Can A Chinese Type 052C Destroyer Flotilla Beat A US Carrier Group? (Naval 18) | DCS

[@KennyBuildit]

“Absolute beefcake of a missile” is a sentence I never knew I needed to hear

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@NASWOG]

CAP, when transiting the straits the carrier strike group must be in a line formation because of the "football". the football is a 1-2 mile wide pathway through the straits that is technically outside of any territorial waters meaning vessels can "rotate and radiate". When in territorial waters you may not rotate or radiate without permission because it is unlawful to act as a warship in these locations otherwise. I have personally done this on several occasions. during the transit we have heavy airforce coverage from bases in Qatar. No naval aircraft are airborne during the transit besides a few seahawk helicopters. As offered previously, I would be more than happy to help you guys out with this series from an information standpoint. i'm on the discord. As it stands, the videos are fantastic but far from realistic in this scenario.

[@volushin]

Can you give us some insight in regards to the actual amount of escort ships for a modern carrier battle group? I feel like this video series has too many escorts. It was my understanding that the norm(at least in recent years) was more like 1 Tico cruiser, and 3-4 other Destroyers, and frigates, and a attack sub.

[@NASWOG]

@@volushin yeah, so the RAS (replenishment at sea) ships rotate and are rarely part of the strike group apart from transferring cargo. There is the carrier with 60-88 aircraft including helicopters, 1-2 cruisers, 2-3 destroyers, and generally 1 submarine. It is very rare to find all of those listed ships together at once due to required port visits for maintenance, side missions, and other miscellaneous tasks. A great deal of a carriers protection in the persian gulf is the nearby airforce bases. Often pacific carrier strike groups will be slightly larger due to the frequent absence of airforce assets in the area. One must also consider the ground assets available to a strike group in the Persian gulf such as patriot missiles, intelligence, and electronic warfare capabilities. It’s a rabbit hole but i would be more than happy to articulate further.

[@stumccormick3226]

@@volushin No frigates anymore but otherwise generally true. But Carrier Strike Group in Persian Gulf in 2019 had 5 Destroyers and 1 Cruiser (+subs and a Spanish Destroyer). It is dependent on context.

[@kerblingtime]

but considering of an active threat to the fleet, wouldn't the maneuvers be warranted? I would assume they know about the Chinese ships and considering the threatening nature of the situation, I would assume the captain of the ship at the very less arm a few planes?

[@andrewparrish7309]

This is a wartime scenario. Territorial waters is a peace time term.

[@christopherfischer6998]

Hey supercap. Idea. A reverse engineered version of this series. Can you defend against a US carrier group attacking? Build up a defense and see if you can survive

[@grimreapers]

Eeek, the possbilities.... let's finish the series first...

[@NASWOG]

This would be awesome!

[@strambino1]

I like this idea... I like it a lot

[@arpioisme]

Plz

[@pj23nl]

but basically all these tests are bogus due to the very shoddy AI

[@FireStormOOO_]

Sadly that's most games and simulations no matter how good the rest may be. Human level AI just isn't a thing yet.

[@RN1441]

Seeing the AI put 20+ harpoons in to the drink was very sad.

[@Tobascodagama]

Yeah, for these "silly" ones they should probably just film the single-player runs.

[@averylee4302]

Shit like this is why I'm not afraid of skynet.

[@timehaley]

Yes, this is a game AI running a standard program with certain parameters, hence all the failures. With people in the equation the flotilla would have been stopped much sooner. I was impressed though how the game AI used the Hornets EMC capabilities to jam the first wave of missiles fired at the harpoons. Getting to close to the flotilla with the Hornets, not so much. lol

[@Tobascodagama]

Real shame to see the AI once again wasting the carrier group's strongest asset, its air wing.

[@theoneneo5024]

Not the first time I’ve seen DCS be more than a little tilted toward the Chinese or against the US.

[@johnknapp952]

A little note: American aircraft don't go below deck to re-arm or re-fuel, they do all that on the flight deck, this isn't WWII. The only time aircraft go to the hanger is usually for maintenance. Also the first missiles heading for the enemy ships would be HARMS.

[@The136th]

052D and 055 has YJ-21 ASBM which has 1500km range, if they are programed in, the result would be very different.

[@MattChoo1437]

Listening to Cap's commentary gives me a second hand adrenaline high.

[@maximilliangenius5572]

M

[@wardaddyindustries4348]

Lol that seems pretty accurate XD

[@rogerrussell5155]

Cap is the Murray walker of wargames

[@evrydayamerican]

It sorta took the fun outta of it once everything started messing up. I like to really see a outcome cause some of these are really a present danger to us all. Thanks for all the great content.

[@redgriffindiver7740]

Carrier AI question? In my experiences 1) Aircraft wouldn't go below deck to rearm. There would be ready loads in the rearm area on the starboard side of the superstructure. 2) Cat 2 is usually a parking area. If you launched a massive strike aircraft parked over Cat 2 would cycle over to Cat 1 to launch. Once the strike package is aloft you can recover and rearm.

[@teekay_1]

I think the problem with these simulations is it's one-dimension. It removes the submarine fleet that would be in constant contact with enemy fleet and would be prepared to sink a fleet before it got within missile range of the carrier group.

[@MostLikelyMortal]

Well, yeah. There has to be a few discrepancies for the war game to show any sort of interesting action. If the problem is resolved before anyone gets in missile range that’s not much fun, is it? Gotta sacrifice a tiny bit of realism for the sake of interest

[@myopicthunder]

t

[@Im0utlaw]

The best part of these videos is Cap's sound effects

[@lolasdm6959]

destoryers would have helicopters for over the horizon radar targeting.

[@brianwaffle]

That is very true they would have Helo's up for surface search. But the second that would either radiate or they were picked up the BARCAP or a Burke would shoot to kill or drive them below the horizon.

[@clivereid]

@@brianwaffle Not forgetting the CAP flight and that the other Hornets with their AMRAAMs.

[@Loki1701e]

The E3s can be used for over the horizon targeting anyways

[@davenobody407]

The Chinese also have large VTOL drones that can be launched from the destroyers.

[@danimal1306]

set them on weapons hold ROE until waypoint one at 26k feet, and then change ROE to engage everything. Easy fix to the mission parameters.

[@grimreapers]

rgr

[@jyralnadreth4442]

The US ships typically only carry 8x AGM 84 Harpoons in their own dedicated launchers...Harpoon isn't VLS launched but fired from the Mark 141 Quad launcher. The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class have 2x4 launchers when equipped but not all AB Destroyers have them, when they were in commission the Iowa Class BBs had 4x4 Harpoons and the Oliver Hazard Perry Class had the ability to fire Harpoon from its single arm launcher at a slower rate of fire (22 seconds per missile) than its SM-1s (8 second reload). The Old decommissioned RGM 109B Tomahawk anti Ship missile can be fired from the Mark 41 VLS. RIM 162 ESSM, RIM 156 SM-2 Block 4 and RIM 174 SM-6 Missiles whilst designed as SAMs can also function as Anti ship weapons although as Supersonic diving weapons. China uses a similar CIWS to the Goalkeeper 30mm Gatling gun...the Royal Navy used to use it

[@johnrollex680]

Assuming that these specifications of these weapons are accurate we can basically determine that the Chinese would need three times the numbers and an AWACS in order to even stand a chance in a real engagement. The chinese AI really didn't do anything obviously wrong. But the American slammed almost all of their Air wing's harpoon missiles into the Sea. And this is beyond the fact that in a real scenario pilots would have much more ability to improve their effectiveness through skill and coordination then the destroyers would.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

The US AI was dumb but actually so was the Chinese. The Chinese ships wasted so many SAM for no reason. Realistically, they would have been more careful on target selection. They wasted all their missiles on two Hornets doing nothing but circling around outside of their effective engagement envelope. All the missiles that were launched, only the last few salvos were within effective range. Most of the earlier shots had their safety fuse detonate well before it reached the Hornets. You can tell the missiles were also slow and lacked maneuvering capability by the time it got there. I mean any weapon''s officer with half a brain knows not to waste valuable missiles on that.

[@johnrollex680]

@@neurofiedyamato8763 that's a fair point. However I don't think that the Sam's really matter since the hornets can still fire their Seahawks out of the effective range of the SAMs and whittle down the defenses of the destroyers. There's really nothing they can do about that. And because the hornets would be airborne before the Chinese could bypass US defenses to mission kill the carrier, they would still get taken out. and the us could probably take out the Chinese AWACS before the Chinese overwhelm the carrier group defenses. But they do think that with three times the numbers they at least have a chance. But remember, this was still a very favorable engagement for the Chinese. Realistically the engagement would have started much farther away in actual War. Meaning that the carrier group would have had a much more decisive advantage.

[@theoderic_l]

Realistically the Chinese wouldn't send out 8 of their not-the-best destroyers by themselves to attack an American carrier group in the strait of Hormuz. And yes, the AI was stupid for both the American and Chinese sides.

[@ronaldmelia1172]

Don't assume anything. this simulation is based on bullshit. There is no way that 2 CAP will make 6 destroyers waste all of their missles on them. I am an ex Royal Navy CIS Chief and this simulaion is, in my humble opinion. CRAP!

[@allenliu8820]

the type 052c has anti ship missile launch tubs facing the port and starboard sides which means they have to be broadside to fire them the type 052c are treated like mobile aa batteries compared to the other destroyers which are designed to be good enough in all areas

[@mobykanderwal3037]

Errors were made in setting up this simulation. Let's do it again please.

[@CoDWiiPS3Gameplay]

😂😂😂

[@azuresflames2473]

The most recent PLAN DD does have 112 VLS. Though the type 55 isn't in the game which isn't surprising considering it only entered service in 2020

[@Firestorm2900]

Yea, I think it'll be a while until we see some of the more modern ships get in.

[@maxwarrior3324]

I love this kind of new tv serious! Its really fun to watch! Can you do something like black sea conflict from the last news? That would be great to see what might happened if

[@jommydavi2197]

"I'm gonna leave it to the AI so there's no bias" >> Proceeds to have a human fly american plane.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

This is the reason why China only built a few 052B and C, the Russian style VLS system take too much space. The 052D which built 20+ already and 055 both used a new square VLS system that can fit much bigger missile than mk41can. 052 has 64, and 055 has 112. Those VLS can also fire YJ18 which has almost double the harpoon range with terminal speed over mach 4.

[@Firestorm2900]

There are also more reasons. The 052B was more built under license from Russia to act as a stopgap until they had a fully Chinese built area defense. Also, the missiles used by the 052C and 052D are different in some ways, such as the homing of the HHQ-16A was closer to how patriot works, meaning some of the AESA panels needed to be dedicated to the X-band for them, and the -16B has active homing and longer range. Also, the 052D has better cooling and range for it's radar system.

[@WangGanChang]

​@@Firestorm2900 052B is the low risk platform which is basically a gas turbine Sovremenny without sunburns, it is developed constructed in the same time frame as 052C in case the 052C fails and China needs to a backup. Which 052C actually didn't meet PLAN expectation, however, China opted not to build any destroyers for almost a decade after the first two 052C rather than building anymore 052B. (efforts went into 052A instead) When 052C production resumes, it is almost immediately replaced by 052D (which was launched before any of the 2nd batch was even commissioned) interestingly, when 052Bs when into mid-life refit last year. the new weapon layout is essentially a enlarged 054A... (in fact Chinese Sovremenny mid-life refit are the same way as well)

[@theoderic_l]

@@WangGanChang The PLAN sure have some odd naming schemes...

[@jean-yvesfriant1809]

I like your videos, and I am just discovering them now. Even without AWACS, the type 52C have helicopter with a search radar able to scan up to approx 200nm. I guess in this configuration, at least one helo would be scanning for the carrier group...

[@code-dredd]

So, this ain't making sense to me: If this is intended to be completely AI-controlled, and it works _correctly_ in single-player, and works _incorrectly_ in multi-player, then _why_ don't you just keep it in single-player?...

[@grimreapers]

Simba wants to fly, so MP it is!

[@code-dredd]

@@grimreapers It's a bit unfortunate, b/c it's clearly impacting the quality of what you intended to portray with the video, but that's fair enough. What should really happen is DCS fixing that problem - you should just yell "Waaaaaagggggneeeerrr" again. Thanks for replying, though :thumbsup:

[@jacobhill3302]

An actual full scale modern war would be an absolute catastrophe for everyone involved. The amount of destruction/death in a relatively short period of time would be shocking.

[@eylonemuskson4177]

@Greenish Man I hope that was a joke...

[@王方悦]

@Greenish Man Those who long for war, will regret after it

[@neilwu9356]

BTW, the Chinese 052C is now getting replaced( already ) with D type and 055

[@WangGanChang]

they probably more than 20 years of service life left, especially considering both 051B and 054 (not A) got refitted rather than being sold to Pakistan or Thailand. Given the original two 052C are nearing mid-life refit, it's would be interesting to see how it will be rearmed. My guess is GJB5860-2016 VLS will replace H/AJK03 and YJ-12 will replace YJ-83, and a HQ-10 RAMs. It may possibly get a new radars as well. However, it also possible only YJ-83 and electronics will be replaced, with HQ-10 replace one of the CIWS and it will remain a dedicated long range air defense ship.

[@martinpalmer6203]

Yes and the type 055 is roughly equivalent to what a modernized Ticonderoga would be . Likely extremely capable.

[@zoka7108]

@@steamedcream7671 English wiki is outdated by almost a year. There is already 25 052D's and 8 055's

[@Thigas1809]

I would love to see a soviet cruisers group, with Slava class and Kirov class vs a US carrier group

[@azuresflames2473]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpSbmYOGnt6bkM0 He already did something similiar

[@shaundavidssd]

Haven't they done that already

[@lucasgrand4725]

@@shaundavidssd they have

[@qiyuxuan9437]

Dosent work very well, since you cant make the ai to launch all their antiship missile in one slavo, which made them much easier to intercept with.

[@surefresh8412]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJ-Wo556aNSWpsk Here they used 10x Kirovs to simulate 2x Kirovs by making up for the fact that the AI only launches anti-ship missiles in salvos of 4

[@shveylien7401]

Erm, you can test multiplayer versions by running it real time while editing, cooking, being busy and grabbing the track file to see how it went. A few more miles separation and more of those harpoons would have launched correctly.

[@PolarPenguin526]

I didn't know until now but apparently, on the Oliver hazard Perry the bushmasters on the side and the 50's above the bridge actually work. really cool at night. also as a bonus the rounds are red tracers for the 50's. now that would be a cool vid. put a few gunboats in front about a mile, wait until they get close and they should engage.

[@jeepinbanditrider]

I'm fairly certain that the Harpoon can be programed to execute a turn or dog leg maneuver. Which would explain the turns some of them were doing.

[@grimreapers]

rgr

[@oliverf.1511]

Tthe 9M317 SAM is a missile fired by the Russian SA 11/17 or BUK missile system used by the 52B Destroyer. Enjoyed this vid a lot just like the others. The "What can beat a carrier group" vids are extremely interesting to watch.

[@MrPeterhemm]

“No one says kamikaze isn’t legal!” 😆

[@Firestorm2900]

Some thoughts, someone mentioned how you use helos for that over the horizon targeting, I think you could do that, relay rough coordinates and let the radars of the missiles to the rest. 052Bs use the Shitl missile, a modified Buk system for sea use. Also, I can't remember if it's the 052B or 052C, but one uses a missile close to how the Tomahawk ASM was. Felt kinda odd how the Chinese DDGs ran out of missiles. I swear the way AI handles fleet action air defense is a bit off as a whole. I'm not entirely sure but when I see either US or Chinese anti-air have 6 missiles to a single ASM, drives me nuts. Then again, not sure how that would work out IRL, so I'm unsure how close that would be IRL. Ardleigh Burkes are all steel construction, I dunno about the Chinese 052 series if they are the same way or not. Very interesting question I have not thought of. I'm not sure if 4 Harpoons would be enough to take out a DDG or not, could be enough to render it as a mission kill perhaps? The thing that scares me the most about this simulation is just how many harpoons took a swim, this could have been ended sooner.

[@stc2828]

Compare 052b to 052c is like comparing F18 with F18 superhornet. The only thing similar is the name, the capability is not in the same dimension. 052c is an Aegis ship while 052b is not.

[@wanhapatu]

Those other missiles seem to be "BUK" or SA-N-12 Grizzly from the Type 052B destroyers.

[@jefftheriault5522]

Carrier Strike Groups are supported with SSN's. This scenario would start and end with a torpedo ambush. If you find yourself in a fair fight when your nation's future depends on the outcome, you have f'd up on a massive scale. If somehow the SSN's are out of place, and the opponents are PLA DD's, the task group cancels the passage of the straights, backs off and sends in a fully coordinated saturation missle strike. Then the SSN's do clean up on aisle four, and then the Strike Group transits the straits.

[@HebrewHammerArmsCo]

That was better then any Hollywood movie this year

[@tonykriss1594]

So there's this thing called radar ducting that let radar sees over the horizon (sometimes even longer than its designed range). Radars that designed to exploit atmosphere duct has been a default for any semi-modern large surface combatant from Russia or China. Apparently this is not modeled in DCS (as its such a complex mechanic and most of time don't affect aircrafts) or those Chinese destroyers would be able to fire at that carrier from beginning of this scenario.

[@tonykriss1594]

Also AI seems failed us again. Those ships turned side way two times and neither time did they actually fire. Reminds me that time those Slava so stubbornly refusing to fire more than 2 missiles a time.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks Tony

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

How about two...Iowa Class battkeships... World War 2 configuration...or 1982 configuration, or even the Gulf War version. The later models have Tommahawk missiles, and CIWS; the WW2 versions have lots of AA guns(20×5"; 40 ×40mm, 80×20mm...each)

[@unarmored9973]

It's a bit annoying how the "most realistic combat simulator" has AI bugs that have been worked out since the days of Red Alert 2. No hate i love DCS. Just want to see a pilots not drop their quite important payloads into nothing. Maybe you could redo all these on SP?

[@DaveYogs]

Dcs is much more complex mechanics wise, whereas red alert 2 is a top down mainly 2d game. Theres a higher chance of bugs in general in dcs

[@unarmored9973]

​@@DaveYogs I understand DCS is several magnitudes more sophisticated than RA2 (obviosly haha). I'm using a hyperbolic statement (a rather poor comparison TBH) to express how i believe just a few lines of if statements could prevent pilot AI from dropping payload under altitude. I'm sure DCS AI code is probably more complicated than i'm assuming, but its just a glaring issue when the engine allows AI to make such poor decisions with mission critical payloads. But I'm sure they are working on it.

[@alcibiades4716]

@@unarmored9973 I think the bug was to do with the ripple. Missiles were released at a high angle, maybe too low and could pick up ships on radar. Worked fine once planes flew straight and level. Leaves me to think AI fired without a target so the could rotate to CV

[@StewNasty]

19:11 Cap got so excited that he turned into a peacock.

[@williamowens2970]

That Missile is suppose to be a HHQ-9 surface to air Missile, but it’s not suppose to have the middle stabilizers on the Missile. Just a deferent skin for dcs

[@grimreapers]

rgr thx

[@FactFrenzyy2024]

Can you do a tutorial how you setup this wargames on DCS? Amazing content, love the channel.

[@rgloria40]

I don't use Windows...Linux. I would like to know that too....DCS is more advance in World of Warships in terms of modeling... However, subs uses probably and cut scenes versus real time physics engine and probability also

[@RogueWraith909]

The SSM missiles fired by the Chinese ships are mounted to fire sideways, not forwards... might affect them launching if the AI is flaky enough to fire Harpoon at too low an altitude.

[@flighttherapybullisticfpv133]

"Oh I know this one!.... awwwhhh.." pretty much sums up my first year of DCS

[@jake4194]

If the scenario is not going right like all of the hornets shooting their anti ship missles into the water, it needs to be done over. It makes the whole exercise pointless IMO.

[@michaelkaylor6770]

China ships: “launch 64 ASM” Mother: “giggles in AEGIS and 92 cell VLS!”

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

That's why some Russian ships have 16 launchers for AShM which would double the firepower coming from 8 ships. In another video by GR, it would seem that 120 missiles may be sufficient against the carrier group, at least in DCS. Most ships IRL aren't very anti-ship missile heavy though.

[@dabo5078]

Modern Chinese destroyers such as the type 55 have more VLS than their American counterparts. The type 52c could be considered firmly a last gen design whose main purpose was mostly surface to air cover.

[@bobrusso1814]

The fast attack submarines would end this game very quickly and brutally. With little fanfare. Do enjoy your shows.

[@ChristnThms]

I wondered about that myself. Attack subs are wicked fast, and can do both ASM and torpedoes.

[@bobrusso1814]

@@ChristnThms I believe they are the virtual, literal ‘Trump’ card in a modern naval engagement. HMS Conqueror sunk the old US WWII Cruiser General Belgrano without much fanfare and if there were unrestricted submarine warfare the Argentinian Carrier as well.

[@michaeljohnson4258]

Submarines are the most dangerous warship because of their stealth. You will not know it is there until it fires. During war games it was easy to find hostile ships and aircraft but the subs were nearly impossible.

[@johnknapp952]

It would be interesting to know if we even every sent subs into the gulf. Not a very friendly place to operate (too shallow). If fact when I went to the Gulf with a LAMPS Det ('91) I pulled as much of the ASW gear off our bird (SH-2F) as I could as there was no perceived sub threat at all. We were just there to do SAR and Forward Observer work.

[@ChristnThms]

@@johnknapp952 as much as our nuke subs rule the open sea, I wonder if the smaller size of the diesel boats make them a greater threat in such confined spaces? Also, when on battery alone, those things are as silent as a rock sitting on the bottom.

[@georgesiew2758]

I have a suggestion. Instead of putting arbitrary combat groups together you should be matching the opposing forces by money. There is no point to pit a 5 billion dollar battle group against a 200 bill dollar battle group. An important aspect of these weapons in the end is their cost effectiveness. Taking the us CBG as a given standard you should be maintaining some kind of cost ratio with the chosen challenger. For instance, lets say the destroyers cost 2 bill each, you have 6 so that's 12 bill. A carrier costs like 10 bill, the airwing should cost about as much as the carrier so 20 bill for the whole thing. You can ignore the other boats or subs if they don't make any difference. Add everything together including munitions you probably got about 40 billion worth of weapons for the CBG. These Chinese destroyers are much cheaper because they are smaller, these are older models and Chinese have lower costs overall (both labor and materials). These older destroyers are probably 400-500 mill each. The newer 52D are probably 800mil-1bill each. So in total you have about lets say 5 billion with munitions and all in. A fight between 5 billion dollars with 40 billion dollars. This is a bit too lopsided. You should be aiming for a cost balance of about 10-15 billion for the adversaries. The US does have a big budget but it isn't able to field a dollar advantage of more than 3 or 4 to 1 against Russia or China. Also a costal Chinese or Russian destroyer back is almost always going to contain a large number small frigates and corvettes since that is their states strategy against large American capital ships. A more realistic composition of a Chinese naval battle fleet is a collection of 20-30 Chinese ships with 3-4 type 52s and then 5-10 frigates and 10-20 corvettes. To balance the money you should probably have two of these groups go up against one CBG. Also the CBG should be the one going offensive with the Chinese ships trying to defend a coastline. That is what the realistic naval engagement scenario will be.

[@grimreapers]

Maybe later George, for now I just want to get the requests cleared. Then we can look at it again with fresh eyes :)

[@dznuts123]

At this point, it’s obvious that this channel is not about realism. It’s about making us military look good. Lol

[@mehp6107]

Lol theres alot of videos of the US group getting smacked, ur comment is dumb.

[@Ender3Me]

Don't cry because Chinese junk loses at war. Haha

[@mehp6107]

@@Ender3Me Bruh what? im american im just replying to his dumb comment

[@brianfoster7064]

Weapons are loaded on the flight deck. That's the whole purpose of the bomb farm, where I used to stand watch.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Have just read how much Twitch strips of subs, so have changed to Patreon, only correct to support one of the hardest working folks on YT.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks. I only make $100/m on twitch. No idea why so low.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

@@grimreapers 60% of the sub goes to Twitch.

[@demomanchaos]

If the Reds had AWACS it would have just been taken out by Hornets, and if the Hornets had functional Harpoons the Reds wouldn't likely even be able to get missiles towards the Yanks let alone through their defences. I would love to see what kind of damage a gun run from an A-10 would do to a ship, maybe even throw a flight of them against a WWII fleet to see if the Thunderbolt II's would outperform the Thunderbolt I's.

[@pike100]

Are you launching the A-10 Warthog from a carrier? LOL! 😂

[@caseymcgrath4258]

Hi Cap, I hope you continue to be well. China has two carriers, built on the Kuznetsov pattern. The first, Liaoning, was built in Ukraine and had two name changes; 'Riga' then 'Varyag.' the second carrier was built from keel upwards in China, and is called Shandong. Maybe consider adding Kuznetsov to the flotilla and see what the AI makes of it? Also if the Reapers were to choose blue and red sides and fly from Nimitz and Kuznetsov, trying to sink the carriers it would make a good multiplayer vid, I think.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks!

[@fergusferguson4782]

There have been two B-52H's flying over the Gulf of Oman for the last week or so during the Kabul evacuation. They are possibly carrying the new Block V Maritime Strike Tomahawks. I believe they can carry 20 each. The ones I saw were flying out of Qatar, under GRIMM callsigns. They could have hit those Chinese ships from behind.

[@grimreapers]

cool

[@JorgeRodriguez-ml6rv]

GO SIMBA GO 🦁

[@mustafehusen8693]

Dcs needs a major update Chinese so far is the biggest navy right now

[@charliecarter6637]

Love your work. What about trying it single player, let it run and record it and edit it up for time jumps or let people skip ahead or watch in faster speed or let roll. Thanks again either way.

[@grimreapers]

We really like at least one human flying a jet in the sim, it's what GR are all about :)

[@player55redcrafter8]

I'd love to see more of this, but excluding the aircraft carrier and other land based aircrafts. Just a pure cool fight between surface action groups of DDGs and FFGs.

[@brutusbuk]

I love your videos, but if MP screws things up, make it realistic by just running single player. You all can play other scenarios in MP without having to post it and just have fun. Missiles just going into the water is not realistic. Thanks for what you provide. I've enjoyed it!

[@jake4194]

I completely agree, why post a video of jets shooting there missles into the water....

[@miauwgabriel3547]

9m317 missile are the Russian naval Buk M2-E missile system or the NATO designation as SA-17 Grizzly. The 9M317 Buk M2-E was an export variant of Buk M2. This missile system was entered in service with the Russian army in 2008 and has a range of 45 kilometers.

[@quintenmaas326]

I love how Cap hasn’t been cutting out his ‘break’ sections lately

[@grimreapers]

lols yes been getting lazy :(

[@quintenmaas326]

@@grimreapers haha, sounds like a good reason

[@rupturedtortoise.1542]

The Americans actually have in the 90s of amount of missiles on destroyers. On Cruisers its in the hundreds.

[@anthonydrake4244]

Flex deck? Sim,ultaneous launch and recovery? C'm,on man!

[@kennyj4366]

Need to give the first four aircraft a higher than “Normal” rating. Normally first off are higher time pilots etc...

[@williamescolantejr5871]

chinese waiting to get closer to use secret missle,the rammin noodle

[@wrayday7149]

Depending on when this fight took place you have: American bases in: Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. The Chinese fleet would of been tracked from the Pacific and either shadowed by 7th Fleet. 6th Fleet would of been tipped to move over closer to Israel or head to the Red Sea. The USAF could start shuttling aircraft down to Kuwait or Qatar to then arm up. End point being, American aircraft/drones would of been going towards the Chinese from every which way imaginable. And yes.... there might even be A-10's getting in on the action.

[@Deathbomb9]

If everything was modeled realistically, just the forward Aurley Burke's would've needed to fire anything as the rear was in standby. One swapping position from the rear to the front so the front could rearm from the magazine. And in reality they would probably fire everything in the front pods and then while it reloads just harass the Chinese with what's in the rear. And an EA-18G would go up and start to fry and jam electronics on those ships as well as make every missile they fire go dumb. The serious firepower of just one Burke class destroyer is astounding, let alone 4. Just one did a freedom of passage in the south China sea not to long ago and the Chinese were pissed because they couldn't do a thing about it since they are the only ones who view that water as theirs and that AEGIS system would probably know that they had missiles out before they even left the ground and then the response would be an absolute massacre in naval warfare because no one wants two full carrier groups taking their lunch money. Anything that was military would find itself in a shooting gallery. Going after a carrier is literally kicking a nest of Hornets.

[@ClarenceDoskocil]

Please recreate the current (29 June 2021) scenario of the NATO/coalition exercise in the Black Sea. Include Russian coastal defenses, TU-22Ms, Su-34s, Bear bombers with rotary cruise missile launchers, Black Jack bombers, F-22s, etc. Let Turkey sit this one out.

[@tammywehner3269]

yes, ti-co's short for Ticonderoga class cruisers. pronounced tie- con-der-oh-gazs ( or "tie" fighters from star wars).

[@UD2]

Good video but a few things. 1: a Chinese 052C has 48 HHQ-9s. You missed counting the VLS silos in the back of the ship. 2: when you say a AShCM has gone weird, they are terminal maneuvering to avoid CIWS 3: the Chinese CIWS is an improved version of the Dutch Goal Keeper.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@beezo2560]

The question mark is would the Chinese AWAKS have made a difference. Still love the video, love the commentary.

[@jeffreyremick4387]

The carrier air wing would have 1 squadron of 14 F-14B, 3 squadrons of 36 F-18C, 1 squadron of 4 EA-6B, 1squadron of 4 E-4C, 1 squadron of 8 S-3B, and one squadron of 8 SH-3F. This would be current for 2003 time period

[@pike100]

Why would we want the air wing configuration for the 2003 time period?!?

[@JoeKier7]

I was hoping the lead submarine would get in on the action. However, I can see where this might be prohibited by the standard navy tactics, which I know nothing about.

[@ataxpayer723]

Harpoon Maximum altitude is 910 metres (2,990 ft). In reality they would have been fired from Over the Horizon and the Hornets would stay out of range of the Chinese Frigates.

[@stc2828]

The AI is silly, it will literary run F35 into visual range of ships so they would get fired upon.

[@rre9121]

Sublime. Chinese ships are lucky to be sunk by Harpoons, it's more dignified than their real fate will likely be.

[@theoderic_l]

lol

[@peterdd4994]

Advanced chinese electronic counter-measure is why those harpoon missiles failed...

[@jameslongley3068]

Not sure it would make a difference but an AEW Helicopter would no doubt be part of such a task force likely 2 and also ASW / ASuW loadouts would be likely of the Z-9C or Ka-27M The naval version introduced in the 1990s is known as the . As well as SAR and ASW duties, the Z-9C can be fitted with an X-band KLC-1 surface search radar to detect surface targets beyond the range of shipborne radar systems. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Z-9

[@t44e6]

The buggy AI is very frustrating. As it improves these simulations will become much better.

[@gundamator4709]

you need to do a "all of this is programed in valued viewers" vid.

[@paulybassman7311]

Hey Supercap! Why dont you get Millenium 7* to do the profiles on missiles like the Harpoon . He is a proper super brain. And he likes watching GR's.👍😉👌

[@rjakiel73]

All missile attack. The escort attack subs just chilled. If those were brought into play it would have been a really quick fight.

[@pandabear4321gogo]

never understand why there are so many dislikes for the great videos reaper produces

[@grimreapers]

There is a whole group of 6000 people that are trying to get us off the air, they've come close, but we're still just about here... for now

[@someusername1]

@@grimreapers Who, why?

[@haydnvonmed6624]

Actually i think they are the goalkeeper ciws,and im kinda certain that those missiles you dont know about are SM2 copies,but just a chinese upgraded one

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

13:12 9M317, a Russian designed SAM, with a ~45km range. IIRC the Buk can lob these things, they're also mounted on various ships, both Russian and Chinese. It can engage missiles, aircraft, helicopters and anything else flying you'd like to delete up to a speed of 1200m/s. It can also tolerate 24G's and engage targets up to ~25km in altitude. It appears to use semi-active radar homing until it gets close to the target, then goes active home for the final run in.

[@WangGanChang]

A typical Chinese destroyer squadron contain a mix of frigates and destroyers, since they need frigates for ASW duty. For example, 9th destroyer squadron of the south sea fleet contains 1 x type 055 (105) 4 x type 052D (172, 173, 174, 175) 2 x type 052C (170, 171) 4 x type 054A (572, 573, 574, 575) and the so called "retirement home", 2nd destroyer squadron of the south sea fleet 2 x type 051 (165, 166. both recently decommissioned. Will be replaced with two 052Ds [163, 164] once they finish sea trials. Surprised that they didn't just find two more old destroyers from somewhere else instead) 2 x type 052B (168, 169) 1 x type 051B (167) 4 x type 054A (568, 569, 570, 571) Operationally, destroyer squadron exist to provide sentry and air defense in near shore operations. Serious ASuW will be carried out by land based air strikes and/or FACs. In overseas operations, the unit is broken up depends on mission, ether as part of a escort convoy or a carrier battle group.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks for the info!!!! I could not find this anywhere!!

[@WangGanChang]

@@grimreapers it's actually on baidu's wiki, it has orbats of most of Chinese naval units including unit history.

[@ataxpayer723]

The guys who have fired their anti-ship missiles would be assigned to CAP, until the carries had launched all of its strike wing.

[@gdelan1]

Those anti-ship missises must have been from the lowest bidder. Time to contact supply

[@Mifodiy35]

13:30 This is 9M317, AKA BUK missile. It is probably most famous for shooting down Boeing 777 flight MH-17 over Russian occupied pat of Ukraine in 2014 causing 298 fatalities.

[@clangerbasher]

You need to do this again with Type 055's.

[@clangerbasher]

@@JohnKuang-rf6fb Yes. I typed out the comment, posted it, and then I found that out.

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

i'd love to see a10's strafe the boats

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

@@steamedcream7671 yeah i know irl it couldn't happen but i wanna see the damage the guns can do opening up on the deck going the length of the ship

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

@@steamedcream7671 it'd also be pretty cool to see an ac130 circle it and just blow it to shit,irl they have missiles for this reason lol

[@thewakeup5459]

Try helicopters sneaking in behind a civilian ship

[@PrepperStateofMind]

Every night I watch this channel, with a nice glass of whisky. What a brilliant combo. Lol

[@beezo2560]

Very nice

[@grimreapers]

nice :)

[@michaelh.9686]

Alright I have a theoretically realistic simulation for you Cap (aka definitely can happen) Not one but TWO US carrier groups passing through the Straight or Hormuz (in opposite directions, I guess you could say one is rotating out the other somewhere in the Persian Gulf). One filled with a bunch of Democrats and the other full of a bunch of Republicans and UH OH a CIVIL WAR breaks out in the United States! One group sides with the Democrats and the other with the Republicans! One carrier group vs another... who will win? Danger close, just as they are passing each other they open up in an all out boxing match! Not sure if you’re able to pit US forces against each other in DCS but would be great to see. Or you could start them 70 miles away but would be hilarious to see an equal force duke it out!

[@grimreapers]

Yup it's on the list :)

[@W1ngnut27]

Cap, I believe those missiles were 9M317, basically a Buk-M1-2 system aka. SA-11 Gadfly or upgraded as a SA-17 Grizzly.

[@grimreapers]

Brill thxx

[@xenaguy01]

7:30 Not true. Carriers can land aircraft on the angle deck at the same time they launch from the straight deck (bow cats). We did this many times in Vietnam. The only disadvantage for the strike is the carrier can't launch 4 aircraft per minute, but is cut back to only two. So it will take 15 min to launch your 30 F-18 strike package, and then re-launch the first (re-armed) plane. 28:40 Also, the F-18s can re-arm on the flight deck, don't have to go to the hanger deck. They can refuel and rearm on the starboard side, ahead or astern of the island. 37:45 Maybe the Chinese destroyers are turning broadside in order to fire their antiship missiles?

[@grimreapers]

Thanks for into!

[@cyronader]

I wish you could redo this with awacs for both sides and also NOT have the bugs lob off their harpoons as soon as they are airborne. Have the bugs in formation flight and then ripple fire their harpoons. You have it where it fires in individual flights which does nothing well for a saturated attack.

[@richardduerr9983]

What's the problem with recovering and launching at the same time? Is that a software issue, because it certainly is not an actual operational issue. I was aboard the last non-nuclear carrier in operation, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from the middle of 1984 to 1988 and we routinely launched and recovered simultaneously. Anyway, I do really love to watch these crazy simulations you propose in DCS, even if they are not necessarily accurate. It's all good fun in seeing how DCS renders it. I am interested in how you think that Chinese missiles would out perform U.S. missiles, when you or anyone else outside the Chinese military or U.S. military has any actual data on the performance of their weapon systems, especially their missiles. BTW, I was an FTM (Fire Control Missiles) rated on the NATO SeaSparrow Surface to Air Missile System (NSSMS) though I will definitely not share anything about those systems, other than the fact that they are very effective anti-missile missile systems, at least in live fire exercises of the late 1980's. Again, that discussion is not to take away from these awesome crazy scenarios that you build for how to defeat a U.S. carrier battle group, they are most entertaining!!!

[@StyxRiverGynoid]

*Sees F-18 with wings still folded in flight* *Thinks* "So, either AirForceProud95 or Grim Rea... yeah, thought so"

[@lukycharms9970]

Lmao “use your head little hornet driver”

[@armchairwarrior963]

USE a ton of Chinese type 22 missile boats. Something like in the millennium challenge 2002.