Also the fact that the missiles are heading directly for the dishes emitting the radar and not just going center mass on the ship, means that the radar emissions are modeled to be leaving from where they are on the ship which is awesome.
16:41 The Shrike is of course an anti-radiation missile, and will precisely target the emissions source: in this case, the radar mast and superstructure. So it's not a ship killer, but obviously does set up further attacks.
Victor III are no joke, when they were new, they were not much louder than a Los-Angeles 688. With a sea like that, you would never detect him if it was trying to hide. And that Heavyweight Type 65-76 torpedo is a 65cm one, with waaaay longer range, if I'm not mistaken, is 20nm (RL was more, a lot more than this). "The Type 65-76 torpedo has a warhead of at least 450 kg, making it powerful enough to sink an aircraft carrier with only one torpedo." Operational range: 27 nmi (50 km) at 50 kn (93 km/h), 54 nmi (100 km) at 30 kn (56 km/h)
Those wake homers are scary torpedoes and have some seriously large fuel stores. They will chase you for a long time. Definitely for a greater distance than 10 nm.
Wow! Thank you for the information. Now I know that Akula is not my only decent option should I ever want to play a Soviet campaign in Cold Waters. And what comes to real life, in the eighties Finland was neutral but one of the favourite pastimes of my buddies was to laugh at Soviet military technology in the coffee table (yeah, many of my buddies were geeks/nerds). They may not have been entirely right...
@@wunderstein8224 I saw a guy using the Victor III wake torpedoes on a mission with the Oscar. The range was about 20-23 nm. So they set the speed to 50 kn, probably.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 They kind of get it, not sure why Stealth though they have 10nm range, the in game ones are set in the high speed mode, with 23nm (if im not mistaken), so almost 27nm the RL one had.
The High Sea state greatly helped the sub to draw close to the task force and sink the Tarawa, also by the time Tarawa reached the point, sonobuoys had already stopped functioning, so yeah, it was a lack of alertness, sadly.
@@Stealth17Gaming Subs are one of the greatest threads to ships, and the Victor III is the best Sub from the Sowjets in the Game. One time, at an exercise in the Mediterean, a German Sub sneaked on a US Carrier Strike Group, made a nice Picture through the Periscope,"fired torps" and surfaced less than 3 Kilometers away from the carrier. The Carrier Commander lost his job.
I think you failed to detect the hostile subs because your sonobuoys were out of transmission range to any of your friendly units. Yes, you laid a decent pattern ahead of your course but your helicopters moved too far away from them to receive any of their signals. Also, one of your ships had a variable depth towed array, right? Using it would have helped massively with detection of subs hiding below the layer. As always, thanks for the many videos showcasing this game. All of us watching will benefit immensely from already having seen what works (and what mistakes to avoid) when the game comes out. --- EDIT: now having seen the rest of the video, your dev console also shows there was a second sub (Kilo class) in the area.
In such a scenario, it’s essential to recognize that hiding from enemy subs is never possible. They already know u are there and they usually will engage ASAP. Therefore, a significantly more aggressive approach is required: locate and destroy them before they have the chance to open fire, this is a race against time. A carrier size vessel is generally too slow to avoid being hit by the initial salvo of torpedoes. Almost every ASW capable asset equipped to deploy sonobuoys should do so (in link range). At least one ship with a towed sonar MUST have it actively deployed below the layer, with intermittent active pings authorized to flush out enemy subs. Additionally, integrating the dipping sonar and MAD of ASW helicopters and P-3 will help. If an allied SSN isn’t part of the task force, assign one of the outlying surface ships as a "rush and listenin" post. It is advantageous to deploy sonobuoys in multiple clusters/arrays around the formation. The most vulnerable sectors are the flanks and the rear (“deaf” due to propeller noise). When an enemy submarine is finally located, don't forget one of the most effective and secure attack options: ASROC (for example in coordination with the the SH-2F dipping sonar). The P-3 is a highly valuable ASW asset, especially when only two are available. In this case, I wouldn’t equip them with an anti-ship loadout, but I certainly wouldn’t leave one in the hangar either. The small scenarios (seen so far) are usually way too short to hold slower units in reserve, they won’t have the opportunity to deploy in time.
The Tarawa isn’t really designed as an air control carrier, or designed for surface action. It’s a troop landing ship with helicopters to transport Marines to shore, attack helo’s for close air support and Harriers for limited strike and close air support. There should be a dock landing ship and an amphibious transport dock in this formation as well. If air superiority was also needed or a major air threat was present, a carrier “battle” group as they were classified at the time before their mission became solely designed around force projection would have been present as well to provide air support.
@@Zadlo14 That’s actually what the America Class is designed for. The USS America, doesn’t actually have dry dock wells and had seriously increased hangar space instead. I know they did outfit one of the Wasp’s as a F35 carrier, but I thought it was only a test, as they want maintain their current number of Marine Expeditionary Brigades.
@@Zadlo14They are still limited capability, mainly for CAS missions, limited strike and limited CAP. Of course in the 1980's even the use of harriers was limited, originally being for CAS missions. The Falkland Islands war (UK-Argentine) the UK rushed a light aircraft carrier (designated as an ASW carrier), the HMS Invincible, and an old aircraft carrier (construction started 1944), HMS Hermes, to the Falkand Islands. Together they carried about 36 Harriers. Argentine had a single WW2 UK aircraft carrier capable of up to 21 aircraft, but this ship didn't fight againt the UK fleet. Most of the Argentine aircraft where older and flew to battle using limited refueling. The Falkland war probably forced the US Navy to start thinking about using the Harriers for more than CAS for the Marines. It is important to remember that there was a budget/planning "battle". The USN wanted to expand the number of nuclear super carriers while other groups thought that a larger number of light carriers was the way forward. This meant that the idea of using harriers for air-to-air missions would make light carriers look more feasible. It wasn't until after Reagon's fleet buildup and after the fall of the Soviet Union with calls of a "peace dividend" that caused a shortage of super carriers that the Navy needed to augment amphibious groups with air power. This eventually lead to the Navy allowing the Marines to get the F35b and upgrading amphibious ships to support them. If there were enough super carriers it is likely the Navy would only allow F35c's.
I suppose that's fair considering that the the Tarawa class only just succeeded the Iwo Jima class, and those ships were basically floating helo airfields.
Using SEAD missiles against ships isn't something I would have thought of. Yeah they're not ship killers, but the fact they target the ships radar modules and can effectively blind a ship is an interesting strategy. The fact that this is modeled in game is amazing.
In the old games Fleet Defender und C:MO i often attacked Ships with very strong AA capabilities with SEAD-Aircraft. They came in very low "below the radar horizon". When they were in range of the ARM, i let them shortly climb, fire the ARM, sink again and RTB very low. Usually the enemy had no possibility to hit them, because the jets were under the horizon of the SAMs fire control radar before the SAMs were fired or reached the aircraft. Of course this only works, as long as there is no enemy combat air patrol. When the radar of the enemy was down, other aircraft or ASM were able to complete the mission. Smaller ships could be sunk by the ARM directly. This method was described in literature, maybe from Tom Clancy or Dale Brown (it's long ago that i read it).
@SiegfriedH58 i would think it would be a smart strategy to combine ARM and ASM attacks so that the enemy would be forced to keep their radars on to intercept ASMs, thus leaving themselves exposed to ARMs. Also I wonder if the ARMs could track onto CWIS radars
@@akarinnnnnn Yes, that's exactly what makes sense. Against very potent enemies like i.e. Kirov i used a large ammount of HARM at first, because they fly at mach 2+ and are much harder to intercept than classic ASM with around mach 0.8. Usually the enemy switched his radar on (if it was off up to that moment) as soon as my aircraft popped up. When the HARM are fired, they hold the target, also if the radar is switched off. How the movement of the ship has an influence on this, i can not say. I don't know if the ARM are able to track CWIS. But why not? But the CIWS are a weapon of "last chance". I don't know their intercept chance. But i've read long ago, that the debris of ASM shot down by CWIS is able to cause damage on the target ships.
In 1972, in an act of friendly fire, an AGM-45 Shrike exploding 100ft above the Belknap class frigate (redesignated as a cruiser after 1975) USS Worden, and the fragments left the ship without power, lights or communication for 30 minutes.
High sea states make it easier for the sub to come in close But if you don't bother deploying any towed array. You also need to consider covering your flanks with bouys. Not just in your path of travel
7:39 Norway was one of the members in the F-16A for Europe consortium - so F-16A and i believe a number of F-5s too (F-5A so no radar in them - basically GCI)
It sometimes flies over my head that laying sonar buoys in front of your formation is good and all, just remember that submarines usually come from the side. I like this small fast response Task Force concept, part of the reasons the US had nuclear-powered cruisers so they can full sprint to locations with the nuclear carriers unlike the other escorts which fall behind.
Every video I have watched, I've wondered whether it would be worthwhile to drop sonarbuoys behind the fleet. No one seems to consider the dangers from the rear. Mind you, this is the first time I've seen anyone attacked from this vector. I guess that lessons have been learned. 😊❤❤❤😊
@Stealth17Gaming It's going to be interesting to see if other TH-camrs playing the game have watched your experience and have learned from it. I await the results with interest. 😀❤️😀
21:45 No, that's pretty much how the Harrier does land. They can hover and land vertically, but forward speed means they still have airflow over the control surfaces. I'd imagine it might also make it easier to land on a moving runway (ie a carrier).
not like this .... they basically comes up on the carrier's port side, transfers to vertical hover and when moves to the right in over the carrier. Start - it depends on how much 'bang' you want to carry with you - two Mk83s a straight normal run ahead and apply a bit of hover power pre leaving the deck. Royal Navy developed the ski jump as a method - with that they aren't limited with regards to load out.
Expect the unexpected! When you plan your attack then make sure that you think also what the enemy will do to sink your ships. It's like playing chess. You always have to be 2 moves ahead of your opponent. The enemy knows that you are going directly to the landing zone and that you are searching the way ahead for submarines. So, he has two options. 1. He gets in your way, plays dead man and waits until you get over him and then attacks you. 2. He stays out of your direct way and attacks from the flank. The second option is the better one because it means you have to search more sea space. Please keep in your mind, the active sonar has an average range of around 20 km, but the passive sonar can detect you at over 100 km. Never feel safe until the mission is over! What do they say in sports? The game is only over when the referee blows the whistle and not before. But all in all, it is a great video again!
What i could recommend and what i have read from USN ASW tactics is that in a situation like this, it may be a good idea to create two sonobouy barriers (basically parallel lines of sonobouys off either side of your priority asset aka carrier) utilizing ASW helos and/or p3s on either flank of your valuable asset and to keep these barriers active. As the carrier moves along its course and replace any buoys that are time out and maintain the barriers. It is also possible to do the same thing with ships like frigates or destroyers closer in to provide a "defense in depth" against potential threats. This is of course to coincide with your existing tactic of sweeping a path ahead of your carrier, but it is important to keep in mind that the most effective torpedo attacks come from subs hiding perpendicular to your course, so setting up those barriers to either detect the sub as it moves in to a striking position, or to detect torpedoes as they come in would give you valuable time to make a response. With all that said, i am loving your vids and wish you good luck in future operations!
Subs aren't meant to face you head-on, so... watch your flanks first if you think there's a sub threat (tow under layer asap if you can). The ARM towards the surface ships was a super brilliant idea instead, and I liked the first missile missing because of the radar dish being a so small target. This game really has a huge potential.
I mean, you showcased that the AI can and will punish you for every oversight, good ad if you ask me. 30:43 Victor III had a titanium hull, so no MAD detection. I guess you shouln'd have shiped right at the edge of you sonar boje field and you would have had to keep the 1h(?) runtime of the bojes in mind.
Wrong, all Victors are standard steel hull. The SSN ones with a titanium hull are the Alfa and the Sierra I and II (not counting the experimental single class ships). Since they were so expensive to build, the successor to the Victors, the Akula, was, once again, build from steel.
@@adamtruong1759 Titanium is not magnetic, and as such Magnetic Anomaly Detectors dont have a massive steel hull to detect, and instead have to rely on what little magnetic components are left on a titanium sub in order for them to operate. (it does slightly work but it is MUCH less effective)
Ah, here is what I was writing on part 1 "The major threat in that scenario will probably come from Russian subs, if they have time to be in your path, with the rough sea, detecting them will be very hard. " While Russian planes and missiles are unnecessarily buffed in this game, subs have always been the most dangerous threat. Detecting subs without prior information, in a rough sea, is hard, and was even harder in the 80's. Nuclear subs were more easily detected by NATO subs because Russians were quite noisy (but diesel electric always were a tricky beast), but the sea is vast, and this scenario illustrate the difficulty of anti sub warfare !
Both Harriers and F-35B come in like a normal landing (most of the time), as depicted. They can land vertically, but it's not ideal. Same for takeoffs, as they usually roll with forward momentum versus vertical takeoff.
High sea state means your sonobuoys would have to be right on top of him in order to hear them. Next time, I’d lay a wider corridor for them to pass through, and then have them swing out wider lay lines as well, basically a constantly expanding circle.
On the sonar buoys, I'm certainly no expert in or out of game for that stuff, but when you were setting your buoy pattern, I was thinking about coverage of your flanks, the northern flank in particular, as it was sort of like a straight corridor in front of your path and then a 5 nm line south, and back up to your centerline, before going 5 nm south again. I imagine the submarines prefer to come in from the flanks rather than directly ahead within your path.
they seem to have only carrier animations for the fixed wings for now I bet the Harrier's "but when you land, you're a heli" is way down on the release 2do
The devs should implement an era limitation on units based on real life. For example, I was a bit weirded out by your ability to employ RA-5's for this mission based in the 1980s because IRL they were retired in 1979. I also would like this to be implemented for nations e.g. Iran was Bluefor pre-1979 and became Redfor post-1979.
should have been active pingign the entire time with the ships if you know or suspect subs THEY already will know where you are so its up for you to find them
@@eriker23 the active ping can be used to keep the sub at a distance they don't want to get closer to a detectiong grid when there on definitive search and destroy mode
It does, indeed, have a tailhook. They can take off and land as STOL as well, which I expect is a good redundancy in case something happens to the nacelle pivots and VTOL landing becomes impossible. I think STOL is may also just be better for wear and tear on the decking as well; the LHAs are having to have sections of their decks covered in new materials because the thrust from the F-35 in VTOL is so much more intense than the AV-8Bs that it's warping the decks.
Seems like this mission in particular was nearly unwinable with the conditions at play- that's probably somewhat realistic to be honest, but it does suck to actually play- given you couldn't pick him up by dropping right on top of him. I think *maybe* with a really carefully made screen you'd have been able to detect the torps coming earlier but then you're still under attack and while it's theoretically possible to dodge them or survive from 5nm you're probably still taking a hit. Perhaps with excellent play you'd have been able to sacrifice another ship instead, which is a bit grim but sometimes your only option
9:00 f4's and most other fighter/strike craft only have a radar that faces front so when you lost it on radar it was because it was outside of the radar cone.
Maybe the Victor SSN was just waiting in an ambush position, not using his prop at all, in which case the passive sonobuoys wouldn't have picked up anything. Or does the game model the buoys to go active as well?
Good idea for a scenario Stealth. Just a shame that Royal Navy assets aren't available in game yet. I did comment on vid 1 using Invincible & Sea Harrier. This would at least give you an interception Radar. Plus Sea King AEW/ASW and transport (Commando) Also The game actually has one type the Norwegian AF use, The F-5 unfortunately game only has Iranian variant. Although at this stage (1981) you would also have 20+ F-16s, possibly using AGM-119 Penguin ASM. Norway only got a BVR missile after F-16 MLU upgrade and purchaced AIM-120 AMRAAM.
Wonder if it was the rough seas? Think Sonobuoys last about an hour - you would usually have a chopper track aft and fore in a circular pattern - rough way to end!
I hope the devs think about an option to enlarge all the symbols and fonts on the tactical map, cause I can't see nothing like a sun at 3:45. But I'm 34, too old to play games anyway xD
You're not to old to play games. I'm 65 and i like gaming since i purchased my first Commodore VC20 (most of you all would not know this "computer", it was around 1972 i guess). 😊😊😊
@@SiegfriedH58 That's so cool! My first computer was a pc with windows 95, my oldest was a laptop with DOS and Windows 3.11 . I still have the laptop, but it's not booting anymore :(
I am not sure if it is automatic, but the harriers could ingress at low altitude, evading enemy AA for longer, or attack from high altitude out of range of the guns (maybe with less precision)
I think your OOB was a bit limited. It should have included 1 CG, 1 DDG, 1 FFG and optionally a SSN. Having only 2 surface combatants makes defense almost impossible especially ASW in high sea states. Even a CVN with only 2 surface combatants would have been challanging and they have an S-3 squadron. Defense against submarines is almost always 360 degrees (except transiting a straight). A single ASW combatant will be forced to defend the most likely zone leaving the majority lightly defended. In this scenario, it is likely the sub was sitting off the islands to the south or south east where the noise from the high sea state interacting with the coast would provide a high amount of noise cover. In other words this attack wasn't surprising (at least in a real scenario. Maybe as the scenario creator you didn't expect subs in that area and the AI over performed expectations). I know that in real life Mission Commanders always want more resources than available, but in this scenario the radar station is important enough that it is likely that the Tarawa would have other landing ships (a Marine Expeditionary Force), the CG, DDG, FFG and augmented with other NATO ships (corvettes, frigates, and/or destroyers). Additionally there would be a CSG either directly assigned to the mission or at least close enough to support with refuel capable aircraft.
@Stealth17Gaming oh okay can you than maybe make a scenerio that you use the tarahwa just for ground striking (so harrier and attack helicopters to strike ground targets or to protect main troops)
The Russian bias has made the game very unattractive. Soviet era boats around this time were notoriously terrible. There is always an SSN escorting ANY amphibious group. Ya, maybe not that interested now. And Victor III’s were not known for being the stealthiest of boats, let alone their not so great sonar and processing capacity.
Not really, the Victor III was way ahead of the first two. Been not much lounder (when new) than a 688. Victor I yes was very loud and the II not much quiter, but the third gen was.
Yeah but the sea state was ideal for a submarine attack. Also the sonobuoy field expiring left them quite vulnerable as well. The actve sonar should've been banging away the whole time especially the below the layer towed sonar. But I'll agree there should've been a Los Angeles escorting the amphib group exactly for this reason, particularly with the vulnerability the sea state gives to the surface ships.
I mean at the end of the day it's a video game level. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no SSN in order to force the player into playing with and around surface ASW.
Yes, I know it TAR-ah-wah. I've already recorded this video last week so I can't correct my pronunciation in this one.
No big deal. People mispronounce foreign words all the time.
The majority of Americans can't even say iran or iraq correctly lol.🧏🏿♂️
Reminds me the first time I saw the spelling of Arkansas compared to how it is pronounced.
@@Kalergiplansupporter
Sounds like a country song. 😉
I've noticed on other channels that your own ships can randomly sink without cause.
Love how the radar dishes stop after the AGM45 strikes. Good attention to detail.
Also the fact that the missiles are heading directly for the dishes emitting the radar and not just going center mass on the ship, means that the radar emissions are modeled to be leaving from where they are on the ship which is awesome.
16:41 The Shrike is of course an anti-radiation missile, and will precisely target the emissions source: in this case, the radar mast and superstructure. So it's not a ship killer, but obviously does set up further attacks.
Victor III are no joke, when they were new, they were not much louder than a Los-Angeles 688. With a sea like that, you would never detect him if it was trying to hide. And that Heavyweight Type 65-76 torpedo is a 65cm one, with waaaay longer range, if I'm not mistaken, is 20nm (RL was more, a lot more than this).
"The Type 65-76 torpedo has a warhead of at least 450 kg, making it powerful enough to sink an aircraft carrier with only one torpedo."
Operational range:
27 nmi (50 km) at 50 kn (93 km/h),
54 nmi (100 km) at 30 kn (56 km/h)
Those wake homers are scary torpedoes and have some seriously large fuel stores. They will chase you for a long time. Definitely for a greater distance than 10 nm.
Why not step to the developers with that information? Maybe they could implement it.
Wow! Thank you for the information. Now I know that Akula is not my only decent option should I ever want to play a Soviet campaign in Cold Waters. And what comes to real life, in the eighties Finland was neutral but one of the favourite pastimes of my buddies was to laugh at Soviet military technology in the coffee table (yeah, many of my buddies were geeks/nerds). They may not have been entirely right...
@@wunderstein8224 I saw a guy using the Victor III wake torpedoes on a mission with the Oscar. The range was about 20-23 nm. So they set the speed to 50 kn, probably.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 They kind of get it, not sure why Stealth though they have 10nm range, the in game ones are set in the high speed mode, with 23nm (if im not mistaken), so almost 27nm the RL one had.
The High Sea state greatly helped the sub to draw close to the task force and sink the Tarawa, also by the time Tarawa reached the point, sonobuoys had already stopped functioning, so yeah, it was a lack of alertness, sadly.
Definitely my mistake yeah
@@Stealth17Gaming Subs are one of the greatest threads to ships, and the Victor III is the best Sub from the Sowjets in the Game. One time, at an exercise in the Mediterean, a German Sub sneaked on a US Carrier Strike Group, made a nice Picture through the Periscope,"fired torps" and surfaced less than 3 Kilometers away from the carrier. The Carrier Commander lost his job.
Was it below the layer the whole time? How could you have detected it?
@@James-ye6pl Not sure
@@James-ye6pl Dropping a towed sonar array under the layer
Going after a surface combattant with a Shrike is both unconventional and suprisingly smart.
wargame red dragon education lol
I think you failed to detect the hostile subs because your sonobuoys were out of transmission range to any of your friendly units. Yes, you laid a decent pattern ahead of your course but your helicopters moved too far away from them to receive any of their signals. Also, one of your ships had a variable depth towed array, right? Using it would have helped massively with detection of subs hiding below the layer.
As always, thanks for the many videos showcasing this game. All of us watching will benefit immensely from already having seen what works (and what mistakes to avoid) when the game comes out.
---
EDIT: now having seen the rest of the video, your dev console also shows there was a second sub (Kilo class) in the area.
Correct. If you're farther than 15 miles with any unit you lose detection from the the buoy.
@@Stealth17GamingDoes the “any unit” have to be a helo, or could a frigate work as well?
Sthealt: yes I win, it was easy
The IA: hold my beer
In such a scenario, it’s essential to recognize that hiding from enemy subs is never possible. They already know u are there and they usually will engage ASAP. Therefore, a significantly more aggressive approach is required: locate and destroy them before they have the chance to open fire, this is a race against time. A carrier size vessel is generally too slow to avoid being hit by the initial salvo of torpedoes. Almost every ASW capable asset equipped to deploy sonobuoys should do so (in link range). At least one ship with a towed sonar MUST have it actively deployed below the layer, with intermittent active pings authorized to flush out enemy subs.
Additionally, integrating the dipping sonar and MAD of ASW helicopters and P-3 will help. If an allied SSN isn’t part of the task force, assign one of the outlying surface ships as a "rush and listenin" post. It is advantageous to deploy sonobuoys in multiple clusters/arrays around the formation. The most vulnerable sectors are the flanks and the rear (“deaf” due to propeller noise). When an enemy submarine is finally located, don't forget one of the most effective and secure attack options: ASROC (for example in coordination with the the SH-2F dipping sonar). The P-3 is a highly valuable ASW asset, especially when only two are available. In this case, I wouldn’t equip them with an anti-ship loadout, but I certainly wouldn’t leave one in the hangar either. The small scenarios (seen so far) are usually way too short to hold slower units in reserve, they won’t have the opportunity to deploy in time.
Good luck with your court martial Stealth! 😉
Damn there was a Kilo in there as well. That dangerous in that sea state
The Tarawa isn’t really designed as an air control carrier, or designed for surface action. It’s a troop landing ship with helicopters to transport Marines to shore, attack helo’s for close air support and Harriers for limited strike and close air support. There should be a dock landing ship and an amphibious transport dock in this formation as well.
If air superiority was also needed or a major air threat was present, a carrier “battle” group as they were classified at the time before their mission became solely designed around force projection would have been present as well to provide air support.
Its replacement - Wasp class - can be used as an air control carrier with 20 Harriers or (currently) 20 F-35B
@@Zadlo14 That’s actually what the America Class is designed for. The USS America, doesn’t actually have dry dock wells and had seriously increased hangar space instead. I know they did outfit one of the Wasp’s as a F35 carrier, but I thought it was only a test, as they want maintain their current number of Marine Expeditionary Brigades.
@@Zadlo14They are still limited capability, mainly for CAS missions, limited strike and limited CAP.
Of course in the 1980's even the use of harriers was limited, originally being for CAS missions.
The Falkland Islands war (UK-Argentine) the UK rushed a light aircraft carrier (designated as an ASW carrier), the HMS Invincible, and an old aircraft carrier (construction started 1944), HMS Hermes, to the Falkand Islands. Together they carried about 36 Harriers.
Argentine had a single WW2 UK aircraft carrier capable of up to 21 aircraft, but this ship didn't fight againt the UK fleet.
Most of the Argentine aircraft where older and flew to battle using limited refueling.
The Falkland war probably forced the US Navy to start thinking about using the Harriers for more than CAS for the Marines. It is important to remember that there was a budget/planning "battle". The USN wanted to expand the number of nuclear super carriers while other groups thought that a larger number of light carriers was the way forward. This meant that the idea of using harriers for air-to-air missions would make light carriers look more feasible.
It wasn't until after Reagon's fleet buildup and after the fall of the Soviet Union with calls of a "peace dividend" that caused a shortage of super carriers that the Navy needed to augment amphibious groups with air power. This eventually lead to the Navy allowing the Marines to get the F35b and upgrading amphibious ships to support them. If there were enough super carriers it is likely the Navy would only allow F35c's.
I suppose that's fair considering that the the Tarawa class only just succeeded the Iwo Jima class, and those ships were basically floating helo airfields.
Harrier can do both VTOL and STOL.
VTOL = Vertical Take OFF and LAND
STOL = Short Take OFF and LAND (like a plane, taking up a small room)
Using SEAD missiles against ships isn't something I would have thought of. Yeah they're not ship killers, but the fact they target the ships radar modules and can effectively blind a ship is an interesting strategy. The fact that this is modeled in game is amazing.
In the old games Fleet Defender und C:MO i often attacked Ships with very strong AA capabilities with SEAD-Aircraft. They came in very low "below the radar horizon". When they were in range of the ARM, i let them shortly climb, fire the ARM, sink again and RTB very low. Usually the enemy had no possibility to hit them, because the jets were under the horizon of the SAMs fire control radar before the SAMs were fired or reached the aircraft.
Of course this only works, as long as there is no enemy combat air patrol.
When the radar of the enemy was down, other aircraft or ASM were able to complete the mission. Smaller ships could be sunk by the ARM directly.
This method was described in literature, maybe from Tom Clancy or Dale Brown (it's long ago that i read it).
@SiegfriedH58 i would think it would be a smart strategy to combine ARM and ASM attacks so that the enemy would be forced to keep their radars on to intercept ASMs, thus leaving themselves exposed to ARMs. Also I wonder if the ARMs could track onto CWIS radars
@@akarinnnnnn Yes, that's exactly what makes sense. Against very potent enemies like i.e. Kirov i used a large ammount of HARM at first, because they fly at mach 2+ and are much harder to intercept than classic ASM with around mach 0.8. Usually the enemy switched his radar on (if it was off up to that moment) as soon as my aircraft popped up. When the HARM are fired, they hold the target, also if the radar is switched off. How the movement of the ship has an influence on this, i can not say.
I don't know if the ARM are able to track CWIS. But why not? But the CIWS are a weapon of "last chance". I don't know their intercept chance. But i've read long ago, that the debris of ASM shot down by CWIS is able to cause damage on the target ships.
In 1972, in an act of friendly fire, an AGM-45 Shrike exploding 100ft above the Belknap class frigate (redesignated as a cruiser after 1975) USS Worden, and the fragments left the ship without power, lights or communication for 30 minutes.
High sea states make it easier for the sub to come in close
But if you don't bother deploying any towed array. You also need to consider covering your flanks with bouys. Not just in your path of travel
Harriers can land in VTOL, but it's faster and more fuel efficient to land normally.
7:39 Norway was one of the members in the F-16A for Europe consortium - so F-16A and i believe a number of F-5s too (F-5A so no radar in them - basically GCI)
I like how those Shrike missiles more or less Direct Impact the radar emitters themselfs
Yes, stealth, that's how this reconnaissance plane was supposed to be used back in the Iceland defense video, it can see really far away
Your videos are consistently brilliant. Thank you
Glad you like them!
It sometimes flies over my head that laying sonar buoys in front of your formation is good and all, just remember that submarines usually come from the side.
I like this small fast response Task Force concept, part of the reasons the US had nuclear-powered cruisers so they can full sprint to locations with the nuclear carriers unlike the other escorts which fall behind.
I love the fact that you were taken out by a sub that evaded all those buoys. Great video, can’t wait to play this scenario!
Every video I have watched, I've wondered whether it would be worthwhile to drop sonarbuoys behind the fleet. No one seems to consider the dangers from the rear. Mind you, this is the first time I've seen anyone attacked from this vector. I guess that lessons have been learned. 😊❤❤❤😊
Definitely. Complacency cost me the mission
@Stealth17Gaming It's going to be interesting to see if other TH-camrs playing the game have watched your experience and have learned from it. I await the results with interest. 😀❤️😀
21:45 No, that's pretty much how the Harrier does land. They can hover and land vertically, but forward speed means they still have airflow over the control surfaces. I'd imagine it might also make it easier to land on a moving runway (ie a carrier).
Harriere landed Vertically omboard ships, it's only in 2007 that Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing was developed
not like this .... they basically comes up on the carrier's port side, transfers to vertical hover and when moves to the right in over the carrier.
Start - it depends on how much 'bang' you want to carry with you - two Mk83s a straight normal run ahead and apply a bit of hover power pre leaving the deck.
Royal Navy developed the ski jump as a method - with that they aren't limited with regards to load out.
@@Cdodders27 They still have to match the ships speed
Expect the unexpected! When you plan your attack then make sure that you think also what the enemy will do to sink your ships. It's like playing chess. You always have to be 2 moves ahead of your opponent. The enemy knows that you are going directly to the landing zone and that you are searching the way ahead for submarines. So, he has two options.
1. He gets in your way, plays dead man and waits until you get over him and then attacks you.
2. He stays out of your direct way and attacks from the flank.
The second option is the better one because it means you have to search more sea space. Please keep in your mind, the active sonar has an average range of around 20 km, but the passive sonar can detect you at over 100 km.
Never feel safe until the mission is over! What do they say in sports? The game is only over when the referee blows the whistle and not before.
But all in all, it is a great video again!
damn that's a lot of videos
Enjoy!
Man I can't wait to play this game. Thank you for the content, eases the wait a little..
What i could recommend and what i have read from USN ASW tactics is that in a situation like this, it may be a good idea to create two sonobouy barriers (basically parallel lines of sonobouys off either side of your priority asset aka carrier) utilizing ASW helos and/or p3s on either flank of your valuable asset and to keep these barriers active. As the carrier moves along its course and replace any buoys that are time out and maintain the barriers. It is also possible to do the same thing with ships like frigates or destroyers closer in to provide a "defense in depth" against potential threats.
This is of course to coincide with your existing tactic of sweeping a path ahead of your carrier, but it is important to keep in mind that the most effective torpedo attacks come from subs hiding perpendicular to your course, so setting up those barriers to either detect the sub as it moves in to a striking position, or to detect torpedoes as they come in would give you valuable time to make a response.
With all that said, i am loving your vids and wish you good luck in future operations!
I like it when people show that they fail. Love watching your videos. All love
High sea state, and no towed arays below the layer. Unlikely to see the sub
The ARMs killing the ship's radar mast _and only the radar mast_ is hilarious but good attention to detail
You know, there's a popular saying among submariners that fits this situation perfectly: "There are two types of ships, submarines, and targets."
Another: All ships can dive. But only subs can resurface. 😆
27:39 Maximum rewenge! That’s an hors d’oeuvre!
Subs aren't meant to face you head-on, so... watch your flanks first if you think there's a sub threat (tow under layer asap if you can). The ARM towards the surface ships was a super brilliant idea instead, and I liked the first missile missing because of the radar dish being a so small target. This game really has a huge potential.
I love how fast the crews abandon ship.
I mean, you showcased that the AI can and will punish you for every oversight, good ad if you ask me.
30:43 Victor III had a titanium hull, so no MAD detection. I guess you shouln'd have shiped right at the edge of you sonar boje field and you would have had to keep the 1h(?) runtime of the bojes in mind.
Wrong, all Victors are standard steel hull. The SSN ones with a titanium hull are the Alfa and the Sierra I and II (not counting the experimental single class ships). Since they were so expensive to build, the successor to the Victors, the Akula, was, once again, build from steel.
MAD doesn't work on titanium? How so?
@@adamtruong1759 Titanium is not magnetic, and as such Magnetic Anomaly Detectors dont have a massive steel hull to detect, and instead have to rely on what little magnetic components are left on a titanium sub in order for them to operate.
(it does slightly work but it is MUCH less effective)
Ah, here is what I was writing on part 1 "The major threat in that scenario will probably come from Russian subs, if they have time to be in your path, with the rough sea, detecting them will be very hard. " While Russian planes and missiles are unnecessarily buffed in this game, subs have always been the most dangerous threat. Detecting subs without prior information, in a rough sea, is hard, and was even harder in the 80's. Nuclear subs were more easily detected by NATO subs because Russians were quite noisy (but diesel electric always were a tricky beast), but the sea is vast, and this scenario illustrate the difficulty of anti sub warfare !
Both Harriers and F-35B come in like a normal landing (most of the time), as depicted. They can land vertically, but it's not ideal. Same for takeoffs, as they usually roll with forward momentum versus vertical takeoff.
High sea state means your sonobuoys would have to be right on top of him in order to hear them.
Next time, I’d lay a wider corridor for them to pass through, and then have them swing out wider lay lines as well, basically a constantly expanding circle.
On the sonar buoys, I'm certainly no expert in or out of game for that stuff, but when you were setting your buoy pattern, I was thinking about coverage of your flanks, the northern flank in particular, as it was sort of like a straight corridor in front of your path and then a 5 nm line south, and back up to your centerline, before going 5 nm south again. I imagine the submarines prefer to come in from the flanks rather than directly ahead within your path.
If the Cold War would’ve went hot, based on his fleet’s location, the Soviets would’ve sunk his fleet with a regiment of Backfires.
they seem to have only carrier animations for the fixed wings for now
I bet the Harrier's "but when you land, you're a heli" is way down on the release 2do
It is much safer for harriers to land STOL than VTOL, especially in harsh weather conditions, so it gets a pass from me.
The devs should implement an era limitation on units based on real life. For example, I was a bit weirded out by your ability to employ RA-5's for this mission based in the 1980s because IRL they were retired in 1979. I also would like this to be implemented for nations e.g. Iran was Bluefor pre-1979 and became Redfor post-1979.
should have been active pingign the entire time with the ships if you know or suspect subs THEY already will know where you are so its up for you to find them
Yes
they might not know where he is exactly and could hear the ping from far away the detection range
@@eriker23 the active ping can be used to keep the sub at a distance they don't want to get closer to a detectiong grid when there on definitive search and destroy mode
21:29 AV-8A Harrier should be able to land like a VTOL yes. I don't see the hook out either during that landing....
"how did they get through we cleared the area" bro they're in the position exactly where you didnt put any Sonar Buoys so idk what you expect
Sonar buoys were too narrow. I think you need them to spread out more to the sides. At least I thought they would come from the south or north.
the av8 is a vtol aircraft, (as far as i know)without a tailhook so its required to land verticly on carriers
It does, indeed, have a tailhook. They can take off and land as STOL as well, which I expect is a good redundancy in case something happens to the nacelle pivots and VTOL landing becomes impossible.
I think STOL is may also just be better for wear and tear on the decking as well; the LHAs are having to have sections of their decks covered in new materials because the thrust from the F-35 in VTOL is so much more intense than the AV-8Bs that it's warping the decks.
Seems like this mission in particular was nearly unwinable with the conditions at play- that's probably somewhat realistic to be honest, but it does suck to actually play- given you couldn't pick him up by dropping right on top of him. I think *maybe* with a really carefully made screen you'd have been able to detect the torps coming earlier but then you're still under attack and while it's theoretically possible to dodge them or survive from 5nm you're probably still taking a hit. Perhaps with excellent play you'd have been able to sacrifice another ship instead, which is a bit grim but sometimes your only option
9:00 f4's and most other fighter/strike craft only have a radar that faces front so when you lost it on radar it was because it was outside of the radar cone.
The dangers of a noisy sea state are real.
World of Warship Players around the world let out a cry of "Ban all submarines - sneaky cheating bastards the lot of them."
norway would have F-16 'S And F-5
Not modeled in the game yet.
Maybe the Victor SSN was just waiting in an ambush position, not using his prop at all, in which case the passive sonobuoys wouldn't have picked up anything. Or does the game model the buoys to go active as well?
Good idea for a scenario Stealth. Just a shame that Royal Navy assets aren't available in game yet. I did comment on vid 1 using Invincible & Sea Harrier. This would at least give you an interception Radar. Plus Sea King AEW/ASW and transport (Commando) Also The game actually has one type the Norwegian AF use, The F-5 unfortunately game only has Iranian variant. Although at this stage (1981) you would also have 20+ F-16s, possibly using AGM-119 Penguin ASM.
Norway only got a BVR missile after F-16 MLU upgrade and purchaced AIM-120 AMRAAM.
Wonder if it was the rough seas? Think Sonobuoys last about an hour - you would usually have a chopper track aft and fore in a circular pattern - rough way to end!
I hope the devs think about an option to enlarge all the symbols and fonts on the tactical map, cause I can't see nothing like a sun at 3:45. But I'm 34, too old to play games anyway xD
In front of the name of the unit.
You're not to old to play games. I'm 65 and i like gaming since i purchased my first Commodore VC20 (most of you all would not know this "computer", it was around 1972 i guess). 😊😊😊
@@SiegfriedH58 That's so cool! My first computer was a pc with windows 95, my oldest was a laptop with DOS and Windows 3.11 . I still have the laptop, but it's not booting anymore :(
1:27 Röstlandet and Sörland to the northeast.
I got really sad when you said the unidentified contact was lonely.
I was shook that there was actually a submarine out there, I was thinking you were doing way overkill with the Sonar Bouys but nope, sneaky ass mfers
I am not sure if it is automatic, but the harriers could ingress at low altitude, evading enemy AA for longer, or attack from high altitude out of range of the guns (maybe with less precision)
Lore accurate Russian navy , mediocre surface fleet and scary submarines
towed arrays below layer, bang active once surface units cleared....
Yeah you only laid sonobouys on your course. You left yourself uncovered and blind to seaward.
23:52 the ship exploded a few moments before the Harpoon hit, might be a bug worth reporting
There were two harpoons, the camera was focusing on the second one
@@nathanasio2829 Ahh makes sense now, thanks!
I think your OOB was a bit limited. It should have included 1 CG, 1 DDG, 1 FFG and optionally a SSN.
Having only 2 surface combatants makes defense almost impossible especially ASW in high sea states. Even a CVN with only 2 surface combatants would have been challanging and they have an S-3 squadron.
Defense against submarines is almost always 360 degrees (except transiting a straight). A single ASW combatant will be forced to defend the most likely zone leaving the majority lightly defended.
In this scenario, it is likely the sub was sitting off the islands to the south or south east where the noise from the high sea state interacting with the coast would provide a high amount of noise cover.
In other words this attack wasn't surprising (at least in a real scenario. Maybe as the scenario creator you didn't expect subs in that area and the AI over performed expectations).
I know that in real life Mission Commanders always want more resources than available, but in this scenario the radar station is important enough that it is likely that the Tarawa would have other landing ships (a Marine Expeditionary Force), the CG, DDG, FFG and augmented with other NATO ships (corvettes, frigates, and/or destroyers). Additionally there would be a CSG either directly assigned to the mission or at least close enough to support with refuel capable aircraft.
The sub actually came in from the north. That's where I programmed it in the scenario. It snuck south, passed me and then hit me from aft
Can you maybe redo the last part?
Nope. There's no save feature at the moment.
@Stealth17Gaming oh okay can you than maybe make a scenerio that you use the tarahwa just for ground striking (so harrier and attack helicopters to strike ground targets or to protect main troops)
6:20 would cease fire order disable the jammer?
has they added damage model in the game now ?
🥶🥶
Active sonar?
Norway never used the F-4 Phanthom. They had F-16 from delivery start in 1980.
Not modeled yet
@@Stealth17Gaming Ahh ok 🙂
bro loses a ship so imediatly starts cheating to get revenge
Started experimenting to learn and get better at the game
@@Stealth17Gaming ik ik, its just funny
The Russian bias has made the game very unattractive. Soviet era boats around this time were notoriously terrible. There is always an SSN escorting ANY amphibious group. Ya, maybe not that interested now. And Victor III’s were not known for being the stealthiest of boats, let alone their not so great sonar and processing capacity.
😭
Not really, the Victor III was way ahead of the first two. Been not much lounder (when new) than a 688. Victor I yes was very loud and the II not much quiter, but the third gen was.
Yeah but the sea state was ideal for a submarine attack. Also the sonobuoy field expiring left them quite vulnerable as well. The actve sonar should've been banging away the whole time especially the below the layer towed sonar. But I'll agree there should've been a Los Angeles escorting the amphib group exactly for this reason, particularly with the vulnerability the sea state gives to the surface ships.
I mean at the end of the day it's a video game level. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no SSN in order to force the player into playing with and around surface ASW.