2000's US Carrier Group vs 2000's Chinese Carrier Group (Naval Battle 67) | DCS

[@thomaszhang3101]

Ngl I wanna see a proper 2020 carrier battle from 1000 km away. I don’t mind a 6 hour long video.

[@grimreapers]

At least I get 1 view.

[@thomaszhang3101]

@@grimreapers I can make an alt and watch from two devices

[@Spicy_Italian_Sausage]

@@grimreapers 2 views ❤️

[@danielbing3207]

I'd be a third, forth and fifth view lol

[@jamesp7753]

I have 5 computers, and several old phones and laptops

[@lordsqueak]

Imagine if Grim Reapers would take on another squad, as a carrier group vs carrier group. Now that could be exiting to watch!

[@8wayspeed505]

Good idea G.R v the A Team. Imagine Mr T in action. I pity the Fool

[@hotdogdcs2761]

Seconded... GR, get on the Discords, throw out a challenge! Carrier Battle. 1/2 Human Admirals 1/2 Human AWACS /Airboss 20/30 Human Pilots each.. Duke it out in the empty South Atlantic map.

[@8wayspeed505]

Lol

[@RyChu05_Pleasing05]

@@hotdogdcs2761 collabs of all collabs for DCS

[@mk6315]

I could see a few drunken takeoffs making for hilarious footage

[@strambino1]

I’m really glad the Iowa class showed up! It was also cool to see the admiral on the US side learning to broadside with the CIWS as the battle developed. It goes to show that tactics are still key to success even with modern Missiles.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Taking a guess here, the devs don't want to 'modernize" the Chinese because if they get too close to the real thing, the Chinese may not be happy with them.

[@grimreapers]

Annoying.

[@Spicy_Italian_Sausage]

+8000 social credits to the devs

[@Noelegamer]

@@grimreapers you respect the fact that without a catapult you cannot take the maximum load

[@jetfighter200]

so the same Problem as russian assets and modules

[@92HazelMocha]

@@jetfighter200 And American ones, we won't get anything newer than SM2 and when ED started the F16 module the US government almost prosecuted them for it. No government wants its modern equipment open to the public.

[@Savage_Viking]

The carrier battle in real life would have started at far longer ranges and the small Chinese air complement would have been decimated early on. Carrier battle would have started between 500-1000 miles out. But completely understand this can't be simulated. Fun to watch.

[@skylanh4319]

Unless the two groups were coming in close contact just by refusing to change course and someone pulled a wopsy causing them to engage.

[@btbarr16]

@Skylan H Carriers don't accidentally wander into each other. That's exactly what the AWACS are there to prevent. In fact, during combat a carrier won't even turn on its own radar. Support ships might not even turn on their radar unless they are away from the carrier. Basically, they will do everything they can to make sure the carrier isn't found. The extra aircraft a US carrier holds very well may be the difference maker considering the defenses of both carriers likely over perform in game. Any carriers best defense is to not be found or be out of range from any antiship missile not carried by aircraft. That's where the F-35C's stealth comes into play. It makes it harder for the Chinese to radar track the aircraft back to the carrier even with an AWAC. Hell, even in WWII carriers in the pacific engaged each other hundreds of miles apart. No carrier battle during WWII was ever fought insight if each other in the Pacific theater. All the fighting was done by the air wings. While these videos are fun to watch, they would never happen like this in an actual war. Combat air patrols are the carriers first line of defense an would engage with the enemy before they're in range to launch their antiship missiles.

[@whousley]

@@btbarr16 Yes. A good example of this is the way the WWII carriers kept their air defenses shut off while night fighting, letting the escorts do the defending so that their tracers wouldn't give away their location.

[@knoahbody69]

This is laughable since the PLAN doesn't have suitable jet fighters for CATOBAR or STOLV operations.

[@orneryokinawan4529]

They didn't because that'd take hours to do. So they did it around 60 to 90 miles to make it less boring.

[@cshader2488]

pretty sure the chinese carrier could only use the one ramp because of the overloaded jets. When then don't have a full weapon / fuel load they can use the shorter front ramps.

[@grimreapers]

Ah! yes well figured out :)

[@derekpeffly1350]

Pretty sure they can't take off with the full weapon and fuel load even using the ramp that's why the newer one has catapults

[@NailBombEnjoyer]

I love this series so much, thank you so much to everyone in GR for getting me into DCS and putting so much effort into this content as well as all the other tutorials you have made. Keep doing what you're doing lads

[@Adnanbin1985]

Thats was a brilliant video. your carrier videos last year got me through lock down and they where excellent and exciting. Thank you for doing more.

[@deanbrown2061]

They didn't have aircraft carriers in 2005 . So this simulation should have taken place now or 5 years from now. A great deal of there equipment is Russian or Russian copies. It's not functioning so well in Ukraine or over the Skies of Syria

[@pogo1140]

Back in the day, the most the Nimitz class carried was 58, 24 F-14 or F/A-18E/F, 24 F/A-18C (before they too were replaced by F/A-18E's), 10 A-6's. This was your combatant wing. Not counted are the S-3 Vikings (ASW) although they could carry 2 Harpoons in a pinch, 4-6 EA-6B's and 4 E-2's Today, the numbers are lower due to aircraft availability. We don't have A-6's and S-3's anymore and the Navy does not have the planes to fly a wing of 6 F/A-18E/F squadrons so they deploy with 4-5 F/A-18 squadrons plus the EA-18G squadron.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@pogo1140]

@@grimreapers You're most welcome. You guys do really good work and it's much appreciated and enjoyed.

[@Dawnbandit1]

Soon they'll be supplemented with F-35Cs, fortunately.

[@pogo1140]

@@Dawnbandit1 According to the Navy plan, the 2 F-35 squadrons will instead be a single oversized F-35C squadron with 3 F/A-18E/F's. The F-35 is behind schedule and the Navy does not have to money to purchase all the required F-35's, new Carriers, new Frigates and new cruisers. It's official policy is to dis-invest to hopefully invest before the Navy is needed to fight a big war.

[@strambino1]

Yes, I hope they put the A6 in soon! Beastly bomber

[@DripsDrop]

This notification always makes my day, fantastic work as always GR

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@ermirohri]

I don’t think the Iowa will go down so easily, the missiles made today are not built to perforate such a heavy armored ship

[@user-gv4zb9rc6u]

The ship might not sink but the crew will be killed or unable to continue fighting, with much of the fire control systems incapacitated in some sense. Battleships were notorious to sink, sure, but they're surprisingly easy to incapacitate

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@user-gv4zb9rc6u Yeah, ships designed to trade 1 ton+ shells with each other and keep on slugging are easy to incapacitate. Uh huh.

[@knoahbody69]

@@user-gv4zb9rc6u Battleships were proven to be vulnerable to air attack in WWII. You can armor the sides really easily on a ship, but the top is harder to do, then it becomes near impossible to load the ship with supplies.

[@user-gv4zb9rc6u]

@@ColonelSandersLite compared to sinking them yes. Bismarck for example had four battleships and numerous light and heavy cruisers punching her for hours on end before the mighty German sunk, but she had stopped firing long before she ever sunk either due to loss of command or loss of fire control

[@user-gv4zb9rc6u]

@@knoahbody69 that much is also very true. The best one can do is utilize deck verticality rather than thickness itself, because chances are you can't armor your upper deck enough to stop the bomb, but you can make it fuse and detonate deeper inside, but away from machinery and ammo in theory

[@tomeyles1670]

I'm so glad to say I've started using the "that's a them problem" cheers me up

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

Looking forward to analyzing the battle! Thank you for addressing various concerns and suggestions I made previously. I understand the reasons why it was difficult to simulate. That being said, I encourage you, or someone, to annotate a list of things you need in the game to make the game closer to reality, such as adding systems like the MALD-J, with the jammer, and more realistic datalink capabilities. You should have this person note which video(s) show scenarios where the new additions to the game would have been most helpful, and the time period in the video they are referencing. This information could then be relayed over to certain simulation developers, who might not just develop new Mods to add these systems to the game, but would perhaps be willing to pay for the research and information that you would be providing. This would be all the more valuable information, if you could also somehow give them the tactical review data, that shows the path and actions of all the aircraft, air defense etc. that were modeled in the simulation. All of that together could be like a data and R&D goldmine to some developer who had exclusive access to data like that from an organization like Grim Reapers. I was so impressed with Razbam's new F-15 Strike Eagle cockpit, that I recommend them, but for your organization, I would auction off the contract for exclusive access to whoever would pay the most, while making the contract renegotiable a year or so in the future, as developers come and go, and things chance. Just try to get them to also commit to developing most of the needed new Mods for existing real-world systems, as part of the initial agreement. You might even be able to work out some sort of partial royalty on the Mod itself, for helping to develop it, and then testing it out in a sort of Beta Mode, which I'm sure you're organization would probably be happy to do. I'm sure the value views would be pleased to observe the testing! I hope I'm not being too presumptuous, though. I also hope it proves to be a valuable idea, which will accelerate development of these various systems/Mods, and of various improvements to the game. Also, the F-35 is thought to have a substantially larger radar cross section than the F-22, from most of what I've read, and it is said that the S-400 can see the F-35 at around 90km, from one source that probably leans towards the Russian side of the argument. On the other hand, another, more neutral source says, "as per the public data, the S-400’s primary Search radar (91N6E) which can detect normal fighter aircraft (RCS: 4 m^2) from 390 km; can only see F-22 (RCS: 0.0001 m^2) from

[@grimreapers]

I've just been given something similar to the MALD in game, I will try it against the S-400 site.

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

@@grimreapers Have you seen the Growling Sidewinder video from today of the new South Atlantic Map? Apparently, the HMS Invincible is part of the map release, along with other ships and vehicles that allow re-creation of the Falklands conflict. What I found most interesting was how they made the map. Apparently it began with actual satellite images, which were then made 3D and photo-realistic, covering hundreds of miles of terrain in all directions. I find that simply incredible. I hope to see this same technique applied to the South and East China Seas and the mainland, if it hasn't been already. Now, let's model the whole inner solar system. Every asteroid more than 1" in diameter! Mission brief in 7 minutes for the orbital bomber prompt global strike SEAD mission in support of Mongolian attempts to defend against a Chinese invasion! We'll map out all of low earth orbit with those 3D panoramic cameras they use to record virtual reality video input, then add VR-compatible high definition models of all the satellites, and their orbits, the space stations too, of course, and perhaps even the moon. Modeling the space debris could be... errr... well, let's just say we should wait for the quantum computers to come out.

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

@@grimreapers I know this is not immediately applicable, but I was researching 6th Gen. US Fighter programs, and it appears that part of the program is a virtual cockpit for remotely piloting 6th Gen UCAS, with not only the Valkyrie/Loyal Wingman being pilotable in this VR cockpit, but also the 6th Gen fighter itself, which will be optionally manned or unmanned. I would very much expect the companies that produce things like the A-10 HOTAS replica, and WinWing Technologies, to one day be building exact replicas of these actual USAF VR Cockpits, and indeed, USAF might even encourage this, if it would allow future pilots to begin training themselves on their own time and with their own equipment from their own homes. Perhaps this would one day even allow USAF pilots to work from home on real world missions, theoretically. Same for commercial space and air pilots of various unmanned systems. So if one were able to invest in the replication of these 6th Gen Cockpits early on... The problem being, we would not want to develop these actual VR cockpit replicas for use with Russian software, for obvious reasons, so we must also develop a joint US/UK flight simulator, and since the Russian government likely supports the DCS software, the US and UK Governments should also support and subsidize/invest in a joint US/UK combined air and space flight simulator (another early investment opportunity for those who might anticipate the demand for such a product in advance). ...and then we can build the VR cockpits to connect to that new US/UK simulator.

[@Springer1-1]

Interesting, shame that Softkill isn't modelled for the ships. All surface ships will have ECM/ Chaff/ Decoy which would also be used. ships would change to a ASMD course effectively reducing RCS . While on a Type 23 frigate in the Gulf we had "missile" magnet fitted. Effectively turning a frigate into a massive radar return when activated to draw fire. Not sure about Chinese but but a USN taskforce would also have at least one SSN in the fight.

[@markstott6689]

Usually at least one. Often two. Depends on where the CSG is headed.

[@clangerbasher]

The RN puts a lot of faith in ECM. Too much faith IMHO.

[@Springer1-1]

@@clangerbasher the RN puts alot of faith into to much witchcraft !!!

[@clangerbasher]

@@Springer1-1 I hear you brother! I hear you.

[@cadenkellner3227]

At some point the the missiles will get through the ECM. They will need to invest more in hard kill weapon at some point 😂

[@92HazelMocha]

Irl Chinese carriers dropped the VLS ASM cells for more hangar space so they wouldn't have shipwrecks unlike the Kuznetsof.

[@grimreapers]

Sadly I can't turn them off.

[@t.sorvig3540]

@@grimreapers *not with that bloody attitude!*

[@cadenkellner3227]

If you could modify the Iowa to be have the 1990s characteristics then you could probably turn off the shipwrecks

[@cadenkellner3227]

Also the irl Liaonings armament is 3 hq 10 launchers and 3 type 11 ciws. But sadly the proper Liaoning is not modeled in game so the kuznetsov is next best thing

[@calmterror]

Shall we also point out the chinese didn't even commission her till 2012 not early 2000's

[@1701Larry]

OK ---------- The Chinese carrier is a jump jet launcher meaning that its J-20s can only take off with half fuel or half its missiles... It is actually less than that but who gets that exact in these things, but with no Awaaks.... while the US carriers can launch fighters with full weapons and fuel with tankers standing by to refuel if the Commander thinks he needs them.. Then you refuse to add the 20 cells on both the Cruiser and DDGs that are always dedicated to Sea Sparrow 2s with 4 missiles in each cell making for 80 missiles on each CG and DDG. Put there just for mass Missile and Aircraft attacks... That can take out both fighters and Cruise missiles out to about 40 miles... So with the six DDG and CG you would have had 480 Anti-cruise and anti-air missiles not counting the 16 on the carrier... in addition to the very long-range M2 and M6 missiles that are also anti-ship Supersonic Missiles... And no they only launch 1 missile at a single incoming cruise missile target at a time since the missiles have a 98% chance of taking out the targets. Counting on the Layered defenses of the ships to keep any from hitting the ships without wasting MIssiles. That includes retargeting missiles already in the Air if one misses their target... That also gives the missile that missed its target (because the fighter outmaneuvered it), the ability to target a new fighter or cruise missile that is close enough for the missile to intercept... Then you completely ignore the 5-inch guns that have an 80% chance to destroy both fighters and Cruise missiles firing with 97% with 2 rounds at a rate of 20 rounds a minute at each target, out to 10 miles... With 7, 5-inch guns on the CG and DDGs and 20 guns on the Battleship able to take out both fighters and Cruise Missiles... That includes taking out cruise missiles at a point-blank range of less than 1,000 meters if needed, you suddenly have a completely different battle but then you don't really want America Winning Your Propaganda War do you... Even If you have to CHEAT!!! LOL !!! You also forget that in Combat the Carrier will launch as many as 3 Awaaks that also have the Ability to Jam Ships, fighters and Cruise missiles... Using the 4th to rotate as each needs refueling... Not to mention the Dedicated anti-radar jamming fighters each Carrier has. While I can excuse your program from using the US ships' Decoys and each ship's Powerfull Jamming and spoofing Equipment... I find it hard to take the fact that your Commander did not use the American ability to group all of the Fleets Cruise missiles into one MASS Attack with every missile from the fleet hitting their targets within seconds.. That includes the Cruise missile attack from the Carrier's aircraft... The fact that your American Commander did not hold his ships from firing their Cruise missile while he launched and orbited his Cruise missile launch Aircraft to fire all their Cruise missiles at once really is not forgivable... But then much that happened seemed to come to you as a surprise... That is except the Chinese Winning the BATTLE !!!

[@benmodel5745]

Lol, dude, chill. It's a game. There are limitations to how they can configure it. They outline this pretty well. Why are you this triggered over a video game?

[@lordsqueak]

@32:53 ish Wow, haven't seen a ship notch a missile before. To be fair though, the ship did get a new paint job.

[@clintonriddle1148]

I literally stumbled on these videos, and I am hooked. I love an accurate combat sim, and this one looks as real as any I've ever seen. The attention to detail is incredible. Whoever is the gamemaster here does a great job as the play-by-play, also.

[@jamison884]

Comment before the battle begins: I know these are all DCS limitations, but sometimes the battles of in-game simply favor one side significantly. The Chinese in this case. In addition to the obvious lack of super hornets and AIM-120Ds, the destroyers and Tico's are underpowered. Here's an example of an average (super-majority) 2000's commissioned Arleigh Burke from 2000 and on. They have either 90 or 96 VLS tubes that carry up to two to three different models of SM missiles as part of the Aegis system, and at least one SM model is capable of targeting both ship and land targets at around Mach 3+ speeds. They're also capable of firing Tomahawks, Harpoons, and quad-packed (four per VLS tube) Evolved SeaSparrow (reported to go Mach 4+ and 25+ miles) anti-missile/anti-air missiles. These quad-packed guys are cheaper per unit than the SM missiles. Therefore, I hate to say it, but DCS isn't even near representative of modern-day US carrier strike group capabilities, even in the 2000's. : (

[@jamison884]

I suppose you could represent the actual capability by adding in the equivalent extra DCS US Destroyers to represent the large increase in defensive missiles over current DCS-modeled US destroyers and make them invulnerable/invisible/marked somehow? Can you disable additional Ticos to provide additional ship-harpoons, but not their full complement of VLS? Finally, Chinese pilots and seamen from 20-years ago during the Chinese build-up, are not exactly the highest skilled sailors, and definitely not Aces in their jets with the increased BVR AI skills. Add this to using a flawed design of the Chinese converted Kuznetsov (China did try to fix the issues to unknown effect, but on exchange to China, it was literally the worst carrier in history that travels with a tugboat escort in the fleet - watch this video for a good laugh: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2jFp6eOrZqjkJI).

[@vektor8418]

The main problem is the incomplete implementation of many systems, or their unrealization. The offensive capabilities of the American side are incomplete. Vertical launchers should contain anti-ship missiles, as well as short-range missiles. Cannon armament systems are not implemented, the bot simply fires all the ammunition without trying to increase the accuracy of fire.

[@Rover200Power]

A 2000's carrier should have had F-14's pegging the J-15's back with AIM-54s.

[@jamison884]

Oh, also, depending on when the destroyer was built, a large number of Arleigh Burkes have 2x Blackhawk-derived models with a multi-mission capability - missiles/torpedoes to target surface vessels, air targets, and submarines. They also have radar and sonar for forwarding surveillance purposes. The earlier Arleigh Burkes without helicopter hangars are testing a relatively small surveillance drone to offer this advanced recon and surveillance capabilities to the older destroyers. Modeling in the two helicopters per destroyer with harpoons (and setting them up to fly in from behind the strike group to mimic take-off times) would be helpful. Also, I know why you're setting the forces pretty close to each other, it really limits the US carrier force, as they would have way more jets in the air if they know the enemy is coming at a much larger distance. I suggest having them spawn in behind the strike group in a staggered formation to represent four ships that have taken off while the two groups are closing in on each other, or set the groups at a greater overall distance and fast forward the closing phase of the battle? Or is that single-player-only capability?

[@Anarchy_420]

Hell yeah thanks Cap! Adding The Iowa Class Battleship was a brilliant move!😁👍👍

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Everytime I see a Tico or Burke being shot at, I am about screaming chaff and ECM missile auto. But I do know the game limitations.

[@grimreapers]

yeh but at least it's same on both sides.

[@pogo1140]

@@TeenTeenFpv Chaff is used to confuse the radar that most anti ship missiles use to locate their targets.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

@@TeenTeenFpv Launching chaff may or may not be an act of war. If a Russian warplane is buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea and the destroyer fire chaff, it is seen as provocation and may be considered shooting at the aircraft. Or you can fire chaff 500 miles from nowhere, and who cares. Jamming on the other hand, is an act of war because of the disruption it causes, especially when using high power jammers like the SLQ-32. The SLQ-32 can literally fry a radar system, with 1.21 gigawatts of power.

[@corsair6]

Lot of defensive capabilities seem to be hard to translate to DCS. Systems like Nulka, Mk-59, SRBOC, SLQ-49 and SLQ-32 being the big ones in EW and deception. Also, ESSM was missing from the anti-air loadout so, USN had no mid-layer defensive missile in the scenario, not to mention an oddly limited missile magazine size per ship.

[@kenhelmers2603]

Fun! Luv how excited Cap gets LOL

[@FlyingWithSpurts]

The Su-33/J-15 can only use one of the three positions when they are heavily loaded. There is only that one spot with enough run up area.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

Even more interesting, the J-15 cannot use Chinas PL-15 and has to use the PL-12. Which is basically obsolete and would probably never be able to down a hornet armed with Aim-120d's

[@knoahbody69]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 The J-15 has underpowered engines. Notice how the PLAN never shows them actually taking off from the carrier at sea, It's stock footage from their concrete mock up on land. Also, he's using some kind of Naval Combat Simulator and it's clearly not real.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@knoahbody69 Whattttttt, its not real? No way bro. But even on land, the PL-15 isn't integrated with the J-15

[@j4s0n39]

Realistically, those J-15s could not take off with that much weight. Ramp launched aircraft (and STOVL) have dramatically reduced takeoff weights compared to catapult launched aircraft.

[@grimreapers]

Do we have any solid info about max J-15 carrier takeoff weight? I couldn't find anything.

[@j4s0n39]

@@grimreapers I don't know if there's specific information from the Chinese or Russians, but you can infer from the QE F-35B compared to the F-35C from the Nimitz or Ford, that ramp takeoff weight is dramatically reduced.

[@turnerdan53]

@@grimreapers I have seen statements of 1/2 load due to lack of engine power and catapult.

[@pogo1140]

@@TeenTeenFpv What would the SU-35 refuel from?

[@frost9041]

@@grimreapers Way I heard it is that the J-15 can take a full load provided it's launching from the waist position and the carrier is moving full steam ahead.

[@shmevan_]

You never know if Simba is flanking or if he just got lost again and I am here for it!

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@jamesedwards2483]

One Thing You Can't Model Is Experience With Carrier Aviation!! As Of 2022, The USN Has Over 100 Years Experience Whereas The Chinese Are Still Newcomers To Carrier Operations!!

[@CaptLawrence]

That unfortunately doesn't matter in the least. The USN in 1812 beat the Royal Navy in every major engagement but 1. These were all 1v1 equal size and compliment fights. Thats several hundred years experience vs 20 years. Food for thought

[@FenrisSulfr]

Damn cap, this made me feel like a modern boardgame of battleship!! imagine the Iowa was still in service today... nice vid cap^^

[@cadenkellner3227]

An Iowa in active service would be devastating to the other coalition if properly modernized. It will need some vls for sm 2,sm 6, sm 3, Asroc, and block 5 tomohawks. Take out the abls. Also add some rams and sea sparrows and a better radar( maybe aegis?) Then you got a very scary ship that can serve a good role in shore bombardment and escort. The Iowa were great ships 😃.

[@jamesburdian56]

@@cadenkellner3227 isn’t it impossible (if not very expensive) to install vls on a ship not built with aegis / vertical launch capability?

[@gooner72]

That's true Cap...... I like to be excited but I also like to laugh and watching the Reapers certainly makes me laugh, especially the Arma missions. Fantastic work Reapers, keep up the fantastic work!!!!!

[@boatsandhoes2589]

Cap, your excitement is contagious.

[@_R-R]

I think a good, average, CVBG composition for both sides would be 1 CV (Nimitz, Liaoning), 2 CG (Ticonderoga, 055), 2-4 DDG (Arleigh Burke IIA, 052D), 2 FFG (OHP, 054A), and 1-2 SSNs (093, 688.)

[@JinghisKhan]

Big advantage to the USN for airframes + payload and organic air defense due to the sheer number of SM-2s on the Tico and Burkes, but the Chinese vessels have objectively better ASMs, and a OHP vs a Type 054A is a one-sided fight for sure.

[@_R-R]

@@JinghisKhan True. OHP would be for point defense AAW, and ASW.

[@cadenkellner3227]

This fight was very fun to watch!! 😁. Congrats to the people that took part in it 🎉👏. This was one very entertaining fight.

[@frankbarnwell____]

Awaiting 2 delayed baseball games. Hope this ain't affected by lightning. Great fun channel, GR! But how about a pair Nimitz or newer ships with in birds vs bees? Mossies, ac-130s, f-35b, .... anything that can fit on-deck.

[@ojaspatki772]

I missed those carrier on carrier vids so much thanks Cap

[@jhabarretto9697]

You guys are great, I have been watching your videos for the last week, a few of them, I have to have this sim!!!

[@rickjames18]

Really fun to watch but not realistic at all which is a DCS problem. The PLA(N) in 2022 still only have carrier jets that are capable of carrying tiny payloads due to underpowered jet engines. So back in 2000s it would have been impossible to carry such a massive load. Besides that, I really enjoyed this, I hope you guys make more for us all to enjoy and I appreciate the work.

[@benelgar-white1174]

Great content. Also guaranteed to see dozens of comments about how it's unrealistic the Americans would ever loose to anyone.

[@bibleortraditions]

This totally makes sense. AI Vs. AI Naval Battle is like watching a Computer Vs. Computer Grand Master chess match. It always ends with a two king stalemate.

[@mr.starks]

Hearing Cap't on Navel vids is the best and reshfreshing! The little kid in him is jumping around... Sir

[@connorparks1130]

Is there a mod for the Chinese carrier that isn't just a renamed Kuznetsov. The Liaoning doesn't have any of the anti-ship missiles or VLS gauntlets. It just has CIWS and their version of the Rolling Airframe Missile. And does ED have any plans to add the SM-6, SM-2ER, or SM-3 into the game.

[@subjectc7505]

The Liaoning is an Kuznetsov Carrier

[@connorparks1130]

@@subjectc7505 The Chinese took off all the Russian missiles and put their own on.

[@subjectc7505]

@@connorparks1130 It's still listed as Kuznetsov but with Chinese modifications

[@92HazelMocha]

Iirc the most recent modifications gave it VLS medium range SAM's but I might be remembering incorrectly. Also yeah, idk why everyone keeps pointing out that it's based on the Kuznetsof hull, it's a completely different set of capabilities and systems on something that only externally looks like it.

[@Nr15121]

Cap sitting in hospital with a severely broken leg thanks for the entertainment to distract from the pain

[@grimreapers]

Get that leg fixed, that and hor derves!

[@atomant451]

Love watching. But none of this rings true, Sm-2s wouldn't be rippled off, each Sm-2 (or Sm-6) would have a dedicated target, thanks to AEGIS Radar which the Ticonderoga can handle and designate. CIWS fires in a plane view of about 200 yards square putting up a wall of lead well within the ring of Defence, as for ammo CIWS has a great deal of supply, if only to help them run away. Plus what happened to EW? Also 1980's Missile flight would start off as a sea skimmer and then pop up and come down at about a 60 degree angle not on a flat plane. Also CAP Aircraft would focus on inbound anti SS Missiles. But again, love the content.

[@corsair6]

Doctrine to date against in-bound threats is Fire, Look, Fire, much depends on threat environment. Current CIWS is ESSM/RAM/SeaRAM for horizon threats and Phalanx for last-ditch. Phalanx is limited to 3-4 engagements before it depletes its magazine.

[@BradyBegeman]

This is what happens when people making these modules uncritically believe the Russian fanfic on the listed capabilities of their munitions vs. the heavily sandbagged listed capabilities of American munitions. A Chinese “carrier group” would’ve been utterly ruined by an American carrier group and it wouldn’t be close.

[@yujinhikita5611]

well think of it this way, the us group was close to winning, if they didn't reset, the hornets could have rearmed.

[@debbiestimac5175]

Don't forget who makes DCS, they are Russian, founded in Moscow in 1991.

[@tranbachuyen6655]

sound like someone expect a turkey shot for US side become salty

[@debbiestimac5175]

@@tranbachuyen6655 North Vietnamese?

[@tranbachuyen6655]

@@debbiestimac5175 yep no other than many murican worst nightmare

[@VelnixFilms]

Such an awesome Naval battle! Keep up the good work!

[@wheeljork]

Lol at that trap, poor Damp. Turns out those aren't cables but giant elastic bands.

[@mikegarwood8680]

Carrier Air Wing (2021) aircraft, Nimitz class, straight from TOW: Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each, or ten F/A-18C Hornets each (over forty strike fighters total). The typical mix is one F/A-18F (two-seat) Super Hornet squadron, and three single-seat F/A-18E Super Hornet squadrons or a mix of F/A-18E Super Hornet and F/A-18C Hornet squadrons, though some air wings have two F/A-18F (two-seat) squadrons. In two airwings one of the F/A-18C Hornet squadrons is a U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Attack (VMFA) Squadron. One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers. One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D "Advanced" Hawkeyes One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks, 3-5 of which are typically based in detachments on other ships of the carrier strike group. A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds. Or roughly 80 air frames. I know they can surge to (about) 90, with the Ford class able to pack in a few more (3 or 4). I recently read that the F-35C squadrons, due to delivery delays, will be fewer but larger at 14 air frames per squadron. I don't know if this will reduce the number of strike fighter squadrons in the air wings from 4 to 3, but I think that would be a bad idea given current world events.

[@mikegarwood8680]

The Chinese carrier aircraft are at a "distinct" disadvantage, due to the lack of catapults. They can't carry a full load as a land-based aircraft can, and it's not right to simulate them as such. Another TOW quote pointing this out: One problem with the aircraft [J-15] is that it is the heaviest carrier-borne fighter in current operation anywhere, with an empty weight of 17,500 kg (38,600 lb) compared to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's 14,600 kg (though it is less than the F-14 Tomcat's weight of 19,800 kg). Weight problems are compounded when operating off Liaoning, as its STOBAR launch and recovery method further limits payload capacity.

[@mikegarwood8680]

The Chinese carriers don't carry SSM's. The Tomahawks are not ASMs. Land only. Can the carrier aircraft be rearmed with different loadouts in game?

[@mikegarwood8680]

@Darth Vader kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5XLpp6Ddrx6gpI

[@mikegarwood8680]

@Mr Cap: just modeled in Harpoon; gave the Chinese both carriers, 2 type 55's, 4 type 54D's, 4 type 54C's, 4 FFG type 54A's, and their 2 best SSN's. 2 Carrier Strike Groups as above + 1 Virginia SSN & the Seawolf (SSN-21). Really only needed the Seawolf and the Virginia; sunk everything in 4 (game) hours. Chinese ASW blows.

[@John_SlideRule_Bullay]

I'm always excited to watch another GR combat video! Video Valued by Valued Viewer!

[@djzoodude]

Also, from what I understand, the strike-fighter component of a modern carrier air wing is over 40 aircraft. 4 squadrons of 10 to 12 strike-fighters each. Somewhere between 40 and 48 total strike-fighters, and a complement of 5 electronic warfare aircraft.

[@CaptLawrence]

While I find it laughable that the Chinese could best a USN carrier group this was so much fun! Absolutely more of this I loved it.

[@btbarr16]

It's fun to watch, but even during WWII carriers engaged each other hundreds of miles apart. I believe the average engagement range in the Pacific was 200 miles. It's all about the air wings. Which is why the F-35s are so important. Gives the Americans a chance to attack first before being spotted and they'd be harder to track back to the carrier since the carrier doesn't use its radar in combat. I'm not even sure if support ships near the carrier would use their radar. They would probably leave it to the AWACs or send a destroyer, cruiser, or submarine out ahead to both fire antiship missiles and/or use its radar.

[@marcparent9857]

Fun to watch, but I'd recommend you look into the PLAN's modern capabilities. They're not to be scoffed at. Put a bunch of Luyang III's and Renhai's into the group and the standoff range is insane.

[@bohan9957]

@Paul Deckard Yes the USN carrier group will forever be invincible.

[@CaptLawrence]

@@bohan9957 not invincible just not defeated in a 1v1 by China.

[@bussolini6307]

@@CaptLawrence If you read the PLAN capabilities, you will see this is not true if an chinese strike group faced a american strike group 1v1, the chances are 50/50

[@sergeantklein6026]

Yay! I was so excited when I saw this today!

[@Silo-Ren]

Lesson to boy's and girls in American schools now, even if that wasn't our current Navy, study harder and built us better weapons. Confidence is currently not high.

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

Halfway through... So, are the human Admirals able to aim the CIWS, or is that automated? Also, is it possible for a human to operate the S-400 target selection? Realistically, I think you would have a human overseeing a largely automated process, but one which could be controlled using a fairly wide array of parameters. For example, one think I haven't see so much is the use of the larger missiles primarily for larger aircraft. I believe you read off the relative ranges and maneuverability of the various Russian missiles associated with the S-400. I also think you mentioned that some of the longer range missiles were not yet modeled? I do not recall if you went through the list of Pantsir missiles' capabilities, which I suspect are in the highly maneuverable, either short or perhaps even medium range. Newer Pantsirs, the Pantsir SM, with the updated targeting system, has a 25 mile range, with a 47 miles targeting range, and the AMRAAM version A was considered "medium range, and had a range of 30 miles, before the D version was extended to a range of 86 miles. The "multi-function targeting station" likely includes not just long-band search radar, but probably also IRST, electro-optical, X band radar, and a ranging laser, which within 25 miles would likely spot even stealth aircraft. That being said, it's also worth pointing out that Raytheon has come out with a replacement for the AMRAAM, called the Peregrine Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM), because it is the size of the Aim-9x, and weighs the same as the AIM-9x, is as maneuverable as the AIM-9x, but has the range of the AMRAAM, and is faster than either the AMRAAM or the AIM-9. Hopefully, that will be modeled in the game, and hopefully these complex "multi-functioned targeting stations" can some day also be accurately modeled. "The Pantsir-SM variant incorporates a multi-functional targeting station, increasing target detection range from 40 to 75 km (25 to 47 mi) and engagement range from 20 to 40 km (12 to 25 mi).[citation needed] The system uses a new high-speed extended range missile. Existing Pantsir systems can be upgraded to SM standard." If I were a human, operating an S-400 system, I would probably try to use the larger, less maneuverable and longer range missiles primarily to destroy large, less maneuverable targets, such as bombers, AWACS, aerial re-fuelers, enemy logistical aircraft, many drones, ballistic missiles, etc., and perhaps also to put pressure on fighter bombers, to give them something to worry about during their approach, but if I used them for the latter purpose, I would try to use them in smaller numbers, I would think, if using missiles like the Pantsir instead was an options. The long range air to ground and sea to ground missiles would likely also be good targets for the longer range S-400 missiles, as these long range missiles of ours are generally not nearly as maneuverable or as able to evade an incoming missile as our fighter jets would be, just based on the aerodynamics, thrust, control surfaces, sensors, etc. involved. If it is possible to operate such a system with a little bit closer human oversight, you might try that method. This seems more realistic. You could still overwhelm the S-400 and Pantsir combined, through saturation, but you would probably have to use more ordnance, and more aircraft, because they wouldn't be wasting their S-400 telephone poles on highly maneuverable aircraft at very long ranges, and would instead use these to counter any missiles or glide bombs you might launch at the air defense system or its radars. Just as few thoughts that came to mind as I was watching this, based on other prior videos too, and other scenarios in the real world I've been considering lately.

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

@@TeenTeenFpv I imagine things do tend to happen pretty fast, when you are shooting 4,500 rounds per minute (75 per second) at supersonic or even hypersonic sea skimming missiles. So it may very well be that it is mostly automatic in real life. You could probably designate priority targets, or switch targets, or the like, in real life. Ok, just looked it up for the Phalanx CIWS, and this assessment appears to have been essentially correct: "Once the computer identifies a valid target (see details below), the mount moves to face the target and then hands the target over to the tracking antenna at around 8 km. The track antenna is extremely precise, but views a much smaller area. The tracking subsystem observes the target until the computer determines that the probability of a successful hit is maximized and then, depending on the operator conditions, the system either fires automatically at around 2 km or recommends fire to the operator. While firing 75 rounds per second, the system tracks outgoing rounds and 'walks' them onto the target." I've actually been around one of these, the Phalanx, while it was firing. I believe they were shooting at incoming mortars. We used them for base defense too. The sound is really incredible (closest thing I can think of to it, that I personally have also heard in real life, would be the A-10's 30mm at 3,900 rounds per minute), but what you notice even more than that is the speed and precision at which the thing moves onto target, faster than any individual could possibly do it, without computer assisted targeting. So there is that. But, there is also that software they mentioned that lets you prioritize targets, set firing parameters, including engagement ranges, select ammunition type, probably rate of fire as well, and there's even the option to give the human operator fire control, while the computer would simply recommends when to fire, and do all the aiming for you. I suppose all of that could be modeled, or you could at least allow the user to program the AI to use one set of parameters or another. That's probably the way that would work best in DCS. But if you think about things like rate of fire, engagement range and target priority, all of that makes a huge difference, depending on the type of target, amount of ammunition, number of targets the CIWS will likely have to engage, the speed the targets are traveling, how dangerous they are to the ship, etc. If you had a large number of slow moving subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles, you might reduce the rate of fire to 2,000 rpm, and double the number of targets you could destroy, for example. That being said, it sure would be fascinating to watch the simulate FLIR camera on the CIWS as the missiles fly towards the ship at supersonic speeds... And on that note, it would also be fascinating to see the FLIR camera on those anti-ship missiles, via the F-22, F-35 and modernized F-16C and F-15E Strike Eagle datalinks, which would provide the pilots with vital situational awareness of what they are going up against, not just in FLIR imaging, but also in radar, and perhaps in HD color TV. This imaging from the friendly weapons systems during terminal guidance could also be used for battle damage assessments of recent strikes by other missiles on the same target or on nearby targets/vessels. That radar data should also be able to map out exact locations of all the various ships, weapons systems, radars, vehicles, etc in the general area of any one of the targets of any one of the missiles, which could be very accurately confirmed, when overlaid with the FLIR data and any TV data. So, once you have all of that, then you know exactly where all the targets are, with up to the minute data, even on highly mobile systems, and you even could calculate all the various vehicles' and ships' directions or travel and speeds of travel. US Forces should be seeing all of that data, from most of the modern munitions they would be firing, not just in some bunker on the ground, but also visible to the pilots in any modern US aircraft, so for something like engaging an enemy carrier group and very long ranges, or suppression of S-400 air defenses, those sensor feeds would be game changers, for the pilots, and for those in charge of planning, operations, intelligence, as well as the overall commanders of the mission, one of which will be in the air, and his superior will be on the ground, or at sea, or perhaps in an airborne command center. And again, there's also the JSTARS data of ground targets, which looks at some 20,000 sq. miles all at once, from "more than" 152 miles away. The data from that system would be vital to the overall US battle management, and for targeting targets on the ground and at sea with munitions in the air. The JSTARS would also be a much better target for those telephone pole sized S-400 missiles than the F-18s, Strike Eagles or F-35s would be, for which the Pantsir missiles and the SU-35 are likely the preferred means of engagement. So, in network centric warfare, which is how it is done on modern battlefields against near-peer adversaries, the name of the game is destroying those key sensors, like the JSTARS, AWACS, a forward deployed RQ-170, the S-400's cheeseboard or tombstone radars, or Russian AWACS or shipborne radars, because these systems are big, slow, not at all maneuverable, easy to detect, (RQ-170 excepted), and because, if they are realistically modeled, it is these primary, long-range sensors which are generally most vital to the outcome of these modern air battles, I would say. Of course, if one side runs out of missiles, or can see the other side from twice as far away, or has faster missiles with longer ranges, etc, this too can change the outcome. But if you can see through enemy stealth, without turning on your own radar, and jam his S-400 radar, which is on the ground at a known location, and you can forward deploy an RQ-170 or RQ-180 or two, and see all your weapons sensor data feeds, and your enemy's sensors are all either destroyed, or blinded temporarily, so your enemy's non-stealthy aircraft have to turn on their own radars, which are not as powerful as the S-400, that puts them at a major disadvantage. In the same way, the S-400 destroying the US AWACS, JSTARS, RQ-180, Global Hawk, airborne command centers, and its primary airborne jammer, the EA-18 Growler, then using its own radar to illuminate US stealth aircraft, when used in combination with other cheeseboard search radars and SU-35 IRST and radar receiver/sensor, would together give the Russians a major advantage, without yet having engaged the much harder targets, the actual F-35, F-22, B-2 strike package, which will try its best to not emit any energy that could give away their position prematurely, and will instead rely almost entirely on their datalink to other sensors, if at all possible. It is said that modern US aircraft datalinks are next to impossible to jam (in contrast with modern IR sensors and radar, which are much easier to jam).

[@squatty9994]

Simba learned a lot playing Carrier Command!

[@grimreapers]

yes!

[@davidconnellan6875]

You could set up a cool blockade run idea, the Chinese and American Navy are not going to want to fight in the Taiwan straight. Have the Chinese navy attempt to get out into blue water between Okinawa and Miyako Jima.

[@grimreapers]

nice.

[@Vixctor13]

I read a war novel where 3 groups of jets attacked a group of Russian ships from 3 seperate directions. Would be interesting to see how well it works in DCS. From what I've seen from this channel so far you always attack ships from one direction.

[@jamison884]

Hey Cap. The research I see is Nimitz class supercarriers having an air wing of 75-80 aircraft. I don't have the early 2000's composition, but here's an example of the current one, with the total number and type of jets being the important part. The absolute lowest number I saw quoted during active operations were 64 jets. The high-end carrying capacity for simple transport purposes was 130 to 140 F-18s as the sizing standard (some models being smaller/larger than the Super Hornets). But, per one of my other posts, I wanted to emphasize the CSG would definitely have more jets launched by the time these two forces met, so if you want to put them closer together like this to eliminate all of the boring closing time as they approach, then it makes sense to put them in the air flying CAP for the fighters, essentially charging the enemy (and stating the scenario is the current range being used is where the US elected to turn aggressive), and as the CAP rushes in, the remaining harpoon ship-attacking jets would be launching a coordinated timing attack from a likely spread out the angle of ~45 to 90 degrees.

[@jacobsparry8525]

This is from 2020 but may be of interest to you guys for settings maybe: Rear Adm. Gregory N. Harris, director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, addressed the future and specified to some degree the numbers and types of aircraft in the future air wing envisioned by the end of the 2020s. As illustrated in a PowerPoint slide, the future wing would still include 44 strike fighters as it does now, but the mix of Block 4 F-35C Lightning II fighters and Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters changes from 10 and 34, respectively, to 16 and 28. The strike fighters would equip one 16-aircraft F-35C squadron and three F/A-18E/F squadrons totalling 28 Super Hornets. The other aircraft in the wing would include five-to-seven EA-18G Growler electronic combat aircraft, five E-2D Advanced Hawkeye command-and-control aircraft, six-to-ten MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, three CMV-22B Osprey carrier-onboard delivery aircraft, and five-to-nine MQ-25 Stingray aerial tanker unmanned aircraft. -- Next year, (2021) USS Carl Vinson will deploy, taking a 10-aircraft F-35C squadron (Strike Fighter Squadron 147) on the aircraft’s first carrier deployment. The ship also will carry two 10-aircraft F/A-18E squadrons and one 14-aircraft F/A-18F squadron… - There is more to read there for those interested - This came from : “NAVY’S FUTURE CARRIER AIR WING CONFIGURATION COMING INTO FOCUS” SEA POWER MAGAZINE The Official Publication Of The Navy League of the United States Posted on September 14, 2020 by Richard R. Burgess, Senior Editor seapowermagazine.org sea power magazine.org/navys-future-carrier-air-wing-configuration-coming-into-focus/

[@cadenkellner3227]

Also what things did you do to change the Iowa model for the ciws and missiles. Was there any files to go into or something of the likes. It would be very interesting to make a custom ship.

[@skyhorseprice6591]

Yep. That was the most exciting carrier group v carrier group yet.

[@mixit2413]

the Americans should have moved ships to a left 45 degree angle to the Chinese fleet for first wave then changed to a right 45 deg angle on second wave would have made the most of the CIWS.

[@twbones99]

I'm always interested as to why the US, at least in DCS, always gets its ass handed to it when the USN is touted as the most powerful navy in the world.

[@92HazelMocha]

It doesn't always and also the other carrier groups are largely fictional/speculative. Russia hasn't ever really fielded a carrier group the way the US does and the Chinese carrier groups don't go far from home so something like this is really more just for fun than a "what if" scenario.

[@joeclaridy]

Many of these mock battles aren't to spec for some reason. You'll see battles with American aircraft that are outdated or can't use current kit.

[@markstott6689]

Because Russia and China cannot be seen as weak. Geo-political shenanigans intrude everywhere. I assume DCS is available in China? If it is then a precondition on availability would likely be never show the glorious PLAN as being less than stellar. Equally if the majority of the software engineers are Russian they will want to put on a good show. Reality is that the USN is likely far superior.

[@willwozniak2826]

It's a game dude..

[@bri-manhunter2654]

They don’t ever spec out the American carrier groups correctly, but still fun to watch.

[@henrygibson9613]

Harpoon has been removed from Burke destroyers in later models so DCS is accurate.

[@henrygibson9613]

Also, why aren't they sea skimming too

[@fqeagles21]

Yes but now they have Tomahawk B5 anti ship,SM6 anti ship capability,and LRASM

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@92HazelMocha]

@@fqeagles21 Yeah but just like Russia and China, the US doesn't want the public to have accurate simulations of their most modern stuff so we probably won't get it in DCS for another 10+ years.

[@fqeagles21]

@@92HazelMocha True

[@pjmtrmcjm]

The U.S. will not send one carrier group unless they knew it would just be required for intimidation. If actual agression is suspected they would send 2 at a minimum and 3 is better.

[@Rover200Power]

Yes, but that would be very boring for the valued viewers.

[@tranbachuyen6655]

sound like someone expect a turkey shot for US side become salty . and btw the moment US send in 3 carrier group that mean ww3 , and the stuff welcome them gonna be DF-21 instead regular ASM

[@willwozniak2826]

@@tranbachuyen6655 dont mean squat....lol

[@keithdonaldson4623]

@@tranbachuyen6655 no, we have sent 3 CSGs into the west pacific before

[@brucescott7016]

Those J-15s would launch from the Chinese carrier deck and lawn dart straight into the ocean with that loadout! The old SU-27Ks were launching with a pair of Alamos and a pair of Archers. Actually, the J-15s might even do that with a normal sized load apparently.

[@bigbore4498]

@Grim Reapers Hey Cap, have you done a video where you replace the fleet inside Pearl Harbor with a modern fleet? I know you did a whole series about modernized fleets and planes trying to prevent it from outside. But I haven’t seen one like that. Just modern day equivalent of the ships at Pearl. If you have, could you (or someone else) please reply with a link to it?

[@grimreapers]

Not yet good idea.

[@Sc0rned1]

You guys have such amazing videos

[@justy1189]

Would it be possible to split this kind of carrier fight into two battles. The long range air to air duel with surviving forces then ported over to the antiship battle?

[@grimreapers]

nice

[@tyho6521]

Could you try a scenario where Force Z (HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse + 4 DDs) is supported by RAF elements (I believe they only had Brewster Buffaloes and Hawker Hurricanes at that time)? Could they have been saved? Or one where they have one new Type 45 DD as as escort :)

[@XrandomnessX]

I wonder why the southern A. Burke started losing health at 20:15? Maybe desynced?

[@monkman911]

"That's a very unpowered airplane Sock... he found it out the hard way!" I'm still laughing an hour later

[@Tomcat5837]

Roleplay justification for the red box: Ever see the movie Robot Joxx? Two nations pit giant fighting robots in gladiator fights to decide the outcome of war. It's like that but with carrier groups.

[@grimreapers]

I remember this!

[@fluff_ruff]

What DCS also doesn't have for 2022 is the amount of petina my navy is rocking these days. 😥

[@lightbenderga2017]

Any word on if ED will model ESSM or the secondary Anti-shipping capability of the SM-2? The SM-2’s atm are Veeery weak, sometimes it doesn’t even look like they have a proxy fuse.

[@grimreapers]

ESSM is in there now, not sure which ships its on. SM-2 anti-ship, not in pipeline as far as I know.

[@lightbenderga2017]

@@grimreapers I haven’t seen it on anything in DCS, it *should* be on all of the Burkes, since the ones ingame aren’t flight I’s. Is there any way to actually use flight 1 Arleigh Burkes to get the 8x harpoons into the fight? Rn they’re very weak against ships.

[@cleetus6867]

I believe in real life it's likely that the air wings would be organized to salvo off there munitions in large groups instead of just letting them trickle in over time, would it be possible to get the anti-shipping aircraft to group together and fire all at once? Love the vids!

[@mattfromwiisports4910]

Hehe. The pilot that flew to space 😂

[@InfraredSpace]

🤣🤣🤣

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

Well done, everyone. I think the additional human participants were an excellent touch, but, of course, the AI improvement probably also had a major impact. Submarine warfare would be a major factor in real life, but, as you said, I don't think there are subs in DCS yet, correct? Not like modern US and Chinese fast-attack subs, right? It would be sort of fun to fly the Helos on the anti-submarine missions, though, wouldn't it? Dip your microphone in the water here, then over there, in an MH-60R, and when you find one, you have torpedoes in your stores, instead of missiles. "The MH-60R helicopter can be armed with Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes for ASW missions. It can carry a number of weapons, including eight Hellfire anti-surface missiles and .50 calibre guns for ASuW missions." Is Razbam simulations listening? How about an MH-60R for the NATO fleets? Perhaps there could be at least subs that had approximations of known capabilities, which could do either fleet offense or defense, depending on their orders. At least the Los Angeles, Virginia and Seawolf classes, and the various Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Swedish, British, Indian, Taiwanese, North Korean and French subs. This would better reflect the true naval balance of power in the real world. There is some doubt as to whether or not the US would have air dominance within the first days, weeks or even months, after a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, in the skies over Taiwan, the straits and the mainland. These is no such doubt of US undersea dominance, immediately after a conflict begins. Almost everything would have to be transported to Taiwan by sea, which is 100 miles from the mainland. But if the enemy has undersea dominance, how do you manage to move even one ship across those 100 mile wide straits, without it sinking? The answer is, if you are lucky enough to have the option, you wait until the US subs run out of torpedoes... The air war will be a bitter one. You may all be drafted into it, as remote combat aircraft pilots. So take your training here very seriously. Try pretending that you are flying a real aircraft, in a real war. Someday, you may be. Someday, you could be flying an air superiority jet with supercruise, stealth, DAS, hologram mounted cuing, peregrine missiles, and an advanced AI for an auto-pilot, which is essentially like having an employee, who is 100 times faster and smarter than you, but who relies on inputs from you to do his job, and as a result, the bottleneck, without exception, will be you, or the aircraft, not being able to respond as fast as the AI brain in your armored nose, which is able to take very broad instructions, and then do the rest for itself, but in the future, things will happen so fast, that humans will not even be able to set the broad parameters fast enough to let the AI work as fast as it otherwise could have. That may well be the future, and it could be a very real mission, perhaps against human pilots, perhaps in defense of Taiwan, or perhaps in defense of Australia, Japan, India, Guam, Hawaii or even California. This is another reason it is important to master simulations of this sort of conflict. However, as Cap noted in the video today, it is Russian software we're using, and really, we may well be helping to program the AI for their drones and for the Chinese drones. Of course, we get all the same data too, but why is it that the best combat simulator in the world is Russian software? It's a work of art, what they've built with DCS, but is the only western competitor Microsoft Flight Simulator? Can't we do better than that? Where is the American answer to DCS? Where is the hyper-realistic air and space flight simulator, which can not only out-perform DCS, but, uniquely in the software world, can connect to the DCS network, and have match-ups and tournaments of our simulated aircraft versus theirs? Imagine that. Better yet, where are the real-world remotely piloted combat aircraft tournaments? It seems like that should be possible now. We could do it like the Red Flag exercises, between actual unmanned supersonic jets, in a way that the jets are not destroyed in the process, because the actual munitions firing is simulated (like in DCS). Then, in the finals and semi-finals, the competitors would fly real supersonic aircraft with real air to air missiles and 20mm guns, or at least Browning M2.50 BMGs, like early aircraft. All this could be controlled in the same way you control DCS. People all over the world would watch it. "If you build it, they will come..."

[@ericdziadosz7145]

If a revisit of this battle is done, maybe include submarines? I have heard that there is a model for the Los Angeles in DCS, and a lot of the Chinese ships and subs are based on/bought from Russia, so maybe a scenario with a US CVBG with subs vs China/Russia CVBG with subs might alter the outcome. An undetected sub starting to take out the cruisers and destroyers in silence would be a nice (or horrifying depending on point of view) way to start a battle.

[@mitchburdge8319]

The USS Gerald R. Ford has has not been deployed yet but it is ready to be just training and waiting for final certification, first deployed is fall 2022 and two or three US Carrier have F-35

[@boostjunkie2320]

U.S. intelligence, technology plus the experienced generals and admirals would prove to be over whelmingly too much

[@archangel9303]

Facts 🇺🇸

[@fraserhenderson7839]

It must be terribly boring in a real conflict where the carrier groups are actually separated by 300 miles. "The excitement is not there" says Cap. It's amazing that warfighters would even get out of bed for such a battle! The Neilson ratings must be very low. Militainment is a tough industry.

[@Bovafett]

Scott 'Lord Nelson' just go straight at them... what's maneuvering?

[@arcticwolf2681]

Those carrier guys you talk too are right. My dad confirmed than no US Carrier ever sets sail with a full complement of aircraft during times of peace as the hanger cannot physically handle all the aircraft, therefore a portion of the complement would be transported, strapped to the flight deck during the entire deployment. That is not good for the aircraft and would only be done if absolutely mission critical. Now that being said, my dad served during the end years of the cold war and reasons may have changed since then. But that was the reason when he was in.

[@geary_-_g]

Cool stuff right there :)

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Loved this. Messy, chaotic and VERY expensive in terms of stuff destroyed. Who'd be a sailor today? I mean, Trafalgar was less messy and "everybody dies". 90% losses on both sides? I think I'd rather take my chances with a can opener verses a T90.

[@5Andysalive]

i feel like Cap adds a lot more qualifiers in his commetary these days, when it comes to chinese(russian) weapons. You know "these ... are very good - at least ingame". I think we all learned to take numbers, assumptions and claims on these things in real life a bit more carefully now and have learned a certain base-scepticism on what we are told. Especially when all you have is official numbers and no kinda independent source for them.

[@grimreapers]

fair point.

[@Chemo735]

Looking forward to your next installment of Carrier Command 2.

[@grimreapers]

waiting for Kortana to get back from hols.

[@Kaelland]

From what I can tell, a typical carrier group, either US or Chinese, also includes a couple of attack submarines. I know the submarine modeling in DCS is trash, so I understand why you wouldn't include those, but those submarines could absolutely tip the balance. Also, it's entirely possible that a US carrier group would be traveling with a USMC Expeditionary Strike Group, which would include an LHA, an LSD, an LPD, 3 more surface combatants (usually a cruiser, a destroyer, and a frigate, but can be any combination of those), and another submarine. While the LSD and LPD wouldn't make much of a difference (other than maybe soaking some missiles), 3 more surface combatants and the air wing on the LHA definitely would, as would the extra submarine.

[@azchris1979]

If we are talking realism, I cannot imagine a scenario where we would accept the loss of a CBG without nukes. If it escalates here, its over.

[@pogo1140]

@@azchris1979 The US will not initiate a nuclear war lost CBG or not. We were not even sure if we would launch nukes if the Russians defeated us in Europe and that would have meant that thousands of American soldiers dead, almost all of the USAF's tactical squadrons destroyed and most of the US Army's armor gone.

[@azchris1979]

@@pogo1140 right...if this is happening here other stuff is happening elsewhere. If it was this bad, they would tac nuke, not saying strategic nuke. I bet they have standing authorization if it means not losing the ship.

[@awilson2385]

@@pogo1140 You would benefit from studying the Navy's nuclear doctrine. Sinking a US carrier almost guarantees you get a big orange mushroom as the prize.

[@beepthemeep12]

I love seeing these fights

[@joshuafelder2701]

US side definitely was hurt by having all their aircraft on the deck... it eliminated their aircraft's numerical advantage. It may not be a "realistic" scenario starting this close, but definitely more exciting to watch. I think a good one for next time would be 2 US carrier groups vs. a PLAN carrier group plus a bunch of their small "brown water" ships.

[@hughmungus2760]

too bad no type022s are modelled, those carry 8 antiship missiles each.

[@robertr9188]

I'm not sure if anyone commented on this: what's truly missing here is the fact that at least one (1) Los Angeles-class attack sub would have been part and parcel of the US carrier battle group. If just he one (1) sub participated, I do believe that the outcome would tip over to the American fleet's favor for at least taking out more of the screening PRC ships. If TWO (2) subs were included that would definitely change the outcome as one sub would target the PRC carrier exclusively and the other sub would go after the other surface combatants. Conversely, if the PRC had two (2) or three (3) Kilo-class subs on their side, then the US anti-sub capabilities could have shown that aspect of the battle as well. Another unrelated point: it has been USN doctrine for some time now (~25 yrs) that nearly all of the airpower is used for offense (like 90%) so in this scenario, at a minimum, 75% of the air assets should have been launched and engaged in combat.

[@MostLikelyMortal]

People have talked about the lack of sub warfare for years and for years they have continued to say it’s not in the game. Not to say it isn’t true, but it’s kind of a moot point by now

[@zipxd_sng]

Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 161

[@brandonhamilton833]

Boys. You're all awesome. Hat's off to you!

[@horst3737]

Entertaining, thank you!!!

[@wolfhunter98]

13:59 Great idea to add more missiles I think. Not sure if the best spot, but nice idea. Also probably needs to fire more than one for a saturation attack.

[@bartobo]

Oh my. Okay i get this was jiggered so the Chinese would have a chance. But, in reality, the Chinese would not have a chance.

[@PaRadiZer]

You guys have all the fun! Been dreaming of building a sim rig for many years, but I don't dare. My family life would be gone! Is the NSM/JSM modelled in DCS? Would be very interesting to see how it stacks up in scenarios such as this: Low observable, passive IR seeker, high G end-game maneuvering, and all.

[@bamafan-in-OZ]

Maybe for a battle like this they need to remove the aircraft from Nimitz and install VSLs throughout the flight deck. Now that would be an awesome sight to see

[@marcparent9857]

Saturation raids are the way of the modern naval battle. They would absolutely try to overwhelm the enemy defenses as quickly as possible from as far away as they could if they had a solid solution.

[@soumyajitsingha9614]

be prepared for INS Vikrant packed with 27 F/A 18 Superhornet as it is at this point confirmed to carry F 18 in the new Indian carrier and F 18 is dominating the Rafale for the tender which will help choose the Deck based fighter

[@andyf4292]

id be interested in how those chinese ballistic antiship missiles would perform...

[@chrislong3938]

This game would cool, save the bugs you mentioned. I used to play, and still do occasionally, Harpoon strategic simulations! I'm glad as hell though that I found this platform since Harpoon is a bit dated, yet still fun! Thanks!!!