive hypersonic ones?
They underestimate anyone who is Russian, Chinese, or anybody not Western and thinks we are unable to process something called strategy.
CH please create the following-- BLU-129, SM-6 Block 1B, Truck Mounted Modular SM-6, B61 Mod 12, AGM-129A, Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System with NSM, Avenger Air Defense System, Starstreak THOR, Oerlikon Skynex, Stryker IM-SHORAD, THAAD, Strategic Long Range Cannon, General Atomics Hypersonic Blitzer Cannon, AEGIS Ashore, HACM, CPS, LRHW, Rotation Detonation Missile GAMBIT, and Stryker DE M-SHORAD!
He'll probably have them done by dinner😂
@@BaseSerpentMessmerlol he is the man!😆👍
@@Anarchy_420 fr
@@BaseSerpentMessmer I wonder how difficult it would be for CH to take Grim Reapers version of F-22 Raptor and Mod it into The Super Raptor! Through The NGAD program The Raptor is receiving a slew of upgrades, as its being used as a stop gap solution for The NGAD program! Upgrades-- GR already have AIM-260 JATM in DCS, HMD, Link 16, Functioning Thrust Vectoring Model, and Chrome Stealth Coating! Giving The Super Raptor moderate reduction of IR signature, slight reduction of RCS, faster acceleration, and top end speed not having to worry about melting the RAM off! Lol that's just what I've been able to research, I'm sure I may have missed something, lol and I'm sure there's more that is simply classified ;)
@anarchy4202 hmm interesting, did know this but I would live to see it
SM-3s are much more potent than what most people think, reference "Operation Burnt Frost" where one shot down a satellite. It will be decades before a missile is fast enough to reliably evade anti-air capabilities.
The official simba fan club would like to thank GR and CH for showing the defensive capabilities of an American Carrier Battle Group, and it's important to note the carrier had no birds in the air which is almost certainly unreleastic, however little difference they may make. Combined arms warfare also means you're not just getting hit with Hypersonic weapons but electronic warfare and attack from submarines and even potentially space platforms. This simulation is a very small piece of a much larger picture that would be going in an actual offensive by China. America has spent a lot of effort learning how to effectively utilize it's combined arms making their coordination the best in the world. USA USA USA
Gotta remind people where all the money goes sometimes
Don't spoil the kids fun ;)
@Grim Reapers - CAP, I definitey love the video! The U.S. Navy would not put its ships that close together in formation, even in an attempt to protect the carrier. About the only time you will see a CSG that close together in formation is for "photo ops" (i.e., taking photos of the CSG). LOL
Multiple different reasons exist as well for not doing that. 1.) It makes all the ships an easier target (collectively) when they are close together. 2.) It defeats the effective use of radars and sensor engagement capabilities. 3.)The carrier would not be able to execute evasive maneuvers, and 4.) Ships that close together would not have the ability to shoot multiple times. They are all firing at the same time from the same general bearing/vector. Spreading out ships within a CSG allows different units the ability to engage targets at different distances, time intervals, from different vectors, and gives more chances to engage and destroy the target before it actually makes it to the carrier.
6:50 - He is talking about the Navy's RIM-116 "Rolling Airframe Missile" (RAM) - it is considered a point defense weapon.
Of the original Chinese claim, an interesting approach to these rare opportunities to learn and grow. Whereas a similar wargame in a western armed force would almost certainly have been tailored to ensure the failure of the Blue Force, thus to optimise the learning opportunity, the PLA treat these as a platform for political statements and an opportunity to gain political capital. [Shrugs].
Exactly.
It was a propaganda piece and that's it.
The U.S Military does war games all the time, but rarely do you hear about the outcomes.
The reason is because the U.S conducts war games to learn and improve not to pat themselves in the back.
The U.S intentionally makes the scenarios extremely difficult.
Thats just what youd think but I read the article and it says the opposite. The simulation was conducted by researchers from North University from China and not the PLA. Their lead researcher Cao said The underlying principle of the war game was to be “lenient with the enemy and strict with oneself". They claimed several constraints were placed on the Chinese military in the simulation, such as a lack of access to spy satellites stationed in space and a limited number of hypersonic missiles. I think it would be naive to think China doesnt try to learn from war games similar to the US and merely rigs it to win everytime simply to make themselves feel good, they might have political intentions but Chinese arent stupid people.
@@FloofyMinariThats just what you WANT to believe, reality is China isnt much different from US in their mentality. Read the original article about the simulation, its obvious many people commenting here havent bothered reading it and making assumptions thinking theyre all right about it.
The Chinese missiles on their ships, fly at Mach 10. To answer this question, yes they can and they can do it with two type 55 destroyers. That’s it.
The real YJ-21 can maneuver during the final phase.
But how are they tracking their target?
@@kerbalairforce8802 by using wz-8
Ok so say they can, that would mean they would have to slow down a lot, which actually makes it easier to intercept them
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman no need slow down, don’t use american logic bcoz they didn’t have technology on control missile during plasma zone
@@Vincent-xz2bj I aint using American logic. Im using physics.
A moving fleet would be even harder to target by hypersonic missiles.
Well, this isn't surprising, we knew the US could shoot down hypersonics in the terminal phase but what we don't know is how the US will use non-kinetic means to dispute the kill chain. We also don't know how the hypersonic would react to the ships moving, EW, other countermeasures. We also know the US is working on extending that same capability further out, meaning they want to hit these hypersonics like the YJ-21/other before they enter the terminal phase. What the US needs is more satellites capable of detecting, tracking, and locking these missiles to knock them out. The problem is time, they move so fast it would be hard for even the best to get everything right with so little time.
A maneouvreing hypersonic makes your notion that you suggest of intercepting them further out completely fruitless. Interceptors would be getting sent to false locations.
@@jamesrowlands8971 At the end of the day you just need to put *something* in the way of the missile. Difficult, but not impossible. And when you have the kind of budget America does it isn't a matter of "if" they'll find a way to counter, it's "when". This is ignoring the most obvious answer, a directed-energy system. And with the nuclear power of American Super-Carriers, there's no issues with making sure it has the energy to do its job.
Also, remember. In a real-world scenario, China isn't getting more than one shot, because there's no way for them to defend their launchers from American airstrikes.
@@jamesrowlands8971 No one said it would be easy, but that is why the new satellite program is so important. They need to be able to track/lock exactly where it is or may be for the missile to also change course. Another aspect is that if these hypersonic missiles are moving at extreme speeds they will not be turning on a dime and will certainly slowdown everytime they maneuver. So, yes it will be difficult but not impossible. After they get the right systems in place they will likely start testing. They are already developing an upgrades SM-3/6 with extended range. I can also imagine they are devoping other classifed ways of defeating "hypersonics".
@@rickjames18 it's not a question of whether it's easy or not. It's a question of very basic geometry. It's just not possible and no amount of magical thinking makes it so.
@@RaptorJesus ok. So you're going to build and place a missile system more capable than Patriot over every 10 sq km of vulnerable territory? I mean you're technically correct (the best kind) that it's possible to put something in between a hypersonic and it's target but there's a point at which economic considerations come into play. Can you deploy 10,000 missiles over your territory to defend your 1,000 point targets against a barrage of 10 hypersonics?
Assuming your missiles can hit and intercept every incoming target.
Should you build this many systems to defend against so few? Or should you just learn to accept the fact that you can't defend everything all at once and adapt to the new reality?
Ballistic missile defense isn't easy, but it is possible and the US has been improving theirs for decades. What I want to see is how they'd fare against hypersonic glide vehicles... or better yet, ramjet powered hypersonic cruise missiles.
Why didn't you run the test to its end? It would have been interesting to see how the chinese ship defend against the carrier group once they have fired all their missiles 🙂
cn ships got more missiles at base cause the ship is larger, i remember they did a test and both sides just fired all of their missiles and did no damage
fact is there will be no carriers left to shoot anything.
There is no defence vs cruise type of hypersonic ... like df17 and df21
@@hkfoo3333 the YJ-21 are classed as hypersonics, and this simulation was partially realistic. There is a defence against them as all you have to do is intercept the misiles.
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman It is impossible to Intercept the YJ21 .
It approaches the ships at hypesonic and terminal evading measures like zig zaging to its target.
Today there is no defence.
Fact is fact. China today can beat any US carrier group anywhere on earth once there are enough Type 055 carrying the yj21.
China is building more and more.
Know this there is no defence against China's df17, df21, yj21 and df26 hypersonic missile.
It is like getting a 70 year old man running to try to stop an Olympic 100 meters champion esp when the champion runs in a zig zag manner. See my point?
the PC seems to be so low because of the targets already being destroyed instead of missiles losing track. with datalink between ships the PC would probably be closer to 50%
Except, never happen in real life ---- China's hypersonics are maneuverable.
Can't be intercepted.
It's a big if that these ballistic missiles can hit moving targets in the first place. Conventional wisdom says that it's very hard for an object in a ballistic arc (like an artillery shell) to be guided towards a moving target thousands of miles away.
What about trying to model energy weapons? Already operational in the US navy. Technically it's not kinetic so probably easier to model, considering lensin or dimming should also be pretty streight forward. I always wonder about the effect of non kinetic defense as a countermeasures to hypersonics.
Directed energy weapons are absolutely the future...my sense is that this is the reason the US is trailing in hypersonic weapons, because they are so much closer to Lasers being available. No missile will be a problem for weapons shooting beams traveling at the speed of LIGHT
Useless against hypersonics. They're already designed to withstand enormous temperatures.
@@BravoCheesecake … not the temperature of the pin point of a xxxxwatt laser.
Not the correct kind of target. BGVs and HCMs have massive amount of thermal shielding on the front and DEWs will have very short time on target.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 Wouldn't the energy from the laser be additive to the already high heat the missiles are dealing with? There will be a max heat level the missiles can take. I imagine a small amount of damage to the heat shield could be catastrophic.
Technically the YJ21s are ballistic missiles not hypersonic missiles. The concepts are a bit different.
The carrier itself would defend itself better if the RIM-116s actually worked and didn’t just plunge into the sea instantly.
For future vids, I think your best video in recent memory was the N Korea versus S Korea. While the AI did admirably it overloaded the server so humans couldn’t play. Maybe you could redo that but scale down proportionally the AI components.
Command Modern Operations would be significantly more accurate in depicting this.
yj-21 is a maneuvering missile, i didnt seen any maneuvering in this simulation.
if it is too manoeuvre it needs to slow down. It cant change course unless it slows down otherwise it destroys itself
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman i think you're picturing a missile doing sharp angle maneuvers when all it takes is changing the course by a few degrees in one or multiple directions midair to make it no longer a ballistic trajectory. also ive seen videos that china has been testing a new missile that goes hypersonic and then seemingly flip 180 degrees.
@@lyin4rmu A missile going Hypersonic and flipping 180? Im not a physics Master but thats impossible. As for the first part, no anything more than maybe 2 or 3 degrees at that speed would destroy it or make it malfunction, and that slight change of course wont get you that far from where it was orginally going,
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman th-cam.com/users/shortsXOHKotu-0_M?feature=share
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman china is also developing a supersonic boron powered submersible missile that cruises at commercial airline altitudes and then descends into sea skimming mode just above the water and then finally dives under the water for its final approach.
Navy has things people dont know about to deal with just this thing.
doesnt the YJ-21 have Mach 10 terminal speed? LOL
What you are considering is that the Chinese simulation depends on the Carrier remaining stationary. also, the massive retaliation from our icbm missiles from submarines, B2 bombers and other assets.
I'd love to see the PAC3 added to both the destroyers and cruisers since it has been announced that they're being configured for the launch tubes on those ships.
Lockheed got a contract to test 1 of them. And I highly doubt that the Navy is gonna actually deploy them.
A vertically launched LRASM was configured and tested as well. Didn’t end up happening.
@@gamm8939 The USN should deploy them, if for no other reason than to break Raytheon's near-monopoly over missiles launched from those VLS cells. Also, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see a Patriot battery just set up on an amphibious assault ship's deck sometime in the future, because that's just how the Marines roll.
@@mage3690 yeah let’s deploy a far inferior system just to mess with Raytheon. I have no clue what capability the PAC-3 is supposed to have that isn’t covered by SM-2, 3 and 6.
@@gamm8939 you know, I was assuming that the PAC-3 MSE missiles would be a lot cheaper than an SM-6, but it turns out they're not. SM-3s _are_ massively expensive, though, at double an SM-6 or PAC-3 MSE, which are roughly equal.
I wonder if we could ever see what a full, coordinated attack and defense would look like, with ballistic missiles/YJ-21s on the red side that are followed up with air-launched antiship cruise missiles like the YJ-12 and YJ-100 combined with a wing of fighters screening the missiles, while the blue CV would have the entire carrier wing active in BARCAP defense mode. Might be too resource-intensive.
I think it's not hypersonic it's just ballistic missile
Technically, ballistic missiles with greater than around 300 km range are hypersonic. I think these are in hypersonic cruise mode, though, with the rocket providing continuous thrust most of the way to the target, and a much flatter trajectory.
Most long range ballistic missiles are hypersonic - that essentially what Kinzhal is - a 1970s ballistic missile turned on its side and launched from an aircraft. It's hopelessly inaccurate - but you only have to get lucky once!
@@LondonSteveLee Sure, but they don't have to be particularly long-range. The German V-2 could reach Mach 5 on the way down at its longest range of about 300 km. As ballistic missiles just get faster the longer range they have, _everything_ longer-ranged than a V-2 is hypersonic.
As to _Kinzhal_ I think it depends on how advanced the tech used in the missile is. When the Russians use it as a terror-weapon against civilian targets - very V-2 like - they don't bother with much beyond the inertial platform. If they've got a worthwhile target, like a regimental HQ or a _Patriot_ battery, say, they'll unpack the Western electronics and let it use satellite nav and terminal homing. But that's expensive, and irreplaceable at the moment.
Meanwhile we don't really know how accurate they are, since so few of them have reached worthwhile targets. The _Patriot_ launcher that was damaged last month seems to have been hit by debris from a late interception, and the Russians may have put all the optional extras in those.
Yes, aircraft carriers have been obsolete for decades now. We keep building them because they represent an unimaginable level of expense in two simple words justifying astronomical levels of spending. Which is why we have eleven of them and you will never see one near Russia or China.
Obsolete sitting ducks built to feed the MIC appetite.
if aircraft carriers are obsolite then why is china building them?
Why are the hypersonic missiles not maneuvering?
Hypersonic means speed not manoeuvrability, if they were to try and manoeuvre at those speeds they would destroy themselves, that is physics
"Its a bit silly, but we are silly people" a man after my own heart
Western wargames and exercises are for training.
Chinese and Russian war games and exercises are for demonstration. Two different purposes. Tbe US always loses (or gets beat up winning) in US war games b/c the game is designed such that the US must be almost perfect and every benefit is given to the enemy. The whole purpose of this Chinese game was propoganda. I mean, they’ve never put out info about any times they have lost…only when they win.
Exactly. China and Russia publicize their winning games for domestic propaganda as well as for deterrence, since they know they're not as advanced as the US. The US publicizes its losses and rough wins to justify higher defense spending. Since they exist in a democracy, the US military knows they at least need some public support for their enormous budget. They also use these results to persuade congressmen to fund whatever it is the military thinks is highest priority.
Many people fail to understand that winning a war game should be impossible if done correctly. Its meant to show what your deficient in not what works, all US war games are made to be basically impossible to win so the military planners can see what failed and why. Whenever you see Russia or China win a war game that means that they made the game incorrectly and any data gained is worthless.
Correct, exercises and wargames only have value if you can learn something from it and expose weaknesses you wouldn’t have otherwise seen. It’s one of the only opportunities to stress-test your doctrine and organisation in worst case scenarios other than the real thing. It would serve no purpose to conduct wargames just to make things easier than how they would play out in real life just to make you feel better about yourself.
GREAT STUFF 👍!
Looks like the Navy should work on a "secondary target" software. All those missiles that missed the incoming hypersonic, should then continue to the firing point of the hyper so they're not wasted.
These games never nail it 100% correct with weapon systems. But they try their hearts out, thats for sure.
depending on the missile, the ability for beam riding missiles to switch targets in mid flight has been around since the late sixties. More modern missiles tend to use semi active guidance or a GPS/active homing system which reduces ships radio emmisions signature and defeats RWR systems until the missile goes active in the terminal phase of the attack. AEGIS has the capability to signal outgoing missiles to alter the flight profile of the GPS system to rearget the missile. You must remember that this is DCS and not real life, its a simulator on a small computer with limited capability. The fact that missiles do not reaquire new targets is down to the fact that it's not in the game.
This is a rather odd simulation - don't you think?
You have one missile at first - and it evades like 20 counter missiles before getting hit.
In the final simulation, you fire 80 hypersonic missiles and they get shot down at nearly 1-1 ratio.
You don't think this is rather odd?
Another oddity is that the hypersonic missiles appear to be shot down with ease right next to the ships, before the counter missiles are able to gain any speed.
Essentially, there's something seriously off about these numbers and the simulation in general. Not your fault, but the software.
Now cap plz do a British version of this with aster bmd (block 1NT)
When did we sign the contract to buy them? Still no movement as far as I can tell. The French got Brimstone - our part of the bargain upheld as usual.
17:24 PLAN is getting really close to that many type 055s, however, with 8 in active service and more under construction.
strictly speaking the Type052d can theoretically carry and fire YJ21s too as they are equipped with the same UVLS cells.
This is not much of a simulation when the attacking missiles are not maneuvering.
this
I'm advertising my ignorance here but if they're ballistic missiles, can they maneuver? I thought the whole point of a ballistic missile is that it went straight at what you pointed them at?
@@joelrasdall7662 Ballistic missiles ar a category that use ballistic trajectory to reach destination. This does not exluce possibility for them to maneuver along the way. Some can do that....
@@Flankymanga Only these misiles are Hypersonic. Which means they travel so fast that if they were to try and manoeuvre they were destroy themselves
@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman except that they have to because they are guided.... they have to compensate for the differrence in presure, temperature, wind... so they are guided and they do maneuver.
A large enough swarm of anything will take down a Carrier, even with the integrated Air and Missile defense provided by its support group.
The question isn't "Could the thing blah, blah, blah?"
The question is "How many of the things are necessary to ensure blah, blah, blah?"
If the Chinese have enough of the things (which they might not) the next question is, "Have they reached level of FAaFO yet?"
That said, this looks like a pretty good depiction of such an engagement. Well done 😁!
When they reach that level, i cant wait to be celebrating my way back into Portsmouth harbour
how can a mach 4 ESSM intercept a mach 10 hypersonic missile? It's like catching a bullet with an arrow
Terminal speed of the missiles is much less than mach 10.
@@gonavygonavy1193Actually the mach 10 is the terminal speed
anglocope
Or are you not familiar with the idea?
A more realistic attack would be to attack from multiple vectors with a variety of different missiles and decoys and then launch the hypersonic missile at the right moment, this attack has no strategy behind it.
Yea and the us navy has no planes in the air at all other than an awacs that would also be attacking the Chinese ships in this situation or (depending on aesa f35 and f18 radar) even be targeting the missiles as well.
They are just testing individual elements. In any case, how would an enemy force achieve this "multiple vector" attack? The Chinese ships are going to be 300 miles apart by themselves? Does that sound smart?
@@bagelmaster2498 strictly speaking in this simulation the chinese ships are suppose to represent land based launchers from 2000+ km away. US planes wouldn't even be able to go that far let alone loiter over chinese airspace to find and destroy the launchers.
@@hughmungus2760 bruh the china would colpse the second they start a war
@@einar8019 just like how the russian economy is supposed to have collapsed right now huh?
CH got it wrong again, the YJ-21 does not slow down in its terminal phase, it actually speeds up to Mach ten. It can also be launched from H6 bombers. In the future, the Chinese might put them on their 095 submarines.
If you really want to win against the CSG, go full combined arms once the kinks with the subs are ironed out. We also need the DF-21 and DF-26 in the game. DCS has a lot of catching up to do with the times.
It won't really matter much even if it was Mach 10, the YJ-21 is a ballistic hypersonic missile, so the path is not that unpredictable. Anyways it is developed from the DF-21D so it's very similar and comparing that to this won't yield drastically different results. Same goes for the DF-26.
Now, the DF-ZF on the other hand, would prove to be a very difficult challenge because it is a maneuverable glide body, when it comes out, of course.
Can you play the Star Spangled Banner in the background? "Rockets red glare" and all that?🤣
Let me guess, he Made Chinese ASBM slowdown so that US can win? Chinese ASBM doesn't need to slow down.
Edit: YJ-21 terminal velocity is Mach 10 lol
Is there a source that says it's terminal velocity? I'm curious.
@@Just_A_Random_Desk PLA published YJ-21 average cruise speed and terminal velocity a few months ago
@@The136th I'm sure they wouldn't lie or anything...
Consider US carriers ran away when ever 055 and 052D show up, I think it's trustworthy. I'll trust Chinese sources over the GAE any time.
It is interesting. But I don't think the AA warheads would have 100% efficiency on detonation as they appear to have in this video.
can't America use airplanes for missile defense? I imagine they have better reaction time, because you drop the boost time, and ofcourse, more is always better
because planes don't carry any missile designed to operate outside of the atmosphere. Which is where the DF21d and DF26 will be travelling for the majority of their flight.
The problem with this test is everything I have read about hypersonic weapons is that hypersonic weapons has an unpredictable trajectory to its target. These missiles appear to be on a standard ballistic missile trajectory. We know the carrier group can defend against this type of threat. Remember the German V2 rocket was traveling faster than Mach 5 in the 1940s on re-entry. It is the up, down, left, right that occurs during flight that makes it difficult to shoot down. Russia Kinzhal missile is said to be hypersonic by Russian officials, but patriot batteries are having a level of success taking them out because of the standard trajectory.
The Kinzhal and YJ-21 are just called hypersonic missiles for propaganda purposes. The Kinzhal is just an air launched version of the Iskander short range ballistic missile and the YJ-21 is just a ship launched version of the DF-21 medium range ballistic missile.
@@collinwood6573yeah that is exactly what I read. I wonder if GS / DCS could replicate a real hypersonic missile? They are basically testing a ballistic missile defense in this video.
@@armchairgeneral7557 they dont exist and even if they did they are just overhyped propragana pieces like the t-14 or Su 57
They will never try to do something this stupid. It might damage some ships in a carrier group, but there would be hell to pay for it afterwards.
Why? How? The CCP would be more than happy to have a nuclear exchange with anyone if the winner gets to take all - they have a huge land mass and lots and lots of people - a hundred+ million people outside their borders too. Bomb three or four US cities and the country would immediately collapse - the Chinese people are used to misery, hunger, shortages, tyranny - they would soldier on dutifully to the last breath.
Then stay away from the Chinese coast, Yankee
@@zianhe6620 the slope is too tempting
Your not modeling the fact that the US would also be returning fire