@@mrkeogh heh you think setting the entire planets atmosphere on fire to destroy a US battle group is something Iran will shy away from? Think against bruh...
If at a time several (20/25 ) anti aircrafts precision guided missiles are ejected from land or another ships targeting the aircrafts carriers then it's almost impossible to avoid the hit and destruction of the aircrafts carrier is inevitable.😅😅
I doubt any would’ve gotten through to the carrier. I got out of the Navy 30 years ago as a Fire Controlman and back then, one Aegis cruiser could simultaneously track 122 targets and have 30-32 missiles in the air and could probably be firing the 5 inch guns at one more target or two if they were being operated manually. So if the battle group was 1 CVN, 1-2 CG’s, 2-3 DDG’s and 2-3 FFG’s + the combat air patrol, Vulcan Phalanx CIWS and Sea Sparrow BPDS, there’s a pretty good chance of stopping everything, assuming each Aegis platform has progressed since 1990. But, still an interesting and entertaining video, even though I thought it was going to be a technical discussion.
Problem is 1) it is hard to sink a ship and from a purely military view, sinking is less resource-intensive than an incapacitated ship with mass casualties. 2) resupply. Various wargames identified 'resupply' of a carrier group to be next-to-impossible in a major war situation. 3) massing of missiles.... China has perhaps millions of missiles 'ready to fire'. Most are really basic, some are state-of-the art. A 2010 'war simulation' had China obliterating our eastern bases with endless salvos as their most advanced weapons target the carrier groups and subs. Meanwhile...USA is starving as we are dependent on China for components of everything. That is why USA only invades tiny far away nations.
And then there's chaff as well. The USS Missouri and its escort ships used chaff as a defense to protect against Iraqi anti-ship missiles during Operation Desert Storm.
I sat at General quarters for 12 hours because they had silkworm radar locked on us and we were slightly concerned but not freaking out. We launched about a dozen tomcat and hornets plus 1 radar jammer.
Indeed Mr. Hoover. I too have been there. The Styx system is a system to be concerned about. But without consideration of how the things work (or rather don't) in the EW environment this game is just so much academic play.
Having been on the Nimitz I can say that the cost of sinking a carrier is the willingness to endure what the Nuclear Navy ( Subs ) will do to you. So it is a suicide mission to attack and sink a carrier.
Do you really believe that the US can get away with launching nuclear warheads at Iran in retaliation for a conventional attack? The US would lose all credibility on the world stage. It would become an instant pariah. If the US loses a carrier, the best it can commit to is a conventional counterattack. Unfortunately, the international community considers aircraft carriers fair game in war.
Sinking a ship is a big problem. Bigger is NOT sinking a ship (e.g. USS Liberty..) ship was suppose to sink ,we had nukes in the air out of Rota naval airbase in Spain to drop a single nuke on Cairo airport where Soviets had 'Bear' bombers. Plan was for US, Israel, Nato... to publicly claim it was a Soviet nuclear bomb accidental discharge. 5 minutes from drop, the two planes (1 active, 1 backup) were recalled to Rota. Despite everything dumped on it including napalm... Liberty did not sink and they got out the distress call. The false flag mission was called off. Were we 5 minutes away from the end of civilization? Probably not because Soviets would not be able to meaningfully debate it but a year or so after that, the Soviets would arrange a similar 'accident' at the Ramstein base in Germany so the entire scheme was scotched.
@@motube5 No, Iran and USA pretend to be enemies to make Saudi Arabia happy so they keep buying our weapon systems. Saudi Arabia is our largest buyer of weapons for decades now.
I spent a lot of the '80's chasing these Iranian missiles in just this area. The ranges in the straits are short. At the time most of the Iranian equipment was US made. Always their maintenance was poor, though given they were making their own replacement parts maybe they could achieve more valid launches than we anticipated. Iranians are the most intelligent people in the region. They have been hamstrung by needing to buy equipment.
So, your little party Is quite silly. A carrier group would not enter these waters with a 120 missiles at the ready. They would most likely destroy most of them before the carrier group would proceed into that area.
The scenario roleplay was they were able to hide them effectively. Note that there was 3 ships as a distraction force going full speed at the carrier. Based off the size and portible nature of these missiles, I can see this being at least partially realistic if going off those parameters, though I agree there would most likely be more F/A-18s up before the first missile is off due to spotting them being set up.
On now wait a minute...maybe this excursion through the strait isn;t a good idea and it needs to re-thought. how many people can we lose here? That's too many. We ended wars to prevent more deaths.
Iran has better land based missiles IRL. Their domestically produced cruise missiles are impressive and more importantly, battle tested and proven to be able to bypass Saudi Patriot PAC3 batteries .
I remember entering the Straits on USS Kitty Hawk - right after the Iranians had purchased a batch of Chinese YJ-83/C-802 missiles - damned erector/launchers could be disguised as civilian lorries (trucks). LOTS of time spent pouring over imagery, talking with the EWs, and speculating... we were nervous enough that we transited in the middle of the night, hid behind a friendly tanker-ship, and had one of the Ticonderoga's 60 miles BEHIND us running his radar
Just going to write up a few things as I watch this. 1 - Your carrier group is twice the size of what a normal one would be. There are a limited number of available Tico's at any one time and at least one DD gets peeled off to the GOO and another to the red sea whenever strike groups go to the Persian gulf. More realistic for straights transit would be 1 Sub, 1 CV, 1 or 2 DDG's and 1 CG. Maybe MAYBE an LCS. Maybe, but highly unlikely. 2 - a 17 knot transit speed through the Straights of Hormuz is idiotic. A strike group would be going at LEAST 25. And as soon as the Iranian DD's were detected, it would be 30+. 3 - OHP class Frigates don't exist anymore. 4 - SM-2's have the ability to change target mid course? Wut? Lol. Trust me, they don't. 5 - It would seem this sim doesn't take CIWS loadout limits in to account. They can't fire for more than a few seconds. I know this is just a video game, but it seems pointless with the high number of innacuracies.
A couple of important issues you are missing here. the AEGIS system and E-2C's work in conjunction with each other to monitor the incoming and control the outgoing missiles. Second, you are using Knox class Frigates in this scenario, not AEGIS Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. Next, with Ticonderoga Class CG's and Arleigh Burke class DDG's, they have vertical launch systems and can fire AND control multiple missiles at the same time, along with other ships controlling missiles launched from other platforms, as well as the E-2C's controlling the missiles. Next, you forgot about Electronic Warfare! Those old target acquisition radars on land, as well as the radar's on the missiles themselves would not stand a chance against the high Mega Watt jamming output of the US Navy's SLQ-32's. They would just crash in to the ocean from being 'blinded' by the jamming. Lastly, the DDG's and CG's would have launched ARM as soon as the first missile launch was detected. they would have never got off a second volley.
@@ewtech9349 1, you are assuming the E2-C's are CEC capable, which only the D variant are. Currently, there are a limited inventory of those. 2, no, they are using OHP frigates. You are flat out wrong here.
@@ewtech9349 Third, yes, CG's and DDG's can control multiple missiles at a time, but there is a hard limit. I will not say what that limit is, but trust me, it exists. I know exactly what it is, and a single bearing stream raid is the most difficult thing to defend against. Lastly, EW IS effective, but it is not mega watt. Again, here you are flat out wrong. It would only be employed against missiles already in terminal phase and wouldn't be 100% effective. I don't know what you mean by "ARM" but it isn't a system that is employed on tico's or arleigh burkes. So, again, your ignorance is showing.
@@ewtech9349 my qualifications are : one decade active duty Aegis Fire Controlman RSC, CSC, AAWC, CSRO, AWS, LPO, RPPO. Seriously dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
@@le_potate3861 Why single bearing raid is the hardest type of raid to defend? Is it because the ship can only use a single illuminator in that situation?
They have more than one "hut" though. The question is,how many HARM can a jet carry,like 4-6 at best? And its not like those "hut" is the only threat,you need the HARMs for Iranian air defence system too thus even lesser HARMs that you can spare for those "hut"s per sortie.
I’d like to see it repeated with a 4 ship Tomcat CAP, with 4 more ready on the cats. The Tomcat was supposed to be the frontline defense against stand-off cruise missile armed Soviet bombers, so taking out Silkworms should be right up their alley.
True, but how many silkworms could 8 Tomcats take out? Each plane could carry 6 (max) Phoenixes, I don't know if they could do a useful CAP with 6 loaded. Let's be optimistic: 48 Phoenixes in the air, say 40 (?) silkworm taken out, still 80 for the surface-to-air systems to deal with. There may be some leakers.
@@SolarWebsite Right, but in the case of the videos second 100 missile attack where the carrier sank, would the Tomcat CAP made the difference, lightening the load on the carrier and her escorts enough that they could survive.
@@JohnSmith-co7qt No shit, Captain Pedantic? (To one up your pedantry, the Tomcat was actually retired only 15 years ago, in April 2006. So not quite decades.) Well, then I guess there’s no point in adding a hypothetical retired aircraft to an already very unrealistic hypothetical scenario, in a simulation video game that has a very limited ability to model the full capabilities and tactics of a CSG, and has an AI that can be remarkably stupid at times, just to satisfy a curiosity question about the possible effects of an aircraft that was purpose built for carrier air defense. All purely for shits and giggles. You’re right, that would be just silly. 🙄 Of course, based on your position, the whole experiments shown is already invalid because the legacy Hornet is also fully retired from Naval service. Well, crap. I guess Cap should just delete the whole thing because people like you want to quibble about adding too much fiction to fiction.
Fun Fact! One of the things that makes an actual conflict with Iran difficult is the unknown number of buried silkworm missiles lining the Gulf. After Gulf 1 the Iranians learned that anything that could be seen by satellite, got a paveway in the kisser, SO they started to bury unknown numbers of long range surface to surface missiles to act as a deterrent to US aggression. If the US took a swing at them, the Iranians would hit every oil facility inside of a few hundred miles... so, long story short, they can and DO hide silkworms all along the coast lol
Maybe i should offer my reletives to hide silkworms in their fishing boats in persian gulf.nice idea man😂only way to deal with americans to us is asymmetic warfare😄
A missile buried under the sand probably isn't very useful at shooting boats. The Iraqis buried plenty of planes in 2003 and all it meant was some MiG-25s got found and put in a museum lol. The Iraqis were (and probably still are) way better than the Iranians since they beat them in a war and Iran has probably never recovered since the sound drubbing delivered by Saddam's Ba'athist armies.
@@SecuR0M you cannot fly buried planes under soil.but missiles can fly from underground by hitting a botton in tehran.thats the difference that saddam hided them bcz of fear.and also many of their planes scaped to iran.but missles are hidden to surprise.then they should search for launchers to death.
No ECM seems to be modeled at all. In reality most of those missiles could have been jammed with ease by today’s ECM aboard any of those picket ships. Directed energy would fry their sensors well before got close.
Probably all of them would be decoyed by a few rounds of chaff from the ships and end up sailing over the boats, going off in random directions, crashing into the ocean, or killing every oil tanker in the immediate vicinity.
Meh US has lost wars before.. and not to mention it's not like Russia will just let em bomb Iran without intervening itself if needed directly or indirectly
@@VAPOURIZE100 I highly doubt Russia gives enough of a damn about Iran to do anything - let alone get into a shooting war with America. Also: Why get your hands dirty and risk WW3, if you can stand on the side-line, sell lots of weapons and watch your "No. 1 enemy" get into a quagmire several times bigger than Iraq & Afghanistan combined ?
@@HauntedXXXPancake well in case the US forces get close to winning kinda like what happened in Nkorea in the 1950s.. tho at the time China didnt have nukes this time it would be a whole other game.. but yeah it would def be a bigger mess than Iraq n Afghanistan combined
Deterrence is the name of the game. A bunch of silkworms keeps the US from landing an invasion fleet. Hundreds of scuds pointed at gulf state desalination plants are another.
@@VAPOURIZE100 Depends on who the aggressor is, I think the world would not look too fondly on the side that struck first considering this exact situation would probably trigger WWIII
As a retired F/A-18 guy this was a bit tingly to watch. But overwhelming our missile defense was Soviet Naval doctrine in the 80's, so it's not beyond imagining. Their philosophy varied slightly, however. It was to inundate the battle group with standard missiles and then sneak a nuke in to scrap the carrier. We never transitioned the straits without a lot of aircraft buzzing around overhead and all eyes and ears on the Iranians.
@@BigSmartArmed Missouri had a pair of Silkworms shot at her by the Iraqi Navy in 1991 and a frigate (USS Sides?) shot a bulkhead because her CIWS got confused by Missouri's RBOC rounds. The actual rockets were shot down by a pair of missiles fired by a British frigate.
Seems like it would be relatively easy to have underground missile launchers. North Koreans are known to have some tunnels with only the last few feet rigged with explosives to clear the tunnel. You could do that here too. Although even if we announced we were traversing, and we saw Iran move the launchers unbidden on the beach, we’d probably still do it. Even if their saturation was high enough to take out the Carrier, God help them within the next 24 hours.. Regardless, these sims are fun to watch. Thanks for putting these together! 🙂👍🥦🦖
In a few years, more of those Arleigh-Burke ships will have turrent-mounted CIWS lasers on them for point defense. Against an auto-tracking high-energy laser, a fast-attack boat loaded with ammo and explosives is like a birthday present. Add in the Phalanx and Bushmaster cannons and...
I would imagine that the debries left by the first missiles intercepted by AA defense would help in the saturation of the defense system, pulverized aluminium and chemicals near the ships systems
Actually it's worse than that - imagine being hit by a shotgun like mass of shredded aluminium and an engne (and smashed up explosive/fuel) at close to mach one, certainly with the higher velocity missiles merely "destroying them" isn't enough you actually have to put in enough energy to distribute/delect the fragments or slow it down.
I don't know if it's modeled in DCS but in that's a real tactic. The first missiles and rockets fired by speed boats are actually chaff warheads so when they explode they creat an aluminum cloud, blinding the ships' radars.
CWIS is gone after few seconds of firing and effectivity is much smaller in real life. AEGIS was never tested against real missiles with warheads aiming at ships. And there are no jammers and no deceptive attacks used, which again is very unrealistic. Area will be jammed, expect some torpedoes running in to initiate chaos, some air attacks and then surprise missile barrage to finish everything. You don't need 100+ missiles and in case you use modern supersonic ones, it will reduce time gap for defences to just seconds from detection to impact.
In real event, NEVER once think that Iranian military only got this missile for maritime defense folks. Two reasons that killed fighting men in battlefield, one is enemy's trick/surprises, the other is the idea that the enemy is stupid or weak.
@@sabin97 Even IF they do - Having those numbers and using them efficiently are two very different things. To begin with, the Americans would never send a carrier-group anywhere near such an obvious trap. Call me optimistic, but I somehow also doubt that, even with improvements, an Iranian copy of a Chinese copy of a 70 year Russian missile would be this effective - Specially not since the Americans had ample opportunity to take those missiles apart and study them.
@@brettpowell4121 there's a reason usa keeps talking a big game, applying sactions, but never even attempting to invade iran and steal their oil and great mineral wealth. you certainly CAN do it. with the most ridiculously expensive military in history any country can be successfully invaded. but the price in united stater lives would be more than you'd be willing to pay.
@@HauntedXXXPancake americans dont invade anyone. the only american country that invades people is usa. and those people are not really americans. they are a bunch of europeans and bunch of africans. the very few americans that live there are marginalized into "reservations". what you describe isnt optimism. it's pessimism. i'm optimistic in hoping iran would have more modern technologies.
I’ll keep saying this, it doesn’t matter how good or bad a missile system may be because more often than not all it takes is the one golden B.B. to get through
That was what Sadam thought... Didn't work out that way. For a first strike, sure... but after that, the safeties are off... It isn't as if you can sink 10 carrier groups at the same time... You may get one... perhaps 2.
@@horscategorie, that’s my point, the enemy only needs to be lucky once but the defenders need to be lucky all the time. That’s what my judo masters taught me as a kid and it’s something I’ve stuck to throughout my life and with a surname like mine my auld cranky grandpa taught me to be vicious in competitions and show no mercy because a win whether I S honourable or not is still a win
I had a little idea for this (though I am sure you have plenty...I think I saw a spreadsheet at one point >.< ) Maybe do entire countries air forces vs a carrier group? Starting with Denmark and working your way up to larger and larger countries. China and Russia would be an obvious no, but how about Spain? Italy? India?
@@Western_1 While not the carrier Group the carrier itself is a possibility, Australia has with two different Submarine classes over a forty year spread regularly sunk Carriers in exercises. even at times surfacing alongside the carrier while it was actively hunting for the Submarine. Six tubes point blank, Voyage to the bottom of the sea! Other Navies submarines have done similar!
Was onboard Missouri when Iraq fired a silkworm missile at us while we were going back and forth between Failaka Island amd Kuwait city providing GFS. Iowa only has CWIS as a viable anti-missile system, however, the silkworm went aft of us anyway and was shot down by HMS Gloucester. I was on watch as radar operator for SKY1 providing navigation aid because in reality, try hitting any kind of missile with a 5"-38. Just not really going to happen. After this exciting little bit everyone was a bit jumpy. I don't remember how long after this happened when another missile threat (false - the atmosphere is really dirty there) came and one of our brave senior chiefs was under the control console in CIC launching chaff in every direction. One of our escort destroyer on our port side CIWS locked on the the chaff canister think it is a pop-up profile and peppered the canister all the way down, which was between the destroyer and the MO. Fortunately no one was injured but was definitely a blue on blue event. When decommissioning the MO and replacing the Mk37 GF director bloomers on Sky-3 (Starboard) we heard something drop on the deck as we removed and folded the old bloomer. It was a depleted uranium round from the destroyer. It had just barely missed Sky-2 (Port side) gone through the stack and into the bloomer where it hit the optical rangefinder and then dropped to the bottom of the bloomer.
And I thought it only got freaky when you guys had to rig for CBW (someone posted closed-circuit video from Plot of the event) after, due to smoke off the coast.
Hey man, first, I love this series, and I appreciate your general military knowledge. I have a buddy that knows just mountains of this stuff including actual specs of say, the SM6, but as he's been working for one of the largest defense contractors for 15-years with top-security secret clearance doesn't get me any info of course. I'd love to make a special modification request on this scenario. As you concluded at the end of the carrier sinking, it simply took down that one side of the carrier group. If I'm a US Captain of this group, and there were no allied assets within defensive range (I can see the Air Force assisting the Navy on a mission like this depending on tensions and intel; additional CAP of F-16's, or perhaps one B-2 bomber loaded with guided munitions and a targeting asset to quickly assign each bomb a GPS coordinate would do nicely, within the SM2/SM6 defensive bubble). But, back to my point, sorry there. If I were the Captain and saw such quantity from the one coast, I'd have to make the decision, based on his knowledge of the various Iranian weapon systems available, and that these are essentially "dumb-radar" missiles, one of my first actions would be to reposition the fleet. I'm no expert of course, but I'd swing the carrier as hard to the left as possible while maintaining F-18 launch capability, as incoming missiles got closer, I'd straighten out on an angled trajectory moving away from the enemy in order for the CWIZ to be at its most effective range and angle of attack while gaining distance from the missiles. I'd order the front left destroyer to slightly reposition closer to the carrier in a trailing position for even more effective CWIZ and less time to target on late SM2 hits, the other destroyers to effectively maneuver to the rough area of the original carrier location, but with optimal weapon systems separation maintained, and let's be honest, they would be physically shielding the carrier, one frigate to also move in towards the carrier's new position for reduced SM2 time to target, and one frigate to maintain rear guard, effectively the same as that front left destroyer maintaining forward guard. I believe subs are basically non-functional in the simulator, but if you can lunch some ground-to-ground, now would be the time. If any or all of these changes are doable, I think it would make for a really fun scenario to play out and see if a bit of human response can defeat the barrage. I mean, the carrier was hit 25 times or so? This may balance it out. Bonus thoughts: I'm frankly a bit annoyed that the US helped fund the Iron Dome and didn't have a reciprocal technology sharing agreement. Do they see the US as a military threat in the next hundred years? Completely ridiculous if you ask me. The the SM2 and SM6 series are effectively a naval Iron Dome, but even if Israel tech improved US tech a few percentage points, plus the fleet's focus all in (even further) with VLS capacity and ultimately laser defense to replace/supplement the CWIZ (which I understand is effective, but the Russian equivalent is rated as more effective if I'm not mistaken?).
Also, no way does intelligence miss the massing of that many launchers in one place, and no doubt as to why the Iranians are doing it. Any carrier group commander with that knowledge would have his full complement of fighter bombers in the air while making transit past that area.
My late father, a man who studied under Barnes Wallace, always said a Fairey Swordfish could sink a modern carrier as they'd not see it as a threat - until it dropped the torpedo!
If you want to know how this works in real life, checkout HMS Gloucester in the 1991 Gulf War. The The Gloucester was screening the USS Missouri when it was targeted and attacked by and Iranian Silkworm. The Gloucester intercepted and shot down the Silkworm with a second generation SAM (Sea Dart). Not a big deal.
Je n'avais pas compris le principe... C'est étonnant et remarquable. :-) Evidemment, dans un scénario réel, les Iraniens aligneraient aussi des vedettes - pour distraire les frégates us - et des sous-marins - pour frapper le porte-avion.
Great vid, unlikely the Iranians would ever do this though. Lobbing the odd missile at tankers carrying Saudi oil is one thing. Starting a general war with the US another. The current situation for Iran is fine most probably. Be a thorn in the side, rattle the sabers sometimes, but don't go over the top.
It would be a last resort for Iran. If the US were to attack Iran or invade they would retaliate. That's precisely why the US hasn't invaded or attacked Iran in the first place because realistically Iran has significantly more numerous and better quality assets than shown in this video.
@@byronschroedel432 I agree. Iran won’t be doing saturation launch’s as they would deplete the only real defense they have. If a battle group is transitioning that area it’s coming to or leaving station and another battle group is nearby that would be hitting Iran in short order
Because they don't work for anti air. They won't leave the Battle group to shore bombard because then they wouldn't be doing pocket duty. This simulator is stupid. The Iranian silk worms are anti commercial shopping. They arnt really any threat to warships. Also CVNs don't really sail into the Persian gulf. They stay outside the gulf.
"We're giving Iran ideas." That was one carrier strike group, the US has 12, plus 20 times that strength land based. It's a perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war.
Iran have more then 300 000 missiles distributed to grunge luncher cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and in speed boats and their is a lot of suicide UAV's
Yeah, I think sinking a US carrier only succeeds in making sure that the US really wants to destroy you. Once you do that it isn't hearts and minds anymore.
Fighting wars in the mid-east is endless and you will lose it. The more traditional/religious a nation is the harder it will be. Look at Afghanistan 19yrs of war with NATO and now they are even stronger and US is pulling out.
DCS does not model any ECM or countermeasures. The reality is that Arleigh Burke has an ECM suite that can literally fry those Silkworm seekers from 20 miles out. The moment they realized that this many missiles were being launched you would have chaff decoys launching and ECM could steer those missiles at a single decoy. Arleigh Burke (and the Carriers) have a number of classified defense systems, particularly ECM. The Silkworms would fall harmlessly into the ocean, same as they did in the 1980s when they fired on USS Jack Williams. In total, 5 missiles fell into the ocean, and not a single US vessel fired a shot
Yeah unfortunately there aren’t many ways of simulating this and this is all hypothetical as in all the stars aligned. Most of the time I do believe that they would have spotted them with their air wings before getting into any sort of combat.
There would be a fair number of the missiles that would malfunction. And you're right - there's other non obvious issues. The range of the missiles is 50 miles. Then it becomes a game of being 60 miles out hugging coastal waters.
Hmmm So the moral of the story is To launch your cheap older missiles First Letting them soak up the carrier group defense Then launch your new high tech missiles And they will have a much better chance to get through
If you have no carrier to return to, you either return to another carrier in another battle group within range, or you land at an allied airfield, like Bahrain, or in Saudi Arabia.
I saved this comment for the end of this video. In real life the frigates and destroyers would form a northern flanking wall of CWIS capable ships. And the carrier would probably be a few miles south of that northern flanking wall. This has been standard since the days of shore batteries.
... LOL a retired USA marine General War gamed US vs Iran an as he was Iran he ended up winning as the you pointed out saterating air defense is the key against US Carrier groups as Putin calls them the worlds most expensive coffin ship problem is the USA has gotten to full of themselves from beating 3rd world countries they haven't fought a equal since the 40's newest Russian guidance systems is quite impressive
I can see where you got confused there: Unlike Russian war-games, American war-games aren't primarily shows of strength for the people at home and abroad. They actively try to find scenarios in which they might lose, so that they can learn & prepare.
Still not going to help, once the missile has left the ramp, it is just a cheap piece of steel and they are considered "disposible" weapons in such a scenario anyway. Because it takes too long to reload such a launcher with a fresh missile which is the most expensive part anyway. The radar on the other hand is the more valuable part of the system, but still useless once the missiles have been fired and they are guiding themselves.
When discussed in modern terms, here is what you can use to tell the difference between a destroyer and a frigate. A frigate has a single purpose while a destroyer fills multiple roles.
Not quite true, most can do the exact same roles but have less payload & combat sustainability. Look at the wiki for the Constellation-class frigate and see what's so single purpose about it.
@@hithere7382 The US hasn't stopped building ships and your statement has been disproven without me doing a damn thing. Does the failed Littoral Combat Ship program manage to rub two minute brain cells for you?
@@MajorHavoc214 it was sold to congress as being multi mission. Your personal attacks are worthless. If Lockheed employed reasonable shipyard engineers it might have gone differently. LCS wasn't even considered a frigate until Hagel the secdef decided they were. Little crappy ship pork barrel is more apt. Not to mention LCS doesn't have the legs to be part of a Carrier Strike Group. Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates were the last real frigates fielded by USN. We haven't operated them in many years.
You have left out a very important part of the strike force. The ECM capabilities of the strike force will leave those silkworms absolutely blind. They have no chance of hitting anything.
I'm surprised no nation (esp Iran) hasn't thought about converting something like an oil tanker or other large vessel into a floating missile platform. It would be relatively easy to install and hide weapons systems below decks in such huge ships that sail right past American fleets almost daily ...
A carrier group would never come into range of the missals until they had eliminated the threat. I mean come on. It's a desert area on a beach. Nowhere to hide them.
The P-15 Thermite or "Styx" was Russian. HY2 is the second lot of production by China, it is faster, longer ranged and has a working guidance, which the Original P-15 had not. Their Altimeter was so unreliable they couldn’t hit a barn from the inside. Also the HY2 has Solid fuel instead of Ultra Toxic hypergaulic liquid fuel, the P-15 had.
During Operation Desert Storm, Iraq tried to attack the USS Missouri with land-to-sea missiles. The missiles were distracted by chaff launched from the Missouri and its escorts and shot down by shot down by fighters. There was some damage to the US ships...due to friendly fire.
In real-world, Iran wouldn't do this, They will fire anti-radar ballistic missile (Homoz-1) from the underground arsenal in the first place and keep carrier group defense system busy with around 5000 unguided rockets which shoot from fast boats and others, then they fire primary ballistic anti-ship missile (Homoz-2). this will happen if the carrier group be around Iran borders. in case of ocean strike, Iran would use the anti-ship version on Sejill missile with 2000 km and dive speed of Mach 13 In Dcs these weapons don't exist but it's fun to try Carrier group Strike with Scud missile. here is a Mod that can guide Scud missiles correctly: www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3314178/
Iran can easily hit the american carriers from about 5000km away with IRBMs that can dodge anti air missiles. It only takes 1 warhead to sink a carrier. 12 missiles, 12 carriers sunk.
Exactly 👌 جالبه رفتن یک موشک مال تکنولوژی ۳۰ سال پیش کره شمالی همین موشک کروز رو در نظر گرفتن با این اوصاف هم شکست خوردن و ناو گروه آسیب دید . در حالی که موشک های بالستیک برد میان برد و برد بلند ایران رو در نظر نگرفتن موشگ هایی مثل خلیج فارس با دوربین اپتیکی و موشک های هرمز ۱ و ۲ که ضده رادار هستند . موشک های کروزی مثل کوثر قدر قدیر رو در نظر نگرفتن . موشک های زلزال بارشی رو در نظر نگرفتن . موشش پدافندی سواحل ایران رو در نظر نگرفتند . قایق های تندرو و موشک انداز با موشک های کروز کوثر رو در نظر نگرفتن حملات فوجی پهپاد های پاتکی و انتحاری و بمب افکن رو در نظر نگرفتن . حملات قایق های انتحاری رو در نظر نگرفتن مثل قایق یا مهدی ! متعجبم رفته یک موشک ساخت کره شمالی که تکنولوژیش مال ۳۰ یا ۴۰ سال پیشه آوردخ اینجا 🤐
@@Tr-ie6zy موشک کرم ابریشم تنها موشک کروز زمین پایه ی ضد کشتی موجود در شبیه سازه و انتخاب دیگه ای نداشتن موشک بالستیک هم فقط اسکاد بی داره که مال زمان شوروی سابقه کلا تمرکز شرکتش روی ساخت چیزهایی هستش که کاربر بتونه توش بازی کنه که بتونه بفروشه و فعلا سراغ تسلیحات اختصاصی کشور ها نمیاد همچین چون بحث تجهیزات نظامی هست به اطلاعات کامل و دقیق دسترسی ندارند که بتونتد همه چیز رو بسازند
First off the answer to the question on the thumbnail is no they can't because what a lot of you people don't realize is there are lasers now on naval ships that are used to take out missiles anti ship missiles and torpedoes
True but this would be a major flex. USA would have to organize the biggest marine and land invasion, and i dont know if they would not be reluctant to send a new group if one was sinked.
First of all we are not allowed to fly fixed wing aircraft while going through the straits while entering the gulf at least we were not from 90' - 2003. In 1991 the USS Independence was the first carrier to get chaff and flare pods installed during Desert Shield. While I was on that deployment the Weapons Officer told me we can had enough to take out many missiles as long as we react fast enough after all during that transit period we are quite vulnerable to attack. ADM Ready made plans to enter the gulf as it had been many years since 1973 a US Carrier has been in there. The Air force Tankers were never there to tank up our planes when we were there out side the gulf.
imagine if those missles can communicate to each other. On-board AI will optimize their target acquisition. It is plausible that the future war will be a volley of over saturation attacking units.
Iran: well this is cheaper than buying a star destroyer
Lmfao
Using turbo _laser_ cannons in atmosphere is a rookie error tbh
Ahahahahahahahaha
@@mrkeogh heh you think setting the entire planets atmosphere on fire to destroy a US battle group is something Iran will shy away from? Think against bruh...
WIth Sanctions how can they buy it ?
I feel like such a valued viewer when watching this channel
LOL, I thought he was saying “valid viewers “!
If at a time several (20/25 ) anti aircrafts precision guided missiles are ejected from land or another ships targeting the aircrafts carriers then it's almost impossible to avoid the hit and destruction of the aircrafts carrier is inevitable.😅😅
I doubt any would’ve gotten through to the carrier. I got out of the Navy 30 years ago as a Fire Controlman and back then, one Aegis cruiser could simultaneously track 122 targets and have 30-32 missiles in the air and could probably be firing the 5 inch guns at one more target or two if they were being operated manually. So if the battle group was 1 CVN, 1-2 CG’s, 2-3 DDG’s and 2-3 FFG’s + the combat air patrol, Vulcan Phalanx CIWS and Sea Sparrow BPDS, there’s a pretty good chance of stopping everything, assuming each Aegis platform has progressed since 1990. But, still an interesting and entertaining video, even though I thought it was going to be a technical discussion.
*Cough* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Problem is 1) it is hard to sink a ship and from a purely military view, sinking is less resource-intensive than an incapacitated ship with mass casualties. 2) resupply. Various wargames identified 'resupply' of a carrier group to be next-to-impossible in a major war situation. 3) massing of missiles.... China has perhaps millions of missiles 'ready to fire'. Most are really basic, some are state-of-the art. A 2010 'war simulation' had China obliterating our eastern bases with endless salvos as their most advanced weapons target the carrier groups and subs. Meanwhile...USA is starving as we are dependent on China for components of everything. That is why USA only invades tiny far away nations.
And then there's chaff as well. The USS Missouri and its escort ships used chaff as a defense to protect against Iraqi anti-ship missiles during Operation Desert Storm.
It wouldn't have. USS Mason got attacked by far more advanced missiles and nothing happened.
@@ladydara7446 This explains how Iraq sank the USS Missouri in the Gulf War. Damn.
I sat at General quarters for 12 hours because they had silkworm radar locked on us and we were slightly concerned but not freaking out. We launched about a dozen tomcat and hornets plus 1 radar jammer.
nice to read from real service men and not from stupid deskwarriors. It would be cool to hear your stories
Indeed Mr. Hoover. I too have been there. The Styx system is a system to be concerned about. But without consideration of how the things work (or rather don't) in the EW environment this game is just so much academic play.
Tomcat means 15 years plus ago? Had no idea the silkworm was that dated,
@@richardcox8409 that was in the early 90s so yes its that old.
I said more jammers dammit!!! said one general.
11:42 : Ride of the Valkyrie moment
Having been on the Nimitz I can say that the cost of sinking a carrier is the willingness to endure what the Nuclear Navy ( Subs ) will do to you. So it is a suicide mission to attack and sink a carrier.
I'm not sure "too expensive to attack" is a viable defense.
Do you really believe that the US can get away with launching nuclear warheads at Iran in retaliation for a conventional attack? The US would lose all credibility on the world stage. It would become an instant pariah.
If the US loses a carrier, the best it can commit to is a conventional counterattack. Unfortunately, the international community considers aircraft carriers fair game in war.
Sinking a ship is a big problem. Bigger is NOT sinking a ship (e.g. USS Liberty..) ship was suppose to sink ,we had nukes in the air out of Rota naval airbase in Spain to drop a single nuke on Cairo airport where Soviets had 'Bear' bombers. Plan was for US, Israel, Nato... to publicly claim it was a Soviet nuclear bomb accidental discharge. 5 minutes from drop, the two planes (1 active, 1 backup) were recalled to Rota. Despite everything dumped on it including napalm... Liberty did not sink and they got out the distress call. The false flag mission was called off. Were we 5 minutes away from the end of civilization? Probably not because Soviets would not be able to meaningfully debate it but a year or so after that, the Soviets would arrange a similar 'accident' at the Ramstein base in Germany so the entire scheme was scotched.
@@motube5 No, Iran and USA pretend to be enemies to make Saudi Arabia happy so they keep buying our weapon systems. Saudi Arabia is our largest buyer of weapons for decades now.
@@ladydara7446 Yeah that's why the USA lost so many nuclear carriers. Lol.
I spent a lot of the '80's chasing these Iranian missiles in just this area. The ranges in the straits are short. At the time most of the Iranian equipment was US made. Always their maintenance was poor, though given they were making their own replacement parts maybe they could achieve more valid launches than we anticipated. Iranians are the most intelligent people in the region. They have been hamstrung by needing to buy equipment.
I feel like it was more the rate of fire and less the increased number of missiles
Correct, it's not saturation if the missile launches are spaced out too much.
Wha???
So, your little party Is quite silly. A carrier group would not enter these waters with a 120 missiles at the ready. They would most likely destroy most of them before the carrier group would proceed into that area.
The scenario roleplay was they were able to hide them effectively. Note that there was 3 ships as a distraction force going full speed at the carrier. Based off the size and portible nature of these missiles, I can see this being at least partially realistic if going off those parameters, though I agree there would most likely be more F/A-18s up before the first missile is off due to spotting them being set up.
There ought to have been the fast speed boats attacking at the same time for an overload situation situation.
On now wait a minute...maybe this excursion through the strait isn;t a good idea and it needs to re-thought. how many people can we lose here? That's too many.
We ended wars to prevent more deaths.
@GG yep, iran also reportedly would use suicide boats to collect data before driving right into the side of a carrier
would the missiles not aim for the gunboats?
The day Iran takes out a U.S carrier, get to your nuclear bunker
@brainbah lol, any info that?
@brainbah thanks!! Will look it up.
@brainbah i mean apparently he was making up random shit like his units have perfect stealth or something
@@MrWizardjr9 no. No he wasn’t. He just kept radio silence.
Iran has better land based missiles IRL. Their domestically produced cruise missiles are impressive and more importantly, battle tested and proven to be able to bypass Saudi Patriot PAC3 batteries .
I remember entering the Straits on USS Kitty Hawk - right after the Iranians had purchased a batch of Chinese YJ-83/C-802 missiles - damned erector/launchers could be disguised as civilian lorries (trucks). LOTS of time spent pouring over imagery, talking with the EWs, and speculating... we were nervous enough that we transited in the middle of the night, hid behind a friendly tanker-ship, and had one of the Ticonderoga's 60 miles BEHIND us running his radar
Just going to write up a few things as I watch this.
1 - Your carrier group is twice the size of what a normal one would be. There are a limited number of available Tico's at any one time and at least one DD gets peeled off to the GOO and another to the red sea whenever strike groups go to the Persian gulf. More realistic for straights transit would be 1 Sub, 1 CV, 1 or 2 DDG's and 1 CG. Maybe MAYBE an LCS. Maybe, but highly unlikely.
2 - a 17 knot transit speed through the Straights of Hormuz is idiotic. A strike group would be going at LEAST 25. And as soon as the Iranian DD's were detected, it would be 30+.
3 - OHP class Frigates don't exist anymore.
4 - SM-2's have the ability to change target mid course? Wut? Lol. Trust me, they don't.
5 - It would seem this sim doesn't take CIWS loadout limits in to account. They can't fire for more than a few seconds.
I know this is just a video game, but it seems pointless with the high number of innacuracies.
A couple of important issues you are missing here. the AEGIS system and E-2C's work in conjunction with each other to monitor the incoming and control the outgoing missiles. Second, you are using Knox class Frigates in this scenario, not AEGIS Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. Next, with Ticonderoga Class CG's and Arleigh Burke class DDG's, they have vertical launch systems and can fire AND control multiple missiles at the same time, along with other ships controlling missiles launched from other platforms, as well as the E-2C's controlling the missiles. Next, you forgot about Electronic Warfare! Those old target acquisition radars on land, as well as the radar's on the missiles themselves would not stand a chance against the high Mega Watt jamming output of the US Navy's SLQ-32's. They would just crash in to the ocean from being 'blinded' by the jamming. Lastly, the DDG's and CG's would have launched ARM as soon as the first missile launch was detected. they would have never got off a second volley.
@@ewtech9349 1, you are assuming the E2-C's are CEC capable, which only the D variant are. Currently, there are a limited inventory of those. 2, no, they are using OHP frigates. You are flat out wrong here.
@@ewtech9349 Third, yes, CG's and DDG's can control multiple missiles at a time, but there is a hard limit. I will not say what that limit is, but trust me, it exists. I know exactly what it is, and a single bearing stream raid is the most difficult thing to defend against. Lastly, EW IS effective, but it is not mega watt. Again, here you are flat out wrong. It would only be employed against missiles already in terminal phase and wouldn't be 100% effective. I don't know what you mean by "ARM" but it isn't a system that is employed on tico's or arleigh burkes. So, again, your ignorance is showing.
@@ewtech9349 my qualifications are : one decade active duty Aegis Fire Controlman RSC, CSC, AAWC, CSRO, AWS, LPO, RPPO. Seriously dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
@@le_potate3861 Why single bearing raid is the hardest type of raid to defend? Is it because the ship can only use a single illuminator in that situation?
The only one I have seen so far who can destroy a carrier group is Godzilla
It's basically just a numbers game when it comes to situations such as this.
It's all fun and games until a Shrike or HARM anti-radiation missile slams into your radar hut guiding those Silkworms.
That's why they use several "huts".
They have more than one "hut" though.
The question is,how many HARM can a jet carry,like 4-6 at best? And its not like those "hut" is the only threat,you need the HARMs for Iranian air defence system too thus even lesser HARMs that you can spare for those "hut"s per sortie.
Bruh the missiles guide themselves...
I’d like to see it repeated with a 4 ship Tomcat CAP, with 4 more ready on the cats. The Tomcat was supposed to be the frontline defense against stand-off cruise missile armed Soviet bombers, so taking out Silkworms should be right up their alley.
True, but how many silkworms could 8 Tomcats take out? Each plane could carry 6 (max) Phoenixes, I don't know if they could do a useful CAP with 6 loaded. Let's be optimistic: 48 Phoenixes in the air, say 40 (?) silkworm taken out, still 80 for the surface-to-air systems to deal with. There may be some leakers.
@@SolarWebsite Right, but in the case of the videos second 100 missile attack where the carrier sank, would the Tomcat CAP made the difference, lightening the load on the carrier and her escorts enough that they could survive.
Tomcats were withdrawn from service decades ago.Check the date of your vcr tape top gun.
@@JohnSmith-co7qt No shit, Captain Pedantic? (To one up your pedantry, the Tomcat was actually retired only 15 years ago, in April 2006. So not quite decades.) Well, then I guess there’s no point in adding a hypothetical retired aircraft to an already very unrealistic hypothetical scenario, in a simulation video game that has a very limited ability to model the full capabilities and tactics of a CSG, and has an AI that can be remarkably stupid at times, just to satisfy a curiosity question about the possible effects of an aircraft that was purpose built for carrier air defense. All purely for shits and giggles. You’re right, that would be just silly. 🙄 Of course, based on your position, the whole experiments shown is already invalid because the legacy Hornet is also fully retired from Naval service. Well, crap. I guess Cap should just delete the whole thing because people like you want to quibble about adding too much fiction to fiction.
@@JohnSmith-co7qt LOL
Fun Fact! One of the things that makes an actual conflict with Iran difficult is the unknown number of buried silkworm missiles lining the Gulf. After Gulf 1 the Iranians learned that anything that could be seen by satellite, got a paveway in the kisser, SO they started to bury unknown numbers of long range surface to surface missiles to act as a deterrent to US aggression. If the US took a swing at them, the Iranians would hit every oil facility inside of a few hundred miles... so, long story short, they can and DO hide silkworms all along the coast lol
Maybe i should offer my reletives to hide silkworms in their fishing boats in persian gulf.nice idea man😂only way to deal with americans to us is asymmetic warfare😄
A missile buried under the sand probably isn't very useful at shooting boats. The Iraqis buried plenty of planes in 2003 and all it meant was some MiG-25s got found and put in a museum lol. The Iraqis were (and probably still are) way better than the Iranians since they beat them in a war and Iran has probably never recovered since the sound drubbing delivered by Saddam's Ba'athist armies.
@@SecuR0M you cannot fly buried planes under soil.but missiles can fly from underground by hitting a botton in tehran.thats the difference that saddam hided them bcz of fear.and also many of their planes scaped to iran.but missles are hidden to surprise.then they should search for launchers to death.
No ECM seems to be modeled at all. In reality most of those missiles could have been jammed with ease by today’s ECM aboard any of those picket ships. Directed energy would fry their sensors well before got close.
I agree
Probably all of them would be decoyed by a few rounds of chaff from the ships and end up sailing over the boats, going off in random directions, crashing into the ocean, or killing every oil tanker in the immediate vicinity.
The Ayatollah smiles as he looks upon this video. Then realizes it would be the last thing Iran would ever do as a functioning nation.
Meh US has lost wars before.. and not to mention it's not like Russia will just let em bomb Iran without intervening itself if needed directly or indirectly
@@VAPOURIZE100 I highly doubt Russia gives enough of a damn about Iran
to do anything - let alone get into a shooting war with America. Also: Why get your hands dirty and risk WW3,
if you can stand on the side-line, sell lots of weapons and watch your "No. 1 enemy"
get into a quagmire several times bigger than Iraq & Afghanistan combined ?
@@HauntedXXXPancake well in case the US forces get close to winning kinda like what happened in Nkorea in the 1950s.. tho at the time China didnt have nukes this time it would be a whole other game.. but yeah it would def be a bigger mess than Iraq n Afghanistan combined
Deterrence is the name of the game. A bunch of silkworms keeps the US from landing an invasion fleet. Hundreds of scuds pointed at gulf state desalination plants are another.
@@VAPOURIZE100 Depends on who the aggressor is, I think the world would not look too fondly on the side that struck first considering this exact situation would probably trigger WWIII
As a retired F/A-18 guy this was a bit tingly to watch. But overwhelming our missile defense was Soviet Naval doctrine in the 80's, so it's not beyond imagining. Their philosophy varied slightly, however. It was to inundate the battle group with standard missiles and then sneak a nuke in to scrap the carrier. We never transitioned the straits without a lot of aircraft buzzing around overhead and all eyes and ears on the Iranians.
What was that night time Silkworm launch on USN? Everyone launched and missed with the only hits being from Phalanx on another USN ship.
@@BigSmartArmed Missouri had a pair of Silkworms shot at her by the Iraqi Navy in 1991 and a frigate (USS Sides?) shot a bulkhead because her CIWS got confused by Missouri's RBOC rounds. The actual rockets were shot down by a pair of missiles fired by a British frigate.
@@SecuR0M Sounds right but what I remember is that both Silkworms missed and crashed into the water. I don't recall them being shot down.
Seems like it would be relatively easy to have underground missile launchers. North Koreans are known to have some tunnels with only the last few feet rigged with explosives to clear the tunnel. You could do that here too. Although even if we announced we were traversing, and we saw Iran move the launchers unbidden on the beach, we’d probably still do it. Even if their saturation was high enough to take out the Carrier, God help them within the next 24 hours.. Regardless, these sims are fun to watch. Thanks for putting these together! 🙂👍🥦🦖
Simultaneous strike with a swarm of speedboats... And fire all the missiles at the same time, at the moment the speedboats have like 20% losses...
After the Cole the Navy is much more agressive on standoff weapons.
In a few years, more of those Arleigh-Burke ships will have turrent-mounted CIWS lasers on them for point defense. Against an auto-tracking high-energy laser, a fast-attack boat loaded with ammo and explosives is like a birthday present. Add in the Phalanx and Bushmaster cannons and...
Iran could hide the anti ship missiles on back of regular trucks. They can easily moved into position very fast.
wow man your videos are so much better past year fells like liking the actions and ideas
I would imagine that the debries left by the first missiles intercepted by AA defense would help in the saturation of the defense system, pulverized aluminium and chemicals near the ships systems
That's a good point. I wonder if in real life this would actually cause a whole lot of issues for the anti-missile systems.
Actually it's worse than that - imagine being hit by a shotgun like mass of shredded aluminium and an engne (and smashed up explosive/fuel) at close to mach one, certainly with the higher velocity missiles merely "destroying them" isn't enough you actually have to put in enough energy to distribute/delect the fragments or slow it down.
I don't know if it's modeled in DCS but in that's a real tactic.
The first missiles and rockets fired by speed boats are actually chaff warheads so when they explode they creat an aluminum cloud, blinding the ships' radars.
I guess IF, it would go both ways and the Iranian missiles have much smaller and
less advanced Radars than the ships.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 Wouldn't that also disturb the coastal batteries' radars?
it should be sop to have at least 20 planes up at a time an going thru that real estate and Cluster bombs and thermobarics should be on the menu
It is.
@@jpmangen well Jason thanx for the affirmation
Oversaturation for the win!
“Saturation”…. Because QUANTITY is a quality in and of itself.
CWIS is gone after few seconds of firing and effectivity is much smaller in real life. AEGIS was never tested against real missiles with warheads aiming at ships. And there are no jammers and no deceptive attacks used, which again is very unrealistic. Area will be jammed, expect some torpedoes running in to initiate chaos, some air attacks and then surprise missile barrage to finish everything. You don't need 100+ missiles and in case you use modern supersonic ones, it will reduce time gap for defences to just seconds from detection to impact.
In real event, NEVER once think that Iranian military only got this missile for maritime defense folks.
Two reasons that killed fighting men in battlefield, one is enemy's trick/surprises, the other is the idea that the enemy is stupid or weak.
They ought to hold something back for the next carrier group…
they probably have thousands of those rockets....and it only takes 200 to take care of a carrier group. they're good.
@@sabin97 Yea,
They're not going to be good.
@@sabin97 Even IF they do - Having those numbers and using them efficiently are two very different things.
To begin with, the Americans would never send a carrier-group anywhere near such an obvious trap.
Call me optimistic, but I somehow also doubt that, even with improvements, an Iranian copy of a Chinese copy
of a 70 year Russian missile
would be this effective - Specially not since the Americans had ample
opportunity to take those missiles apart and study them.
@@brettpowell4121
there's a reason usa keeps talking a big game, applying sactions, but never even attempting to invade iran and steal their oil and great mineral wealth.
you certainly CAN do it.
with the most ridiculously expensive military in history any country can be successfully invaded. but the price in united stater lives would be more than you'd be willing to pay.
@@HauntedXXXPancake
americans dont invade anyone. the only american country that invades people is usa. and those people are not really americans. they are a bunch of europeans and bunch of africans. the very few americans that live there are marginalized into "reservations".
what you describe isnt optimism. it's pessimism.
i'm optimistic in hoping iran would have more modern technologies.
Don't forget the American rocket batteries stationed across the gulf. They would be raining down missiles on all those silkwork batteries
Didnt the US Navy try sinking a decommissoned carrier several years back? Took 3 days of bombardment to sink her.
This is reason for those 1mt warheads on Soviet stuff.
I’ll keep saying this, it doesn’t matter how good or bad a missile system may be because more often than not all it takes is the one golden B.B. to get through
That was what Sadam thought... Didn't work out that way. For a first strike, sure... but after that, the safeties are off... It isn't as if you can sink 10 carrier groups at the same time... You may get one... perhaps 2.
@@horscategorie, that’s my point, the enemy only needs to be lucky once but the defenders need to be lucky all the time. That’s what my judo masters taught me as a kid and it’s something I’ve stuck to throughout my life and with a surname like mine my auld cranky grandpa taught me to be vicious in competitions and show no mercy because a win whether I S honourable or not is still a win
I had a little idea for this (though I am sure you have plenty...I think I saw a spreadsheet at one point >.< )
Maybe do entire countries air forces vs a carrier group? Starting with Denmark and working your way up to larger and larger countries. China and Russia would be an obvious no, but how about Spain? Italy? India?
I'm pretty sure any even remotely modern air force could obliterate a carrier group tbh.
@@cassius_eu5970 China and Russia could destroy a single carrier group. Any other country it starts to get iffy.
@@Western_1 While not the carrier Group the carrier itself is a possibility, Australia has with two different Submarine classes over a forty year spread regularly sunk Carriers in exercises. even at times surfacing alongside the carrier while it was actively hunting for the Submarine. Six tubes point blank, Voyage to the bottom of the sea! Other Navies submarines have done similar!
Was onboard Missouri when Iraq fired a silkworm missile at us while we were going back and forth between Failaka Island amd Kuwait city providing GFS. Iowa only has CWIS as a viable anti-missile system, however, the silkworm went aft of us anyway and was shot down by HMS Gloucester. I was on watch as radar operator for SKY1 providing navigation aid because in reality, try hitting any kind of missile with a 5"-38. Just not really going to happen.
After this exciting little bit everyone was a bit jumpy. I don't remember how long after this happened when another missile threat (false - the atmosphere is really dirty there) came and one of our brave senior chiefs was under the control console in CIC launching chaff in every direction. One of our escort destroyer on our port side CIWS locked on the the chaff canister think it is a pop-up profile and peppered the canister all the way down, which was between the destroyer and the MO. Fortunately no one was injured but was definitely a blue on blue event.
When decommissioning the MO and replacing the Mk37 GF director bloomers on Sky-3 (Starboard) we heard something drop on the deck as we removed and folded the old bloomer. It was a depleted uranium round from the destroyer. It had just barely missed Sky-2 (Port side) gone through the stack and into the bloomer where it hit the optical rangefinder and then dropped to the bottom of the bloomer.
And I thought it only got freaky when you guys had to rig for CBW (someone posted closed-circuit video from Plot of the event) after, due to smoke off the coast.
middle east insurgency are sending marines to the air for several years just using old cheap stuff. Imagine what Iran can do
You know, I think Iran might have already thought of the "why don't we just launch tons of missiles at them" idea
those silkworms have an out standing model! It looks so damn good.
It was used during the Iran Iraq war Tanker War
These Silkworm missiles are Chinese copies of Soviet Stynx missile with a 450 kilogrammes of warhead
How quickly that went from impressive defense to impressive offense was… impressive lol
Hey man, first, I love this series, and I appreciate your general military knowledge. I have a buddy that knows just mountains of this stuff including actual specs of say, the SM6, but as he's been working for one of the largest defense contractors for 15-years with top-security secret clearance doesn't get me any info of course.
I'd love to make a special modification request on this scenario. As you concluded at the end of the carrier sinking, it simply took down that one side of the carrier group. If I'm a US Captain of this group, and there were no allied assets within defensive range (I can see the Air Force assisting the Navy on a mission like this depending on tensions and intel; additional CAP of F-16's, or perhaps one B-2 bomber loaded with guided munitions and a targeting asset to quickly assign each bomb a GPS coordinate would do nicely, within the SM2/SM6 defensive bubble).
But, back to my point, sorry there. If I were the Captain and saw such quantity from the one coast, I'd have to make the decision, based on his knowledge of the various Iranian weapon systems available, and that these are essentially "dumb-radar" missiles, one of my first actions would be to reposition the fleet. I'm no expert of course, but I'd swing the carrier as hard to the left as possible while maintaining F-18 launch capability, as incoming missiles got closer, I'd straighten out on an angled trajectory moving away from the enemy in order for the CWIZ to be at its most effective range and angle of attack while gaining distance from the missiles. I'd order the front left destroyer to slightly reposition closer to the carrier in a trailing position for even more effective CWIZ and less time to target on late SM2 hits, the other destroyers to effectively maneuver to the rough area of the original carrier location, but with optimal weapon systems separation maintained, and let's be honest, they would be physically shielding the carrier, one frigate to also move in towards the carrier's new position for reduced SM2 time to target, and one frigate to maintain rear guard, effectively the same as that front left destroyer maintaining forward guard. I believe subs are basically non-functional in the simulator, but if you can lunch some ground-to-ground, now would be the time. If any or all of these changes are doable, I think it would make for a really fun scenario to play out and see if a bit of human response can defeat the barrage. I mean, the carrier was hit 25 times or so? This may balance it out.
Bonus thoughts: I'm frankly a bit annoyed that the US helped fund the Iron Dome and didn't have a reciprocal technology sharing agreement. Do they see the US as a military threat in the next hundred years? Completely ridiculous if you ask me. The the SM2 and SM6 series are effectively a naval Iron Dome, but even if Israel tech improved US tech a few percentage points, plus the fleet's focus all in (even further) with VLS capacity and ultimately laser defense to replace/supplement the CWIZ (which I understand is effective, but the Russian equivalent is rated as more effective if I'm not mistaken?).
If Iran (or any country) took out a US carrier, I can only think of one song that would sum up the response. Gary Numan's 'We are glass'
Also, no way does intelligence miss the massing of that many launchers in one place, and no doubt as to why the Iranians are doing it. Any carrier group commander with that knowledge would have his full complement of fighter bombers in the air while making transit past that area.
I think iranians too wouldn't install such a huge quantity of batteries without any anti air missile i.e s300 and f14 support,
My late father, a man who studied under Barnes Wallace, always said a Fairey Swordfish could sink a modern carrier as they'd not see it as a threat - until it dropped the torpedo!
In real situation. There will be an initial wave of dummy missiles to deplete ageis interceptors. Then a massive wave of missiles and torpedoes.
If you want to know how this works in real life, checkout HMS Gloucester in the 1991 Gulf War. The The Gloucester was screening the USS Missouri when it was targeted and attacked by and Iranian Silkworm. The Gloucester intercepted and shot down the Silkworm with a second generation SAM (Sea Dart). Not a big deal.
yes I remember that. But only 2 missiles were fired in that incident.
Should have tried to go after the radar cars first since the missiles are controlled from them at the beginning.
Je n'avais pas compris le principe... C'est étonnant et remarquable. :-) Evidemment, dans un scénario réel, les Iraniens aligneraient aussi des vedettes - pour distraire les frégates us - et des sous-marins - pour frapper le porte-avion.
I personally think Cap and the Boys need to use the Hurcs at low level with anti ship missiles
15:47 Hornet pilot : F*ck my life , banzaiiiii !!
Great vid, unlikely the Iranians would ever do this though. Lobbing the odd missile at tankers carrying Saudi oil is one thing. Starting a general war with the US another. The current situation for Iran is fine most probably. Be a thorn in the side, rattle the sabers sometimes, but don't go over the top.
It would be a last resort for Iran. If the US were to attack Iran or invade they would retaliate. That's precisely why the US hasn't invaded or attacked Iran in the first place because realistically Iran has significantly more numerous and better quality assets than shown in this video.
That would have been some light show at dusk or dawn. Thanks for another fun one!
I counted 24 direct hits on the carrier.
Those missiles would have fallen helplessly into the ocean before getting any where near close to any of those ships.
@@byronschroedel432 I agree. Iran won’t be doing saturation launch’s as they would deplete the only real defense they have. If a battle group is transitioning that area it’s coming to or leaving station and another battle group is nearby that would be hitting Iran in short order
@16:00 “If 120 sticks were fired” ....
- Iran would promptly be transformed into a glass parking lot......
How come the picket defenses don't use their forward guns? Mark 45's or whatever...
Because they don't work for anti air. They won't leave the Battle group to shore bombard because then they wouldn't be doing pocket duty.
This simulator is stupid. The Iranian silk worms are anti commercial shopping. They arnt really any threat to warships.
Also CVNs don't really sail into the Persian gulf. They stay outside the gulf.
Both US subs respond reducing Iran to pebbles. No more oil, no more anything. We already did this once.
in the real world the silkworm battery would be cooling ashes before the CAG arrived but whatevs
"We're giving Iran ideas."
That was one carrier strike group, the US has 12, plus 20 times that strength land based. It's a perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war.
Iran have more then 300 000 missiles distributed to grunge luncher cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and in speed boats and their is a lot of suicide UAV's
Yeah, I think sinking a US carrier only succeeds in making sure that the US really wants to destroy you. Once you do that it isn't hearts and minds anymore.
Fighting wars in the mid-east is endless and you will lose it. The more traditional/religious a nation is the harder it will be. Look at Afghanistan 19yrs of war with NATO and now they are even stronger and US is pulling out.
DCS does not model any ECM or countermeasures. The reality is that Arleigh Burke has an ECM suite that can literally fry those Silkworm seekers from 20 miles out. The moment they realized that this many missiles were being launched you would have chaff decoys launching and ECM could steer those missiles at a single decoy. Arleigh Burke (and the Carriers) have a number of classified defense systems, particularly ECM. The Silkworms would fall harmlessly into the ocean, same as they did in the 1980s when they fired on USS Jack Williams. In total, 5 missiles fell into the ocean, and not a single US vessel fired a shot
@@rama7267 we always pull put. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, you name it. However, we will bomb any 2nd or 3rd world economic country forever.
Iran: This is such cheaper than buying a literall strike airplane group
America: You cant beat us bc we have air defence
No CSG would ever transit a narrow high missile threat area in that formation. And, of course the game misses other issues. Fun though!
Yeah unfortunately there aren’t many ways of simulating this and this is all hypothetical as in all the stars aligned. Most of the time I do believe that they would have spotted them with their air wings before getting into any sort of combat.
There would be a fair number of the missiles that would malfunction. And you're right - there's other non obvious issues. The range of the missiles is 50 miles. Then it becomes a game of being 60 miles out hugging coastal waters.
Hmmm
So the moral of the story is
To launch your cheap older missiles
First
Letting them soak up the carrier group defense
Then
launch your new high tech missiles
And they will have a much better chance to get through
"This will be giving Iran ideas, really shouldn't make these videos....." ROTFLMAO
If you have no carrier to return to, you either return to another carrier in another battle group within range, or you land at an allied airfield, like Bahrain, or in Saudi Arabia.
3 destroyers? We had 2 to start with, and one of them went down during that largest naval conflict US had after WW2...
Grim U.S Navy gonna warned you now 😂😂😂
Is it possible to gen a Lun-class ekranoplan into DCS? Would be interesting to see if it's any good against ships
oh man I would LOVE that
Try with 100 supertucanos ;)
I saved this comment for the end of this video.
In real life the frigates and destroyers would form a northern flanking wall of CWIS capable ships. And the carrier would probably be a few miles south of that northern flanking wall.
This has been standard since the days of shore batteries.
@Unstoppable Specimen The South flank is not an issue because we have bases out there.
@Unstoppable Specimen Submarines, old boy.
... LOL a retired USA marine General War gamed US vs Iran an as he was Iran he ended up winning as the you pointed out saterating air defense is the key against US Carrier groups as Putin calls them the worlds most expensive coffin ship problem is the USA has gotten to full of themselves from beating 3rd world countries they haven't fought a equal since the 40's newest Russian guidance systems is quite impressive
I can see where you got confused there: Unlike Russian war-games, American war-games aren't
primarily shows of strength for the people at home and abroad.
They actively try to find scenarios in which they might lose, so that they can learn & prepare.
@@HauntedXXXPancake not confused I know that all to well lol but you said it better lol
www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/
this is the event I was talking about
Omg I see I am the only one that thought this was the worms from Beetlejuice vs US carrier group... this needs to be done xD
Arm them with CBU's for crying out loud.
Still not going to help, once the missile has left the ramp, it is just a cheap piece of steel and they are considered "disposible" weapons in such a scenario anyway.
Because it takes too long to reload such a launcher with a fresh missile which is the most expensive part anyway.
The radar on the other hand is the more valuable part of the system, but still useless once the missiles have been fired and they are guiding themselves.
@@CMDRSweeper We have been building HARM missiles and fielding Wild Weasels for many years.
When discussed in modern terms, here is what you can use to tell the difference between a destroyer and a frigate.
A frigate has a single purpose while a destroyer fills multiple roles.
Not quite true, most can do the exact same roles but have less payload & combat sustainability. Look at the wiki for the Constellation-class frigate and see what's so single purpose about it.
@@CheapSushi I am guessing that you never served in a navy. I am an US Army Veteran that knows more about the US Navy than most navy veterans.
@@MajorHavoc214 All of the ships have gotten gigantic since WW2, army puke. They haven't built anything that isn't multi-mission in decades.
@@hithere7382 The US hasn't stopped building ships and your statement has been disproven without me doing a damn thing. Does the failed Littoral Combat Ship program manage to rub two minute brain cells for you?
@@MajorHavoc214 it was sold to congress as being multi mission. Your personal attacks are worthless. If Lockheed employed reasonable shipyard engineers it might have gone differently. LCS wasn't even considered a frigate until Hagel the secdef decided they were. Little crappy ship pork barrel is more apt.
Not to mention LCS doesn't have the legs to be part of a Carrier Strike Group. Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates were the last real frigates fielded by USN. We haven't operated them in many years.
You have left out a very important part of the strike force. The ECM capabilities of the strike force will leave those silkworms absolutely blind. They have no chance of hitting anything.
Simba could have landed at the USAF base in Qatar
Aegis is amazing
I would imagine surviving planes would fly to Oman Saudi Arabia !
Wow, double the incoming fire and Aegis delivers a completely different result.
yeah. they have a limit on how many simultaneous targets they can track
I'm surprised no nation (esp Iran) hasn't thought about converting something like an oil tanker or other large vessel into a floating missile platform. It would be relatively easy to install and hide weapons systems below decks in such huge ships that sail right past American fleets almost daily ...
No....there'd be a large glassy parking lot in that corner of Iran.
A carrier group would never come into range of the missals until they had eliminated the threat. I mean come on. It's a desert area on a beach. Nowhere to hide them.
This kind of thing will become an increasingly pertinent question.
And this is why you do sweeping missions before the carriers arrive.
That is the point of a carrier, isn't it?
Awesome! I love all your experiments and stuff!
The P-15 Thermite or "Styx" was Russian. HY2 is the second lot of production by China, it is faster, longer ranged and has a working guidance, which the Original P-15 had not. Their Altimeter was so unreliable they couldn’t hit a barn from the inside. Also the HY2 has Solid fuel instead of Ultra Toxic hypergaulic liquid fuel, the P-15 had.
Now you need a video what happens over the next week or so
That would be interesting for sure.
Iran would be a forbidden zone for 50,000 years.
During Operation Desert Storm, Iraq tried to attack the USS Missouri with land-to-sea missiles. The missiles were distracted by chaff launched from the Missouri and its escorts and shot down by shot down by fighters. There was some damage to the US ships...due to friendly fire.
In real-world, Iran wouldn't do this, They will fire anti-radar ballistic missile (Homoz-1) from the underground arsenal in the first place and keep carrier group defense system busy with around 5000 unguided rockets which shoot from fast boats and others, then they fire primary ballistic anti-ship missile (Homoz-2). this will happen if the carrier group be around Iran borders. in case of ocean strike, Iran would use the anti-ship version on Sejill missile with 2000 km and dive speed of Mach 13
In Dcs these weapons don't exist but it's fun to try Carrier group Strike with Scud missile. here is a Mod that can guide Scud missiles correctly:
www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3314178/
Iran can easily hit the american carriers from about 5000km away with IRBMs that can dodge anti air missiles. It only takes 1 warhead to sink a carrier. 12 missiles, 12 carriers sunk.
Exactly 👌
جالبه رفتن یک موشک مال تکنولوژی ۳۰ سال پیش کره شمالی همین موشک کروز رو در نظر گرفتن با این اوصاف هم شکست خوردن و ناو گروه آسیب دید . در حالی که موشک های بالستیک برد میان برد و برد بلند ایران رو در نظر نگرفتن موشگ هایی مثل خلیج فارس با دوربین اپتیکی و موشک های هرمز ۱ و ۲ که ضده رادار هستند . موشک های کروزی مثل کوثر قدر قدیر رو در نظر نگرفتن . موشک های زلزال بارشی رو در نظر نگرفتن . موشش پدافندی سواحل ایران رو در نظر نگرفتند . قایق های تندرو و موشک انداز با موشک های کروز کوثر رو در نظر نگرفتن حملات فوجی پهپاد های پاتکی و انتحاری و بمب افکن رو در نظر نگرفتن . حملات قایق های انتحاری رو در نظر نگرفتن مثل قایق یا مهدی ! متعجبم رفته یک موشک ساخت کره شمالی که تکنولوژیش مال ۳۰ یا ۴۰ سال پیشه آوردخ اینجا 🤐
@@Tr-ie6zy
موشک کرم ابریشم تنها موشک کروز زمین پایه ی ضد کشتی موجود در شبیه سازه و انتخاب دیگه ای نداشتن موشک بالستیک هم فقط اسکاد بی داره که مال زمان شوروی سابقه کلا تمرکز شرکتش روی ساخت چیزهایی هستش که کاربر بتونه توش بازی کنه که بتونه بفروشه و فعلا سراغ تسلیحات اختصاصی کشور ها نمیاد همچین چون بحث تجهیزات نظامی هست به اطلاعات کامل و دقیق دسترسی ندارند که بتونتد همه چیز رو بسازند
First off the answer to the question on the thumbnail is no they can't because what a lot of you people don't realize is there are lasers now on naval ships that are used to take out missiles anti ship missiles and torpedoes
"Give Iran ideas" This would be a pretty clear act of war. Iran would pay dearly.
True but this would be a major flex. USA would have to organize the biggest marine and land invasion, and i dont know if they would not be reluctant to send a new group if one was sinked.
this is basically millenium challenge 2002
First of all we are not allowed to fly fixed wing aircraft while going through the straits while entering the gulf at least we were not from 90' - 2003. In 1991 the USS Independence was the first carrier to get chaff and flare pods installed during Desert Shield. While I was on that deployment the Weapons Officer told me we can had enough to take out many missiles as long as we react fast enough after all during that transit period we are quite vulnerable to attack. ADM Ready made plans to enter the gulf as it had been many years since 1973 a US Carrier has been in there. The Air force Tankers were never there to tank up our planes when we were there out side the gulf.
imagine if those missles can communicate to each other. On-board AI will optimize their target acquisition. It is plausible that the future war will be a volley of over saturation attacking units.
Based on the success/failure rate of the Patriot, I'm not convinced the Navy could protect itself as described in these simulations. Just my opinion.
termit missiles will not be able to penetrate arleigh burke's very strong and layered aegis system unless iran uses zircon.
So what you're saying is... a dedicated anti shipping missile ship would wipe them out easily.
Hope you're doing well yourself, SuperCap! Great show, as always 🤘🏼
"but then again, most Russian stuff ends up becoming Chinese" that goes for natural resources and women too.
Very entertaining. Great video
How many videos in a day holy, plus this was a very satisfying vid
I really like these carrier defense videos bro keep it up