Some Soviet anti-ship missiles can be targeted by EW in this game other youtubers have demonstrated it, unless it's a glitch they don't lock on and just fly by in straight line missing by sometimes miles.
Yeah that's a weird comment, maybe he meant something else because in other people's scenarios the Offensive ECM definitely made a difference in effectiveness of a missile strike and defensive capabilities of the defending ships
I think he meant there was no point in jamming the soviet fleet because they already know where the American fleet is and will fire anyway. but yeah jamming the incoming missiles would have been a good idea.
Iirc. jamming isn't effective against ASMs in the cruise phase because they are under inertial & waypoint guidance. Their seekers only activate in the terminal phase, by which time they're being spoofed by the ships' onboard ECM and other decoys. So the EW aircraft wouldn't add much value and the range is probably below burn through anyway.
@@tomdrv9901in practice you can completely confuse the systems in soviet missiles at any time of it’s flight by using jamming. This was discovered late In Vietnam, and it wasn’t corrected in soviet designed missiles until the Russians learned the US could do that during the Gulf War. Just because the seeker isn’t seeking or the receivers aren’t supposed to receiving doesn’t mean it cannot be exploited.
Harrier wasn’t shooting the AWACS bc he was set to “ weapons tight”. Units are not obeying orders because they try to execute orders in the order they were received, you need to cancel old orders to have them react immediately.
Not gonna lie, When you had those two ships almost colliding I was yelling at my monitor for you to stop one of them. hahaha. Love Grim reaper videos.. best videos.
clancy had two ships doing that. They faked a big carrier by being close together. As bait to protect the actual carrier. And when the missiles cam, the did just that.
@ grimreapers Two points, Cap: First, I know you like to start these battles by watching all the Russian ships launching their long-range missiles. But then they have a huge head start by the time you switch to the Blue side and chitchat for a while before you even start to launch aircraft. IRL, the US carriers would at least have a CAP in the air before the Russians are in missile range. So why not start the scenario with the Russians a little out of range so you can launch the CAP and then go watch the Russian missile launch as they get in range. This wasn't critical in this scenario, but it definitely matters with the Nimitz class, where the F14/Phoenix combo is specifically purposed to defeat incoming cruise missiles and/or the planes that launch them. Then, after watching the Russian missile launch, with CAP already in the air, you can prioritize launching an A6 anti-ship strike supported by EA6B Prowlers. This is critical because you'll at least have a counterstrike on the way. Won't be able to do that, obviously, after Russian anti-ship missiles strike your carrier. With your own airstrike away, then launch the rest of your F14s, and as you close the range, A7s to finish off damage ships. Oh yeah...your S3 "anti-sub" planes can also launch Harpoons and have excellent range (in case you want to send them around to attack from another vector). Second, in future scenarios where you introduce submarines, beware the Russian subs' wake-homing torpedoes. You might want to place the plane guard frigate directly in the carrier's wake in order to take a hit, sacrificing itself to spare the carrier. That frigate shouldn't just be there for sacrifice, of course. Use its towed sonar below the thermocline if possible while its helo drops sonobuoys (or dipping sonar, if modeled) to find subs above the thermocline.
With regard to the discussion on American vs. rest-of-world philosophy on naval vessel armament around the 45 minute mark, the U.S. made a decision early-mid Vietnam era to go all in on power projection via carriers and via the air wing. They decided to focus less on ship-borne missiles and focus their anti-shipping coming from the air wing. They also started to discount the naval abilities of Soviet Union surface units and instead solely focused on their subsurface capabilities. This philosophy appeared to pay off with the fall of the USSR, then the U.S. had absolutely no navy in the world to worry about for over 20 years, causing them to cease development on any anti-surface weaponry deployed from surface ships. They ignored the rising threat from PRC and have only recently scrambled to come up with viable answers to hold PRC at threat from surface ships but are decades behind since PRC just back-engineered old Soviet systems and then developed them further.
That’s incorrect my friend. I just retired from the Navy. I was on a cruiser and tomahawks are not just land based attack they are dual purpose. Plus you have sm3’s onboard as well to go along with torpedoes and harpoons.
Other TH-camrs able to use the EA-EB to jam the Soviet missiles in a defensive environment while using it in a offensive context to jam the enemy radar for the anti-shipping missiles, get through and strike the ships. But also goes both ways if your playing as the Soviet.
Cap you said it perfectly when you said “that’s not a battle” I love how you set this and all your scenarios up. It’s appreciated how much work you put into your videos.
It's a paradox with the subject of the game. I'd argur this isn't a 'battle' either. Removing the recon & positioning phase of a naval battle is like forcing two platoons of infantry into a single boxing ring and calling it platoon tactics. It's fun to watch but don't go reading into anything that happens! The outcome of modern naval battles, even against peer adversaries, are mostly determined by everything that happens before shots are fired, just like the coral sea and the great carrier battles. Outcomes are very one-sided. Sea Powers store page alludes to this too: " Can you successfully hide your forces while detecting and tracking theirs? It is up to you to play an advanced game of cat and mouse on the high seas, to seize the initiative and attack with the advantage of surprise on your side. "
@@tomdrv9901 you have a tremendous point brother. I think all that being said he keeps the viewer in mind for fun action filled videos to keep us the viewer entertained and watching .. just a thought. All love to yall though.
Nice vid. I am so hyped about Sea Power as I always loved Jane's Fleet Command until it stopped working on my computers because it was too old to run properly. This looks like finally a valid successor with today's graphics. 👍😬
When I was younger, I had a book on modern naval ships. The Kiev class ships were just fascinating to me. I think one of the most unusual looking planes was the "thimble nose" Harriers, and the 2 seaters.
Video idea: A GR carrier strike force vs real world carrier groups Create your own grim reapers carrier group and then pit fight it against carrier groups the same way you do with these vids here.
SHIPS LAUNCH CHAFF AUTOMATICALLY at the optimal moment!! I'm pretty sure, from watching other videos, been pulling my hair out! You don't need to go through clicking them all.
You can absolutely spoof those ASM's with EA-6A EW Jamming, same as how Chaff can spoof them. Also, if we're adding Subs to these battles, while it is cool to see the Oscar rippling off its Cruise Missiles, I think it would be better and more realistic to have picket subs, have a Los Angeles or equivalent with the US fleet and a 2 pack of Victors with the Soviets. Also, with the single player aspect of this game, I think it would be cool if you made Scenarios for other GR members to play through, or they make you scenarios. They could be story specific single missions rather than massive battles like this, I think that could be a fun route to go. ALSO ALSO, I think the issue you had with the Harriers was they were all set to EMCON so nobody had any Air Search up and running so the Yaks could penetrate into visual range before you even saw them.
The AV-8A's don't have a radar. They've got a radar warning receiver to tell them when they are being tracked and locked which is a passive system that doesn't need to be turned on, but they've got no surface or air search radars.
a 1980s LHA based group would potentially have a Iowa along with her escorts aswell, so it would be 1x LHA, 2 to 3xCruisers (and if you wanted to have a bit of longer range AA you could put USS Oklahoma City CLG5 in as she was only decommissoned in 79' in as one of the CGs) 4xFFGs and the Battleship. One real combined strike group from the late 80's had 1x CV (USS Ranger), 1xBB USS Missouri, 1xCGN USS Long Beach, 2x CGs (a Tico and Leahy class), 3x Spruance class ASW DD's, 2x Charles F Adams class DDGs, 2x FFGs (a Perry and a Knox) plus 2 Fleet Oilers, and an Ammo ship I may get this when its released for a bit of fun...
I agree, using these ships outside of their intended doctrine in random formations doesn't really demonstrate anything or seem particularly interesting. The LHA isn't intended to have any offensive capability, it's a glorified transport ship that would have been kept far away from any surface combatants. The anti-surface teeth of the US Navy at this time was the submarine force which was both qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the Soviet fast attack submarines. And to give the Soviets their due, without their cruise missile subs they're quite nuetered as well (also kind of the reason the OHP frigates existed, to hunt those Soviet combatants, definitely not intended as a surface combatant).
The Harrier you had tasked to shoot down the enemy AWACS was set to Weapons Tight.. I also think you forgot to turn the radars on last time with F-14's, so remember to check radar status for airplanes :). Also it's better if you use the auto DC function when your ships are hit, because micro-managing doesn't work unless you actually do it. It's also works fine, so no need to micro-manage it.
@grimreapers fantastic video as always but I have a couple critiques. Once the blues detected the incoming vampires you should have turned the fleet into a perpendicular course to the incoming missiles. By keeping the fleet in a "crank" bearing instead of a "notch" bearing in aviation terms, you absolutely hamstrung the americans defenses. The fire control radars on the Ticos are mounted amidships and were never peoperly unmasked, so the Aegis system lost four possible radars to use for terminal guidance of the SM2s. On top of losing the AN/SPG62s, you also never fully un covered all the rim7 and 5 inch mounts, which hampered the total volume of defensive fire the Americans could have used. If memory serves correctly it also happened in the first CSG vs CSG fight you did, and it is a likely explanation as to why the Shipwrecks broke through the defenses and killed Nimitz so easily. I understand you want to make the fights fair, but you've unintentionally had America doing the naval equivalent of getting in a fist fight with one of their arms tied behind their back. On a lighter more fun note. I've been watching a bunch of other Sea Power videos from other channels and Prowlers and their russian counterparts are completely capable of blinding and hampering enemy ship and sam radars and if employed against early antiship missiles will fry them and make them never go terminal. I would love to see a redo of the first CSG vs CSG fight but where the Americans actually use all their defenses properly. I also played alot of this games predacessor Cold Waters and have a very good grasp on how submarine warfare works, and would be more than happy to break submarine and ASW down and explain it for you some time over discord if you want.
@grimreapers almost every soviet and American ship is designed to engage air targets and vampire swarms from the sides, it gives the CWIS the largest firing arc so that the ships can help cover each other with their cannons and point defense. It's the same reason the fire control radars on the Ticonderoga class are mounted where they are, to give them the maximum effective arc if they have to defend against incoming Vampires from multiple bearings.
@@grimreapers it's just a consequence of needing to place everything an elongated hydrodynamic shape, like WW2 battleships. I don't think the RCS impact of turning nose-on is consequential either.
Here's a thought. Carrier bow on or angled off the quarter and defending escorts broadside or at least angled off the quarter. This makes the carrier less of a target while freeing up weapons.
Just something to think about for future videos, cap is marine corps cobras are set up with sidewinder air to air missiles. The capability to fire upon ships as well
Tactics are by far the most important thing in any naval engagement. In the real world scenario (of 1980's) you would have enough intelligence, to know the approximate location of the enemies battle carrier group. Mission planning would be essential for the success of the operation. Putting two carrier groups side by side is sort of pointless, it takes away from a scenario of realistic engagement. Which is sort of what we're all here for... Cap please stop apologizing for your voice, you sound great as usual. Thank you for what you do bud, i really appreciate your content.
The US Group's EWs would ID all platforms by radar signals. The ships carry different radars. But each class carries only certain radars. The EWs would be at least able to tell you which one is the Kiev-class carrier, which ones are the Slava and Kynda. This would be sent to the Surface Warfare Commander to make proper strikes.
@grimreapers - Cap, is the shipboard ECM suite AN/SLQ-32(V)3 modeled in game? This EW suite had the ability to target and jam anti-ship missile's (ASM) terminal guidance radars. It would have been on Cruisers and Destroyers, at a minimum, starting in the mid 1980s on.
But they want us to do everything else with just general commands. Why are they being selective with what does and doesn't pay off to do manually? Doesn't make a lick of sense, either yay or nay. Strike packages for instance, you want everyone to shoot/pickle/rifle/whatever at this'n that, but the game auto makes everyone shoot at one thing.
@@txoilfield true, but take a look at the Jak-38 the predecessor. It had the door in the neck and the twistable outlets and the flow pipes (I call them like this) to the wings. It was ahead of it's time.
@@txoilfield No russian pilot died in a Jak-38 because of it's automatic rescue system. As soon it rolled more tha 60° (in VTOL mode) the pilot was automatically ejected.
One thing to keep in mind is this. U.S. Doctrine is to never send these ships alone BB or CV because the group covers for the shortcomings. The Russians don't have this luxury and their ships are designed to catch fire and flood and need to be towed along....... I mean operate alone.... so that's why they have the longer range equipment on it. If you wanted to do 1v1 you would have to reconfigure the U.S. ships to carry their longest range missile variant as that would be the loadout they would employ.
Well, since DCS doesn’t have the A6, and I feel the flight of the intruder scenario will never get done on DCS, maybe run it here? If you do, gotta be sure somebody’s call sign is the Phantom Shi**er.
Dont put an AWACS up, that gives EMCON choices, and set them about 400-450 miles apart to give air ops time to get some planes up before the vampires b/c the SovFleet just fires those long range missiles immediately. That would add some search/stealth choices - who lights up first, and how, etc, without making it a cat/mouse deal. gives you more options when adding subs as well.
Virginias had SM-2. Not SM-1 as in the game's database. I really hope that can be fixed by the time the game is available. Same goes for the Kidd class destroyers. Same missile armament in fact.
I think the not listening to orders has something to do with weapons free, it seems units will turn to engage or fly in a certain heading ignoring orders
People keep referring to the SA-N-4 Gecko as the "Osa". This is incorrect as the land-based counterpart is also known as the Gecko and "Osa" is the russian designation. The SA-4 is not an Osa either, its the Ganef.
If you know you are going to be hit, would it make sense to go bow on and allow the bow to become damage saturated, meaning the bow no longer has any function beyond stopping any further missiles from penetrating beyond the bow?
Yes but the range of those in anti-ship usage is short because the ships launching those needs to illuminate the enemy ship with their targeting radar to guide them so they need a line of sight which at the range you launch harpoons, is not the case
Just to clarify some potential ambiguities: 1) Missile jamming: Dev might have said it wouldn't make a difference because the effect if jamming, or perhaps jamming itself is not modelled 2) Bow-on. Presents a much smaller target profile. Certainly it would diminish your available firepower too, but if your enemy wastes a load of ammo against a small target, you can close in and present a fuller broadside. Likely you know about crossing the T, but if that top bar of the T is curved it allows for a much nastier attack. 3) Firing as much as possible: Used to be the Royal Navy's doctrine. Dunno if it still is. I think there were some historical cases where men formed a line from the ammo store to the guns, leaving a bunch of doors open as they passed ammo down the line. Great for reloading. Terrible if you're hit and all the open doors can't contain the explosion.
You left that harrier that was going after the Russian air radar on weapons tight that’s why it wasn’t using its guns, might have changed its mode after using all of its air to air weapons could be a bug report 37:12
@@grimreapersHowever, he still had 400 rounds of 30mm canon ammo. What silver blood is suggesting is that the reason he didn't use his guns even though he was close to the Russian AWACS, is because he was on weapons tight
I recommend setting them at least 500 miles apart on perpendicular courses. The Soviets using satellite data are racing into the Americans to get their ship launched anti-ship missiles within range and the Americans find them with a lucky AWACS setup. They will then turn away and race to get their attack aircraft airborne. This lets them each play to their strengths. The Soviets were never going to go plane to plane with a Nimitz battle group and the Americans would never want to be in ship launched missile range of the Soviets. You could have the American frigates race ahead of the carrier for anti-sub screening and the cruisers hang back to provide anti-air/anti-missile coverage. Let's say at the time of contact the Americans are at heading 000 at 15 knots and the Soviets at east of them at heading 270 at 30+ knots. It could be anyone's game at that point depending on how everyone reacts.
Nice video. While you obviously are still new to the new game and the game probably still needs some tuning, it is already a lot of fun to watch. I was just going to point out that you could do the battle of the coral sea in the future :D. But yeah, you totally have a point with having good battles. In my opinion one such example could be the 80s in Europe and a potential cold war going hot. It would be really interesting to see how the baltic sea and north sea would have been like. Especially since there are these huge chokepoints and sweden and finland would have probably fought more or less alongside NATO.
One such example could have been Able Archer 83, which according to GDR sources was one of the few occusions, when GDR jets were equipped with nuclear bombs and were waiting on the runway to launch. (Based on accounts of former soldiers on a German national TV documentary, it is still debated how much of this is actually true).
What if you use the Tarawa class as a stand in for the Iwo Jima or wasp class LHA. I know both of those can carry 24 harriers. The offensive punch from US fleets is in their aircraft, the harpoons are a secondary measure.
The justification for the setup is more than fair. Definitely in future though I'd create a more realistic and tactical battle. I don't think 40 hours searching is necessary but definitely start at least 500nm away. Not only would this be more realistic but it gives you a lot more time to prepare for an attack (which in turn makes the battle more interesting). but just as a showcase 150nm is fair enough but it will probably be one sided to the russians imo. We will see
Us and the ussr always had a difference operational doctrine usa was aircraft heave and ussr was missile heave would love to see u balance those for a battle
CAP, this is not DCS. We don't shoot each other. We don't crash ships into each other. On the other hand, you've been doing a great job with tactics and scenarios.
Random question for the chat. Is chaff on a ship a real thing? If so why wasn't it ever put into DCS? Yes I could look this up on google but I am lazy. Thank you for indulging my slothness!
can you recreate an “argentine navy” vs royal navy in the falklands? off course there isn’t an argentine navy in this game (yet), but I think you have the units (you could use a RN Light Carrier replacing the ARA 25 de Mayo and outfit it with Skyhawks and Trackers)
I remember using those Soviet jump jets in the old game Harpoon. They are terrible. Yeah they can go kinda quick and have 2 ok missiles, but they have no range and can’t launch any kind of useful strike.
The US Navy does not use ASROC.... However, there was probably a gunnery master chief who got trained to change torpedo to surface mode... This is almost like the use of US NAVY relying on missiles to shoot down a $500 dollar drone.... Waiting to save the day...
I appriciate how you set it up and the thougth behind it.. but when you said "I want to set up battles where both sides get to fight, not just who ever sees the other guy first wins".. My first thought was "But what about all the F22 and F35 fights then?" Isnt that exactly what they rely on? Shouldnt all battles including those planes then start at a range where they are detectable.. ;) I think you should let all sides fight to their strenght, or none of them hehe..
Great to see the same thing from another point of view. Your previous effort will hopefully make for plenty of easy transitions from DCS. Can you stealth kill a carrier with a frogman in this?
The cruiser dance was something weird ^^ Next time just think about a patrol of 2 harriers protecting your E2... it's a basic thing ☺ And don't send to intercept winchester harriers, just look at their loadout when they already engaged before that...
Just my 6 pence worth in the 80's early to Mid 90's the RN practice was to put the ships side on to the threat get as much lead down range at incoming missiles and aircraft as it gives a narrower profile for the weapons falling on them as supersonic missiles coming in from high altitude it wouldn't take much for them to miss and go into the sea the same for aircraft coming in dropping bombs as dropping them down the length of a ship gives a better chance of a hit where as dropping at a ship side on can lead to more misses... As to USN Anti-ship missiles and their designs it was more a case of smaller missiles because they would use their Carrier ability to take on any heavyweight USSR ships also submarines would go after the heavy USSR capital ships... The USSR had to crack the USN and to a lesser extent UK and French carrier groups so larger missiles with 1 ton warheads coming in at anywhere up to Mach 3 made more sense... this is what led to Aegis and then to VLS...
It is still technically ah aircraft carrier. It's carrying aircraft. Us marine Corp Harrier and F35B are what? Aircraft. The design has evolved over the years but they are a direct throwback to essex class carriers hence why they are all named as such. Kearsarge. Bon Homme Richard. Etc. It's role is different in that it supports marine ground operations and comes closer to shore typically. A fleet carrier stays 100s of miles a way. They are still carriers. Regardless how you dress them up. On a side note before someone complains yes I know they are not all named after ww2 carriers.
@@tylerouimette2934 The people who serve aboard would consider them helicopter carriers, but technically an amphibious assault ship. Ask me how I know. We had four planes aboard normally, and obviously _can_ carry more, but that's not what they're for. We have real carriers for that. We had dozens of helicopters. If you want to simulate this in it's actual role, I would suggest a beach landing with two LSDs or an LST. The model here still has the 5" mounts, so it can do it's own shore bombardment, plus the blue water navy usually kicks in a cruiser. And it can carry three LCACs. I enjoy the "what if" scenarios, but let's not get carried away. Carrier group vs carrier group would have been a rush job just to change out the air wings and you wouldn't have years of practice like you would in it's designed role.
@peterhineinlegen4672 OH I am sure. It doesn't make my comment any less true. They are aircraft carriers. Helicopters are still aircraft. The newer flight 0 LHA are strictly geared to air operations.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Some Soviet anti-ship missiles can be targeted by EW in this game other youtubers have demonstrated it, unless it's a glitch they don't lock on and just fly by in straight line missing by sometimes miles.
True. The EA6 is the aircraft that does this
OK thanks will bear in mind from now on.
The Dev is incorrect about how 70’s-90’s Soviet missiles work you can most definitely jam them in flight with an Intruder.
Yeah that's a weird comment, maybe he meant something else because in other people's scenarios the Offensive ECM definitely made a difference in effectiveness of a missile strike and defensive capabilities of the defending ships
I think he meant there was no point in jamming the soviet fleet because they already know where the American fleet is and will fire anyway. but yeah jamming the incoming missiles would have been a good idea.
@@Ooniaheven then they could jam and move, most probably could also negate the A-50 to an extent.
Iirc. jamming isn't effective against ASMs in the cruise phase because they are under inertial & waypoint guidance.
Their seekers only activate in the terminal phase, by which time they're being spoofed by the ships' onboard ECM and other decoys. So the EW aircraft wouldn't add much value and the range is probably below burn through anyway.
@@tomdrv9901in practice you can completely confuse the systems in soviet missiles at any time of it’s flight by using jamming. This was discovered late In Vietnam, and it wasn’t corrected in soviet designed missiles until the Russians learned the US could do that during the Gulf War. Just because the seeker isn’t seeking or the receivers aren’t supposed to receiving doesn’t mean it cannot be exploited.
Harrier wasn’t shooting the AWACS bc he was set to “ weapons tight”. Units are not obeying orders because they try to execute orders in the order they were received, you need to cancel old orders to have them react immediately.
Not gonna lie, When you had those two ships almost colliding I was yelling at my monitor for you to stop one of them. hahaha. Love Grim reaper videos.. best videos.
clancy had two ships doing that. They faked a big carrier by being close together. As bait to protect the actual carrier. And when the missiles cam, the did just that.
@ grimreapers Two points, Cap:
First, I know you like to start these battles by watching all the Russian ships launching their long-range missiles. But then they have a huge head start by the time you switch to the Blue side and chitchat for a while before you even start to launch aircraft. IRL, the US carriers would at least have a CAP in the air before the Russians are in missile range. So why not start the scenario with the Russians a little out of range so you can launch the CAP and then go watch the Russian missile launch as they get in range. This wasn't critical in this scenario, but it definitely matters with the Nimitz class, where the F14/Phoenix combo is specifically purposed to defeat incoming cruise missiles and/or the planes that launch them. Then, after watching the Russian missile launch, with CAP already in the air, you can prioritize launching an A6 anti-ship strike supported by EA6B Prowlers. This is critical because you'll at least have a counterstrike on the way. Won't be able to do that, obviously, after Russian anti-ship missiles strike your carrier. With your own airstrike away, then launch the rest of your F14s, and as you close the range, A7s to finish off damage ships. Oh yeah...your S3 "anti-sub" planes can also launch Harpoons and have excellent range (in case you want to send them around to attack from another vector).
Second, in future scenarios where you introduce submarines, beware the Russian subs' wake-homing torpedoes. You might want to place the plane guard frigate directly in the carrier's wake in order to take a hit, sacrificing itself to spare the carrier. That frigate shouldn't just be there for sacrifice, of course. Use its towed sonar below the thermocline if possible while its helo drops sonobuoys (or dipping sonar, if modeled) to find subs above the thermocline.
With regard to the discussion on American vs. rest-of-world philosophy on naval vessel armament around the 45 minute mark, the U.S. made a decision early-mid Vietnam era to go all in on power projection via carriers and via the air wing. They decided to focus less on ship-borne missiles and focus their anti-shipping coming from the air wing. They also started to discount the naval abilities of Soviet Union surface units and instead solely focused on their subsurface capabilities. This philosophy appeared to pay off with the fall of the USSR, then the U.S. had absolutely no navy in the world to worry about for over 20 years, causing them to cease development on any anti-surface weaponry deployed from surface ships. They ignored the rising threat from PRC and have only recently scrambled to come up with viable answers to hold PRC at threat from surface ships but are decades behind since PRC just back-engineered old Soviet systems and then developed them further.
That’s incorrect my friend. I just retired from the Navy. I was on a cruiser and tomahawks are not just land based attack they are dual purpose. Plus you have sm3’s onboard as well to go along with torpedoes and harpoons.
Aweomse work cap, I love this era, the age of variety and Falliability.
Also, while it hurts on the blue side, the reds really need to succeed with that first salvo, otherwise the Blues will just sail on in and win
Other TH-camrs able to use the EA-EB to jam the Soviet missiles in a defensive environment while using it in a offensive context to jam the enemy radar for the anti-shipping missiles, get through and strike the ships.
But also goes both ways if your playing as the Soviet.
Cap you said it perfectly when you said “that’s not a battle” I love how you set this and all your scenarios up. It’s appreciated how much work you put into your videos.
It's a paradox with the subject of the game. I'd argur this isn't a 'battle' either. Removing the recon & positioning phase of a naval battle is like forcing two platoons of infantry into a single boxing ring and calling it platoon tactics. It's fun to watch but don't go reading into anything that happens!
The outcome of modern naval battles, even against peer adversaries, are mostly determined by everything that happens before shots are fired, just like the coral sea and the great carrier battles. Outcomes are very one-sided.
Sea Powers store page alludes to this too:
"
Can you successfully hide your forces while detecting and tracking theirs? It is up to you to play an advanced game of cat and mouse on the high seas, to seize the initiative and attack with the advantage of surprise on your side.
"
@@tomdrv9901 you have a tremendous point brother. I think all that being said he keeps the viewer in mind for fun action filled videos to keep us the viewer entertained and watching .. just a thought. All love to yall though.
Nice vid. I am so hyped about Sea Power as I always loved Jane's Fleet Command until it stopped working on my computers because it was too old to run properly. This looks like finally a valid successor with today's graphics. 👍😬
The single Kiev class still in service is unrecognizable since the Indian Navy converted it to a STOBAR carrier.
It was actually the Russians who converted it for the Indians.
Early viewers, do your part and report the spambots so the later viewers don't have to deal with that BS.
Yes sir
Yes sir!!
Yes sir o7
Affirmative!
Wilco
When I was younger, I had a book on modern naval ships. The Kiev class ships were just fascinating to me. I think one of the most unusual looking planes was the "thimble nose" Harriers, and the 2 seaters.
Loving the new game and sea battles this is awesome! We appreciate you cap!
Video idea: A GR carrier strike force vs real world carrier groups
Create your own grim reapers carrier group and then pit fight it against carrier groups the same way you do with these vids here.
SHIPS LAUNCH CHAFF AUTOMATICALLY at the optimal moment!!
I'm pretty sure, from watching other videos, been pulling my hair out! You don't need to go through clicking them all.
Dude, your voice sounds perfectly normal. Stop apologizing!
You can absolutely spoof those ASM's with EA-6A EW Jamming, same as how Chaff can spoof them. Also, if we're adding Subs to these battles, while it is cool to see the Oscar rippling off its Cruise Missiles, I think it would be better and more realistic to have picket subs, have a Los Angeles or equivalent with the US fleet and a 2 pack of Victors with the Soviets.
Also, with the single player aspect of this game, I think it would be cool if you made Scenarios for other GR members to play through, or they make you scenarios. They could be story specific single missions rather than massive battles like this, I think that could be a fun route to go.
ALSO ALSO, I think the issue you had with the Harriers was they were all set to EMCON so nobody had any Air Search up and running so the Yaks could penetrate into visual range before you even saw them.
The AV-8A's don't have a radar. They've got a radar warning receiver to tell them when they are being tracked and locked which is a passive system that doesn't need to be turned on, but they've got no surface or air search radars.
also
@@ToreDL87also
can you change the sea state when each ship is far apart ? One ship in a gale maybe ? Wind speed differences for each ship ? Rain ?
Absolutely love these videos. 😊
Could your cobras carry aim9?
And is there something broken with the harrier cannon? Why did it take so many passes before even firing?
a 1980s LHA based group would potentially have a Iowa along with her escorts aswell, so it would be 1x LHA, 2 to 3xCruisers (and if you wanted to have a bit of longer range AA you could put USS Oklahoma City CLG5 in as she was only decommissoned in 79' in as one of the CGs) 4xFFGs and the Battleship.
One real combined strike group from the late 80's had 1x CV (USS Ranger), 1xBB USS Missouri, 1xCGN USS Long Beach, 2x CGs (a Tico and Leahy class), 3x Spruance class ASW DD's, 2x Charles F Adams class DDGs, 2x FFGs (a Perry and a Knox) plus 2 Fleet Oilers, and an Ammo ship
I may get this when its released for a bit of fun...
I agree, using these ships outside of their intended doctrine in random formations doesn't really demonstrate anything or seem particularly interesting. The LHA isn't intended to have any offensive capability, it's a glorified transport ship that would have been kept far away from any surface combatants. The anti-surface teeth of the US Navy at this time was the submarine force which was both qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the Soviet fast attack submarines. And to give the Soviets their due, without their cruise missile subs they're quite nuetered as well (also kind of the reason the OHP frigates existed, to hunt those Soviet combatants, definitely not intended as a surface combatant).
Did you play Harpoon? This Surface Action Group you describe was in one of the scenarios.
The Harrier you had tasked to shoot down the enemy AWACS was set to Weapons Tight.. I also think you forgot to turn the radars on last time with F-14's, so remember to check radar status for airplanes :).
Also it's better if you use the auto DC function when your ships are hit, because micro-managing doesn't work unless you actually do it. It's also works fine, so no need to micro-manage it.
@grimreapers fantastic video as always but I have a couple critiques. Once the blues detected the incoming vampires you should have turned the fleet into a perpendicular course to the incoming missiles. By keeping the fleet in a "crank" bearing instead of a "notch" bearing in aviation terms, you absolutely hamstrung the americans defenses. The fire control radars on the Ticos are mounted amidships and were never peoperly unmasked, so the Aegis system lost four possible radars to use for terminal guidance of the SM2s. On top of losing the AN/SPG62s, you also never fully un covered all the rim7 and 5 inch mounts, which hampered the total volume of defensive fire the Americans could have used. If memory serves correctly it also happened in the first CSG vs CSG fight you did, and it is a likely explanation as to why the Shipwrecks broke through the defenses and killed Nimitz so easily. I understand you want to make the fights fair, but you've unintentionally had America doing the naval equivalent of getting in a fist fight with one of their arms tied behind their back. On a lighter more fun note. I've been watching a bunch of other Sea Power videos from other channels and Prowlers and their russian counterparts are completely capable of blinding and hampering enemy ship and sam radars and if employed against early antiship missiles will fry them and make them never go terminal. I would love to see a redo of the first CSG vs CSG fight but where the Americans actually use all their defenses properly. I also played alot of this games predacessor Cold Waters and have a very good grasp on how submarine warfare works, and would be more than happy to break submarine and ASW down and explain it for you some time over discord if you want.
OK thanks will take to the boys about this. Seems strange though?
@grimreapers almost every soviet and American ship is designed to engage air targets and vampire swarms from the sides, it gives the CWIS the largest firing arc so that the ships can help cover each other with their cannons and point defense. It's the same reason the fire control radars on the Ticonderoga class are mounted where they are, to give them the maximum effective arc if they have to defend against incoming Vampires from multiple bearings.
@@grimreapers it's just a consequence of needing to place everything an elongated hydrodynamic shape, like WW2 battleships.
I don't think the RCS impact of turning nose-on is consequential either.
Here's a thought. Carrier bow on or angled off the quarter and defending escorts broadside or at least angled off the quarter. This makes the carrier less of a target while freeing up weapons.
Just something to think about for future videos, cap is marine corps cobras are set up with sidewinder air to air missiles. The capability to fire upon ships as well
This is the best new game in ages. Please play more.
Tactics are by far the most important thing in any naval engagement. In the real world scenario (of 1980's) you would have enough intelligence, to know the approximate location of the enemies battle carrier group.
Mission planning would be essential for the success of the operation.
Putting two carrier groups side by side is sort of pointless, it takes away from a scenario of realistic engagement. Which is sort of what we're all here for...
Cap please stop apologizing for your voice, you sound great as usual. Thank you for what you do bud, i really appreciate your content.
Very exciting, Cap!
Fly has finally upgraded his potato from a Russet to a Yukon Gold.🥔🎤
So there's a button for 'The Last Starfighter' mode? That's a good idea. 😆
The "Death Blossom".
@commandingjudgedredd1841
The button every fighting machine should have. 😀
Those Yak-38s are awful they have an estimated travel range of 60 miles, the Harrier it's based off has about 180 if not further
AS WELL AS-limited loadout weight and lack of maneuverability.
The US Group's EWs would ID all platforms by radar signals. The ships carry different radars. But each class carries only certain radars. The EWs would be at least able to tell you which one is the Kiev-class carrier, which ones are the Slava and Kynda. This would be sent to the Surface Warfare Commander to make proper strikes.
These sea power videos are great 👍
Cap, if you want a Harrier that's low on fuel to land on a ship, you need to include a few Spanish freighters in the formation.
Thank you!
GR battles are all based on the ethos of Captains Broke and Lawrence and the battle of HMS Shannon vs USS Chesapeake.
The harriers that wouldn't RTB were, of course, the ones not based on your ship. (The extras you added)
Heck yea you are getting better! Nice missile d!
This game has so much potential , I cant wait!
I love this whole new genre of panic for Cap.
@grimreapers - Cap, is the shipboard ECM suite AN/SLQ-32(V)3 modeled in game? This EW suite had the ability to target and jam anti-ship missile's (ASM) terminal guidance radars. It would have been on Cruisers and Destroyers, at a minimum, starting in the mid 1980s on.
Good vid. Fascinating game.
I really enjoyed that, kept me on the edge of my LazyBoy
At 9:10, I think the AH-1T equip with AIM-9L may have some use at shooting the Yak-38, if they get close to your fleet.
What are the specs for this game, please?
Long Beach, with the SM2-ER was a whooper on Harpoon back in the 90s :)
Pretty sure you could tell them what ships to shoot at if you did it manually
But they want us to do everything else with just general commands.
Why are they being selective with what does and doesn't pay off to do manually? Doesn't make a lick of sense, either yay or nay.
Strike packages for instance, you want everyone to shoot/pickle/rifle/whatever at this'n that, but the game auto makes everyone shoot at one thing.
The Jak 141 lives on in the F-35B. The Lockheed Martin engineers had access to the plans of the YAK and made it flyable and waht it is.
The Forger was junk. Underpowered, limited cargo weight and range and not agile.
@@txoilfield true, but take a look at the Jak-38 the predecessor. It had the door in the neck and the twistable outlets and the flow pipes (I call them like this) to the wings. It was ahead of it's time.
@@txoilfield No russian pilot died in a Jak-38 because of it's automatic rescue system. As soon it rolled more tha 60° (in VTOL mode) the pilot was automatically ejected.
@@txoilfield Ah I see, the NATO name.
@@txoilfield When you put the wikipedia airflow diagrams of the Jak-38 and the F-35B side by side you see what I mean.
One thing to keep in mind is this.
U.S. Doctrine is to never send these ships alone BB or CV because the group covers for the shortcomings.
The Russians don't have this luxury and their ships are designed to catch fire and flood and need to be towed along....... I mean operate alone.... so that's why they have the longer range equipment on it.
If you wanted to do 1v1 you would have to reconfigure the U.S. ships to carry their longest range missile variant as that would be the loadout they would employ.
Well, since DCS doesn’t have the A6, and I feel the flight of the intruder scenario will never get done on DCS, maybe run it here? If you do, gotta be sure somebody’s call sign is the Phantom Shi**er.
Note that the av8 did have a radar, the Raytheon apg65.
That's the av8b harrier-II these are A's.
Dont put an AWACS up, that gives EMCON choices, and set them about 400-450 miles apart to give air ops time to get some planes up before the vampires b/c the SovFleet just fires those long range missiles immediately. That would add some search/stealth choices - who lights up first, and how, etc, without making it a cat/mouse deal. gives you more options when adding subs as well.
Virginias had SM-2. Not SM-1 as in the game's database. I really hope that can be fixed by the time the game is available. Same goes for the Kidd class destroyers. Same missile armament in fact.
I believe that the SM-2 was from a refit to the Virginia, but I am not certain
I'm all for seeing some advanced struggles with Sea Power. I can't wait to get cracking as a schlub on the web... take my money!
I think the not listening to orders has something to do with weapons free, it seems units will turn to engage or fly in a certain heading ignoring orders
You missed your chance to have the battle at the island of Tarawa.
Hello. Going bow on with an Arleigh Burke DDG with it's forward mounted CIWS actually may represent a smaller radar target.
Not really a fair fight, an amphibious assault ship, vs a small aircraft carrier with the perks of being a missile large cruiser. . .
I love how you need to do the AWACS' job for them, they're almost useless without player input.
CGN38 would have SM2 if she has the TLAM Tomahawk launchers as they got them during the refit when Tomahawk boxes got fitted aft.
in janes fleet command you could use the jets to shoot missiles down. You'd have cap as well. planes just wouldn't be not air borne.
I am convinced this game is a modernised version of Harpoon
People keep referring to the SA-N-4 Gecko as the "Osa". This is incorrect as the land-based counterpart is also known as the Gecko and "Osa" is the russian designation. The SA-4 is not an Osa either, its the Ganef.
If you know you are going to be hit, would it make sense to go bow on and allow the bow to become damage saturated, meaning the bow no longer has any function beyond stopping any further missiles from penetrating beyond the bow?
Without submarines it completely kills the American anti shipping doctrine.
Is there no Anti-Ship mode for SM1 and SM2?
Yes but the range of those in anti-ship usage is short because the ships launching those needs to illuminate the enemy ship with their targeting radar to guide them so they need a line of sight which at the range you launch harpoons, is not the case
if you want to use guns select guns from the air craft weapons menu at the bottom of the screen.
Just to clarify some potential ambiguities:
1) Missile jamming: Dev might have said it wouldn't make a difference because the effect if jamming, or perhaps jamming itself is not modelled
2) Bow-on. Presents a much smaller target profile. Certainly it would diminish your available firepower too, but if your enemy wastes a load of ammo against a small target, you can close in and present a fuller broadside. Likely you know about crossing the T, but if that top bar of the T is curved it allows for a much nastier attack.
3) Firing as much as possible: Used to be the Royal Navy's doctrine. Dunno if it still is. I think there were some historical cases where men formed a line from the ammo store to the guns, leaving a bunch of doors open as they passed ammo down the line. Great for reloading. Terrible if you're hit and all the open doors can't contain the explosion.
You left that harrier that was going after the Russian air radar on weapons tight that’s why it wasn’t using its guns, might have changed its mode after using all of its air to air weapons could be a bug report 37:12
He did not have any missiles left and AV-8A harriers do not have radars.
@@grimreapersHowever, he still had 400 rounds of 30mm canon ammo. What silver blood is suggesting is that the reason he didn't use his guns even though he was close to the Russian AWACS, is because he was on weapons tight
And it's Lovefor Sea Power...jut what you needed. You came from DCS and here's a better chain of command!
I recommend setting them at least 500 miles apart on perpendicular courses. The Soviets using satellite data are racing into the Americans to get their ship launched anti-ship missiles within range and the Americans find them with a lucky AWACS setup. They will then turn away and race to get their attack aircraft airborne. This lets them each play to their strengths. The Soviets were never going to go plane to plane with a Nimitz battle group and the Americans would never want to be in ship launched missile range of the Soviets. You could have the American frigates race ahead of the carrier for anti-sub screening and the cruisers hang back to provide anti-air/anti-missile coverage. Let's say at the time of contact the Americans are at heading 000 at 15 knots and the Soviets at east of them at heading 270 at 30+ knots. It could be anyone's game at that point depending on how everyone reacts.
Nice video. While you obviously are still new to the new game and the game probably still needs some tuning, it is already a lot of fun to watch.
I was just going to point out that you could do the battle of the coral sea in the future :D. But yeah, you totally have a point with having good battles.
In my opinion one such example could be the 80s in Europe and a potential cold war going hot. It would be really interesting to see how the baltic sea and north sea would have been like. Especially since there are these huge chokepoints and sweden and finland would have probably fought more or less alongside NATO.
One such example could have been Able Archer 83, which according to GDR sources was one of the few occusions, when GDR jets were equipped with nuclear bombs and were waiting on the runway to launch. (Based on accounts of former soldiers on a German national TV documentary, it is still debated how much of this is actually true).
What if you use the Tarawa class as a stand in for the Iwo Jima or wasp class LHA. I know both of those can carry 24 harriers. The offensive punch from US fleets is in their aircraft, the harpoons are a secondary measure.
The justification for the setup is more than fair. Definitely in future though I'd create a more realistic and tactical battle. I don't think 40 hours searching is necessary but definitely start at least 500nm away. Not only would this be more realistic but it gives you a lot more time to prepare for an attack (which in turn makes the battle more interesting).
but just as a showcase 150nm is fair enough but it will probably be one sided to the russians imo. We will see
I'll try starting the long range ones next week.
More Seapower please!
Us and the ussr always had a difference operational doctrine usa was aircraft heave and ussr was missile heave would love to see u balance those for a battle
the yak141 did end up flying, .......as the f35
CAP, this is not DCS. We don't shoot each other. We don't crash ships into each other. On the other hand, you've been doing a great job with tactics and scenarios.
Random question for the chat. Is chaff on a ship a real thing? If so why wasn't it ever put into DCS? Yes I could look this up on google but I am lazy. Thank you for indulging my slothness!
Yes...
Yes absolutely Chaff on ships is a real thing.
Joogle will tell you it is misinformation.
Both chaff and flare in facts, at least on US Navy ships that use Mk36 SRBOC
US - SRBOC
SU - PK-10, PK-2, PK-16
UK - Sea Gnat, Corvus
Can you please make a full DCS Module ranking?
Moskva class submarine, when the joke flies straight over Cap's head!
can you recreate an “argentine navy” vs royal navy in the falklands? off course there isn’t an argentine navy in this game (yet), but I think you have the units (you could use a RN Light Carrier replacing the ARA 25 de Mayo and outfit it with Skyhawks and Trackers)
I remember using those Soviet jump jets in the old game Harpoon. They are terrible. Yeah they can go kinda quick and have 2 ok missiles, but they have no range and can’t launch any kind of useful strike.
If you can, make the missile whoosh noise quiter as it's too loud, especially when you pause the game and it just keeps going
The US Navy does not use ASROC.... However, there was probably a gunnery master chief who got trained to change torpedo to surface mode... This is almost like the use of US NAVY relying on missiles to shoot down a $500 dollar drone.... Waiting to save the day...
noob question this game are easy to play for a beginner ?
Second
I'm not going lie but 11mins ago is crazy timing. I always get recommended them and watch them after like 7 hours or even 2 days
OK, the least that guy with "zee German" accent speaks, the better these videos will be.
You need to go weapon free on aircraft to assist with missile interception
the 3 USN cruisers need to go to flank speed and get out in front of the LHA
I appriciate how you set it up and the thougth behind it.. but when you said "I want to set up battles where both sides get to fight, not just who ever sees the other guy first wins".. My first thought was "But what about all the F22 and F35 fights then?" Isnt that exactly what they rely on? Shouldnt all battles including those planes then start at a range where they are detectable.. ;) I think you should let all sides fight to their strenght, or none of them hehe..
Again cap electronic warfare is important in aircraft carrier.
Great to see the same thing from another point of view. Your previous effort will hopefully make for plenty of easy transitions from DCS. Can you stealth kill a carrier with a frogman in this?
This game needs to do the comical Russian Doomsday weapons. Nuclear Torpedoes. Cruise missile launched nuclear torpedoes.
The cruiser dance was something weird ^^
Next time just think about a patrol of 2 harriers protecting your E2... it's a basic thing ☺
And don't send to intercept winchester harriers, just look at their loadout when they already engaged before that...
Just my 6 pence worth in the 80's early to Mid 90's the RN practice was to put the ships side on to the threat get as much lead down range at incoming missiles and aircraft as it gives a narrower profile for the weapons falling on them as supersonic missiles coming in from high altitude it wouldn't take much for them to miss and go into the sea the same for aircraft coming in dropping bombs as dropping them down the length of a ship gives a better chance of a hit where as dropping at a ship side on can lead to more misses... As to USN Anti-ship missiles and their designs it was more a case of smaller missiles because they would use their Carrier ability to take on any heavyweight USSR ships also submarines would go after the heavy USSR capital ships... The USSR had to crack the USN and to a lesser extent UK and French carrier groups so larger missiles with 1 ton warheads coming in at anywhere up to Mach 3 made more sense... this is what led to Aegis and then to VLS...
That and if your ships are head on they can’t use there rear arm launcher
Those Yaks were very primitive STOL aircraft. Very little fuel capacity and those tiny wings
The Tarawa is an amphibious assault ship, not a carrier. Their roles are completely different.
It is still technically ah aircraft carrier. It's carrying aircraft. Us marine Corp Harrier and F35B are what? Aircraft. The design has evolved over the years but they are a direct throwback to essex class carriers hence why they are all named as such. Kearsarge. Bon Homme Richard. Etc. It's role is different in that it supports marine ground operations and comes closer to shore typically. A fleet carrier stays 100s of miles a way. They are still carriers. Regardless how you dress them up. On a side note before someone complains yes I know they are not all named after ww2 carriers.
@@tylerouimette2934 The people who serve aboard would consider them helicopter carriers, but technically an amphibious assault ship. Ask me how I know. We had four planes aboard normally, and obviously _can_ carry more, but that's not what they're for. We have real carriers for that. We had dozens of helicopters. If you want to simulate this in it's actual role, I would suggest a beach landing with two LSDs or an LST. The model here still has the 5" mounts, so it can do it's own shore bombardment, plus the blue water navy usually kicks in a cruiser. And it can carry three LCACs.
I enjoy the "what if" scenarios, but let's not get carried away. Carrier group vs carrier group would have been a rush job just to change out the air wings and you wouldn't have years of practice like you would in it's designed role.
@peterhineinlegen4672 OH I am sure. It doesn't make my comment any less true. They are aircraft carriers. Helicopters are still aircraft. The newer flight 0 LHA are strictly geared to air operations.
Maybe if they used a Wasp in Sea Control it would have been more accurate.
@josemiguel8149 Absolutely. They are amphibious assault ships, that are also aircradt carriers. Saying they aren't is Disingenuous..
Do the Anti-Sub Choppers not have Torpedo's which could be launched against surface ships, not irrelevant?