Can A Russian Carrier Group Kill A US Carrier Group? (Naval Battle 10) | DCS WORLD

[@markalbert8705]

Question: If you eject in mid air while flying in formation, under one of your squadrons wings, will your character hit the wing or will you go through the wing? Will it break the wing? Will it kill your character or will you survive?

[@quintenmaas326]

Character will die, if you watch the F22 vs the world video by Growling Sidewinders you can see him kill an F18, pilot ejects and getting killed by the plane body slamming the pilot out of the sky

[@grimreapers]

Tested in here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZKkqpaMnaaqodE

[@markalbert8705]

@@grimreapers I didn't what happened. The video was about the movie, did the planes hit? What actually happened?

[@h.cedric8157]

Someone's either watched that Hot Shots movie or Tomorrow never Dies movie with that L-39.

[@markalbert8705]

@@quintenmaas326 What video of his?

[@mpauls85]

"Who would have thought you would see the beautiful Moskva in such bad shape?" That aged like fine wine.

[@chinesserider]

RIP Moskva

[@SoshoKozadokaGojiraChargedUp]

It is now a submarine

[@dougretter]

Carrier group? You mean the Kuznetsov and a flotilla of ocean going tugs?

[@AVPIChannel]

Gotta see LazerPig's video on the Moskova, he went over its maintenance report from shortly before it sank. That ship was falling apart.

[@jimmyormerod4075]

@@chinesserider good riddence you mean deserved everything it got

[@DidyshishBaishushish]

In reality, Kuznetsov would have caught fire on its own halfway through the battle.

[@Bababoy6969]

Would russian ones just spam rockets at US ones since russian ships are more heavily armed?

[@brentlo1]

@@Bababoy6969 for the most part they are not more heavily armed. USN tubes/magazines are below deck not exposed to the corrosive sea water

[@Bababoy6969]

@@brentlo1 american are more modern and stealth but russians have more firepower thats a fact i belive there is even a yt vid

[@Bababoy6969]

@Vincent Phan russia and china are weak.... stfu plz and america js strong and powerful fighting againts farmers and losing example :vietnam,serbia,iraq just pathetic

[@Bababoy6969]

@Vincent Phan if american jets are soo much better then how did serbia shot down 2 f117 and 1 b2 with a 60 yesr old s125..😂

[@johnknapp952]

What's the point of sending a US carrier into a battle with both hands tied behind its back? The Air Wing is the whole point of the carrier battle group.

[@teekay_1]

I've pointed out that no carrier group goes out under war conditions without two attack submarines, which are a pretty formidable screen that would probably sink most of the hostile ships long before US aircraft would fire a missle

[@PotatoeJoe69]

I made a similar comment, that he made every possible attempt to give Russia the advantage here by taking away every single thing the American fleet would have as an advantage. Even went so far as too give the Russians an AWACS that they would never have with their fleet... and America still won. This scenario was cool but kind of a joke.

[@grndzro777]

@@teekay_1 Not before the Russians get their missiles off though. The tonals given off the Subs are a dead giveaway of their location unless they are farther under the water. In that case they will also have trouble hearing the enemy.

[@marinodezelak1180]

@@PotatoeJoe69 You can't possibly think either of these and their capabilities were accurately portrayed... It's a fun video, not a simulation of what reality would be like.. Besides... why do you think the Russians wouldn't have an A-50 AWACS to fly along in this kind of scenario?

[@KorbenDalasCZ]

@@PotatoeJoe69 If a similar scenario took place before 1990, Russia also had a satellite tracking and guidance system MKRC Legenda system, 69 slatelites with global coverage for reconnaissance and guidance of anti-ship missiles P-700 Granit SS-N-19 Shipwreck. According to tests on training missiles MA-31 (rebuilt missile Kh-31 for training target) the ship's defense against high-speed targets was quite miserable, the reaction times of the defense systems did not manage to rag quickly to more high-speed targets such as AS-17 'Krypton, SS-N- 19 Shipwreck, SS-N-12 Sandbox. tests with MA-31 took place until 2007.

[@Mgaming61]

Both sides surface ships: **Literally annihilating each other** Meanwhile, The subs: **Chilling underwater**

[@blisteringstars]

"oi comrade, vant some vodka marinated fish?"

[@jetfrostgaming]

Yeahhhh, subs play a HUGE part in a battle like this. Not even counting torpedoes, the ohio SSGM carries something like 150 anti ship missiles that can be launched underwater

[@Mgaming61]

@@jetfrostgaming Yes! As for a fact, during an exercise! A Swedish submarine was able to avoid the US carrier task forces all defenses undetected and successfully sank the aircraft carrier.

[@jetfrostgaming]

@@Mgaming61 yup, they're a major factor

[@micheal49]

There are submarines and there are targets.

[@daweedabest2085]

Those guys on the deck at 1:12:36 have balls of steel. They’re just standing there like Guy one : should we take cover? Guy two : nah we Gucci.

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@rohitgoyal7258]

nah, I think their bodies are of steel !!

[@ImadZeryouh]

Didnnt see it hahahahaha

[@richardhockey8442]

'nasty weather we're having today'

[@STUCASHX]

It's a cellist and a violinist... they start playing when the ship start to go down.😜

[@dannyb7371]

"So we are essentially removing..." All the realism out of this.....🤔🤔

[@redstone51]

Most definitely!!!

[@bobruneblast3694]

In favour of Russia, the US forces wouldn't engage like this at all. I served in Royal Navy for a few years after I gained citizen status.

[@uninspired3681]

yeah, im guessing this scenario was suggested while failing to suppress laughter

[@Zamiroh]

Yes this was weighted heavily in favor of the Russians. That russian fleet would never make it close. The super carrier has almost 3x the aircraft (which are more advanced then any Russian aircraft). They can launch them much quicker, and can carry a larger payload.

[@kekistanimememan170]

@@Zamiroh Russian navy is defensive American navy is about power projection. So it comes down to who gets home field advantage and the skill of the dudes in charge.

[@Ken-rq3yl]

The simulation left out the Russian ocean-going tug Altay to tow the carrier under normal cruising conditions. Having said this, I do enjoy watching these simulations. I served on both the New Jersey and Missouri as an FTG. During Desert Shield the MO emptied her 16" magazines three times and we unrepped 16" ammo three times. It was the first time drones were used to feed live video and data back to a battleship for spotting. Wonderful memories!

[@loganjefferies3927]

“The missile is getting through, a missile is getting through!” *missile gets instantly obliterated*

[@alexayuso3563]

F-14 Tomcat: retired AGM-54 Phoenix: retired

[@ceberskie119]

@@michaelszczekot8920 a little over half the speed for 3 times the range and a significantly more versatile platform to carry out the strike missions and the naval air superiority role at significantly lower costs both in money and man hours...a hour flown in an F-14 would need 40-60 hours of maintenance and thats with no issues in flight if the F-14 had ever actually fought anything for an extended period and do so with no casualties the whole fleet would've been grounded in like a month while they tried to fix them lol

[@junglistmassiv]

@@ceberskie119 they not gonna like this one

[@northwatch8532]

Perry-class frigate: US retired

[@cdc194]

Adjusted for inflation the AGM54 cost almost $4 million and was only used in combat by Iran.

[@downix]

@@cdc194 and Iran has replaced them with the domestically produced Fakour 90

[@warbuzzard7167]

Peter The Great became Peter The Great Barrier Reef.

[@grimreapers]

yup

[@aaroniousairlines9949]

Great comment

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

Would love the 1980 refit iowa in the game so u could simulate an iowa battle group vs a kirov one

[@jefferynelson]

that would be cool

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

See if you can find the old game harpoon. One of these scenarios you can play is the GUIAK gap. It puts a kirov surface action group against an Iowa surface action group. I did find a way consistently to win in that scenario.

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer yes but the visuals in dcs would be so much more satisfying

[@djargus]

USS New Jersey vs. Kirov

[@nagantm441]

@@djargus the NJ would just be hit with missiles and would never get into gun range

[@tauron1]

Wow, the Moskva took a lot more in this video than it did in real live to send her to the bottom.

[@HuyLe-qc8jc]

What about a Chinese Carrier Group against a US Carrier Group? That is a more likely scenario in the next 10 years.

[@themelonman7363]

Really wish the Shandong was in the game. I've got a model for it but I'm a newbie to DCS modding. Trying to make it work though.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

@@themelonman7363 Well, we are not likely getting a J15 anytime soon(not counting Su33 re skin, since J15 is pretty much a different plane except the exterior look)......Su33 with SD10 mod is fun, but that old cockpit without mfd kinda ruins the experience.

[@grimreapers]

No Chinese carrier in game.

[@HuyLe-qc8jc]

@@grimreapers Isn't the Liaoning an ex-Russian carrier like the Admiral Kuznetsov?

[@themelonman7363]

@@qiyuxuan9437 Fair enough. Do you think it's not worth the effort for me to add the Shandong in? I'm also adding ships from the German, South African, Australian, Italian, Dutch, Canadian, and French navies as well. Plus more. The list is quite long actually.

[@erikanders3343]

lol, wow, everyone believed that the Russian tech and sailing was so much better than the reality we see in the war. however who would have guessed the Moskva would become a submarine with just two Ukrainian missiles

[@taidean]

DCS: Battleship, that was cool

[@Qwerty-no5qq]

War thunder hyper realistic version

[@Feintgames]

1:12:15 look at the two guys on deck just watching the show, having a smoke, cursing the day they joined the Navy.

[@maximmak1991]

You can actually add many planes in the carrier. You can first make many groups in anywhere close to the carrier, then mark them take off from runway or take off from ramp. After this they all will take off from the carrier in order, after the first 4 take off from runway and 4 from ramp, the latter will spawn in sequence, and finally you will get all planes take off.

[@LoneWolf0568]

US Super Carriers can transport something like 97 planes. Its planes are also the major striking power of the carrier group. Would really be a quick battle in the real world and definitely in favor of the USA. The technological advantage of not only our planes, but subs and surface boats as well would totally outclass the Russians.

[@kisbuciilles7102]

The super carryer wait and sleep with more then 80 plain. Yes i think is real.

[@Rtgv123]

Ships yes , but subs that's Russian territory. No one can beat them on it.

[@tobymitchell8081]

@@Rtgv123 hahahaha! Russian subs are outdated tubs of crap.

[@Rtgv123]

@John Mitchell outdated enough to trail an American SSBN without detected. And that was an Akula class trailing a los Angeles class sub in your own waters

[@Rtgv123]

@John Mitchell It did happened. Not just once but many times. I bet they are operating inside US waters as we speak.

[@redssracer4153]

Cap: "A thumpin great wack-a-whacka!!"...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@stretchka111]

Pound pound pound

[@MrGreatness412]

I rewound that too just to hear what he said

[@shubzilla755]

Cap: "Nobody saw this coming!" Me, who knows the layout of the Ticons: "Been waiting for that."

[@kkarnet]

This simulation does not take into account the speed and agility of the American ships. A Ticonderoga class is 40 knots plus. Out run any small gun fire. the Burke class destroyer is just as agile. Believe it or not, our super carriers are just as fast.

[@AdamD19D]

US carriers are fast as hell, they can out run their escorts

[@kkarnet]

@@AdamD19D I know all too well. When we were performing an emergency break-away The Eisenhower was so fast she was off my navigation radar before I could get back to CIC to watch the dance. For anyone who has never seen an emergency break-away on a carrier group level, picture a a fancy Army drill team. All those slick moves. Ya, the Navy does that with a million tons of Steel.

[@AdamD19D]

Oh hell yeah that must be a sight to see. The coolest training we did were brigade wide combined arms live fires with the air force. Sensory overload, especially if your truck was anywhere near an Abrams

[@kkarnet]

@@AdamD19D I was in Desert storm and watched the Missouri light up the beach head. Makes the Abrams look like a pea shooter. When I was in Basra the best spectacle was the AC-130. I was never more glad to be an American on the ground in my life. Thank you Army. The last thought in my head before that? Great. I'm a sailor that is going to die in a desert.

[@casey_with_art3912]

@@kkarnet thank you for your service, those are awesome stories!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@simwilliams5358]

Russian planes can't cary a full load because of ski jump

[@chadparsons9954]

U.S. navy 72 birds. Fully loaded- 4 of those AWACS

[@Kevin-hx2ky]

@@chadparsons9954 Unless it's on the Gerald R Ford class :P

[@pogo1140]

@@chadparsons9954 56-70 (48 to 60 F/A-18's 4-6 EA-18's 4 E-2's). or 52-62 (20x F-14B's, 24-36x F/A-18, 4-6x EA-6 or EA-18 an 4x E-2)

[@theboothy91]

@@pogo1140 now with F-35s

[@pogo1140]

@@theboothy91 with f-35's each carrier starts out with 1 10 plane F-35C squadron and 1 F/A-18F squadron, 2 F/A-18E squadron. When a 2nd F-35C squadron is available, it will take the place of the F/A-18 squadron and the remaining F/A-18E squadrons will get 2-4 of the -18F's.

[@memadmax69]

Ok, so I was in the navy, onboard the USS Camden(AOE-2) back in 2000-2004 and this is my experience, in particular, I've done a record long deployment to the persian gulf(gulf of oman) in 2002 as well: The carrier group, during my time, only had one support vessel(that was us on the Camden), they no longer do that. Today they rely exclusively on the merchant marines, so a present day carrier group will most likely have no support vessels present. The carrier group generally also only had 6 dd's, it was common for there to be no cruiser at all(we didnt have a cruiser when we deployed, and I never saw a cruiser underway, only at port). Nobody knew anything about the subs(and thats what they wanted of course), but we were generally told that one was present with the carrier at all times when she was in the 5th fleet AO. In the scenario outlined in this video, we were told that generally, the carrier would launch all the planes she could, and would turn around and run with us in tow, while leaving the DDs to duke it out with whatever threat was in the area. That is all, carry on.

[@seattlekarim964]

Thanks for sharing your experience

[@marinodezelak1180]

that makes sense.. A carrier after all, is a power projection asset, not a naval combat one. It's a high value target with a very large range of attack with the aircraft it can send out... so running away, letting the ships hold the rear and perhaps sending out aircraft is the best strategy. Certainly you wouldn't wanna send it head on to meet the threat.

[@memadmax69]

@@marinodezelak1180 Projection asset? Nah. Thats thinking it too hard. She is still a naval combat one. Its like they said back in the old days: a carrier is stronger than a battlewagon.... Also, I would like to also add: a carrier being sunk by so called new age missiles such as "hypersonic" is a joke.... You wanna sink any ship, beyond a reasonable doubt, put a couple of torpedos in her. Otherwise, ur just playin around....

[@sharequsman596]

@@memadmax69 So your saying that there is no was a hypersonic could sink a carrier by itself?Just curious

[@memadmax69]

@@sharequsman596 A single one? No. A single one can probably cripple a carriers ability to launch/land aircraft, her primary weapon system. Multiple missiles, of course. There is a limit to everything. To be honest, I dont think hypersonic missiles actually exist. You see pictures of them on the ground, mockups, CGI, etc... but you dont see one actually flying anywhere. You see their supposed launch vehicles lifting something into the air, but is it an actual hypersonic missile in its payload??? Who knows... I'm going off of this: If NASA couldn't wouldn't build a hypersonic missile(they were working on it for a number of years but gave up), then how all of a sudden everyone seems to have it but nobody is proving it? I dont see any videos out there of a target ship getting hit with a hypersonic missile out there. Go look and if you find one give me the link lol Also, if a hypersonic missile does exist, its bomb/kinetic payload would be pretty small, leaving much to be desired.

[@johnhmstr]

This was a slow burn but man it went off with a bang. Great job

[@martin7694]

'Who would have thought you'd see the beautiful Moskva in such bad shape'.

[@grimreapers]

eek

[@tylerjackson4168]

U.S wanted to see what it takes to sink our carriers so they took one of the old class before Nimitz and bombed, torpedoed, launched missiles at it for days and couldn't sink it even with no damage control actions on board. Got too expensive so demo team had to mount charges to make it sink. Imagine what it would take to sink one in it's battle group. Edit: we tried to sink it for 4 weeks!! Vessels name was America. Look it up.

[@songofwar]

Keep in mind it wasn’t full of fuel and Bombs etc. Fire would be the biggest threat.

[@Loki1701e]

@@matiasmontaldo2616 not exactly

[@tylerjackson4168]

@@matiasmontaldo2616 Damage control would extinguish fires. Even the destroyers can shoot water cannons on it.

[@stunningandbased5516]

Pretty much nuking it

[@donstaggs3827]

True

[@phineassmith5817]

The title of this vid should be, "Can a Russian carrier group kill an American carrier group, if you castrate the American carrier?"

[@lelouchjoestar1008]

I really enjoyed this naval warfare scenario. However, the lack of submarine warfare was the lack of icing on the cake.

[@trazyntheinfinite9895]

Sea Power: Naval combat in the missile age IS an upcoming game.

[@z0ck3r]

1:13:00 Just noticed the two madlads chilling on deck

[@MrDino1953]

There are 3 actually. The other one is standing alone to the right.

[@MeatVision]

True , they were like "holy moly, let's watch ww3 breaking out from the deck"

[@kellymcguire1385]

You might have to redo this in the future. There is a current bug in 2.7 where the AI f18s are only firing in TWS mode and then turning away and losing lock so the missiles AIM 120s aren't guiding. The f18s are firing and then going dumb and the AI 120s aren't tracking all the way. It's been reported on the forums.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks for letting me know :)

[@jimrussell4062]

So instead of 4, there were ZERO non-bugged US aircraft.... defending a carrier battle group? Yeah that sounds like "realism"

[@erikanders3343]

no chance to redo this, the Moskva is currently doing a special military operation as a submarine in the black see and several other ships have been reassigned as special BBQ operation in port.

[@elmerwhitaker7852]

Just saying all the ships main cannons on both sides would have never ran out of ammo. They all carry thousands of rounds.

[@jeerasaksirimongcol2288]

Yeah they carry like a 1000rounds

[@tedarcher9120]

Moskva has 600 roundrs for the cannon, about 10 minutes of firing

[@arnoldkeen6393]

A carrier group is all about the airpower that can be projected. Just check out the battle of Midway in WWII.

[@deanmignola5448]

Exactly what I was thinking. This battle would have been much more one-sided due to US airpower superiority.

[@LTrotsky21stCentury]

I'm old enough to have played and enjoyed the Harpoon series, which, for its time, was actually a better modeller of battles (because, basically, no 3d graphics). The Soviet-era missiles had a tremendous speed (upwards of 3000kph). This series sort of reminds me of that game.

[@greatdude7279]

Also better accuarcy and more damage. The only flaw of Soviet navy was its optics, range and guns. Didn't play harpoon in a while but I think Soviet 76mm guns had range around 3 while US/Nato had around 4. The only thing about Harpoon I didn't like is air battles bascially the longer the range of missile was the easier was to dodge which gave soviets an edge because they had missiles in the low mid range. Better range then sidewinder but still short enough so its really hard to outrun them. Another BS trick in Harpoon games you could do is to group all your ships in the same spot (Formation editor) and after AI fires all of their missiles at the group you create 2 groups and sacrifice only one ship and you move the rest behind and all of those missiles will hit just that one ship regardless what the actual target was. But yeah Harpoon commander edition, Jane fleet commander man oh man gotta download them again :D

[@erikanders3343]

@@greatdude7279 tell hat the Moskva that was sunk by two Neptune's fired from shore during active war time setting.

[@greatdude7279]

@@erikanders3343 Wtf has this to do with the game? We were also told that challanger and leopard tanks were wunderwaffe weapons of the Ukranian wars by every media outlet and that didn't go well.

[@FullAutoBacon]

This is probably my favorite video you’ve ever made that I’ve seen. Maybe add real ppl in the planes and maybe have land based fighters available on both sides. This channel is my primary. Very good content.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks for the idea!

[@ChugLifePodcast]

@@teejin669 find me where it says it's realistic. These are subscriber ideas, they're meant to be imaginative.

[@Mobius118]

Watched the whole thing and was not disappointed

[@AnvilAirsoftTV]

Looks like time to re-commission an Iowa.

[@akacurmurdar1]

Unfortunately, they're out of the game for good now. And I'm sure that's what they thought before they reactivated them in the 80's too.

[@sorryociffer]

@@akacurmurdar1 As are F-14s and AIM-54s….

[@akacurmurdar1]

@@sorryociffer Well those are gone, there's no reactivating something that doesn't exist anymore.

[@sorryociffer]

@@akacurmurdar1 They still exist.

[@akacurmurdar1]

@@sorryociffer Sorry, I thought you were serious.

[@edwardanderson4678]

Arleigh Burke's have over 90 VLS which can carry up to four missiles depending upon type, each T Cruiser has over one hundred Cells. Four Destroyers at one missile per cell and the same with the Cruisers of which there's two would give the USN over 600 missiles, NFI on the number missiles on the Nimitz Class.

[@MeliokFR]

Perhaps you should have set triggers to make all ships fire their missiles when all are in range ?

[@Rekmeyata]

You can't just have aircraft setting idle because they don't fit into your idea of a battle, in a real battle everything that is available on both sides would come to bear down on each other.

[@edwardanderson4678]

Block II Harpoon has a range of over 67 miles at a speed of 537 mph with a warhead of 488 Lbs. And a "cannon" is a smooth bore muzzle loading black powder device, if it has rifling, uses smokeless powder and is breach loading it doesn't matter if they are on the land as artillery or on a ship they are "Guns". The Burke's have a rapid fire 5 inch gun that in NGS is devastating.

[@jacobholland4853]

Really enjoyed the video! I served 25 years in the US Army and actually spent some time on the Nitze, an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer. The engagement went as I expected. Super cool to watch! Thanks!

[@lindapowell117]

Having spent time in a carrier air wing and all the ships that protect the carrier, there is no country that can even come close to going one on one with the an American carrier air group. Our ships technology are far better. Our aircraft and pilots are unmatchable. Not to mention the skill of the all the sailors involved. The firepower is far better. The training is better and so it goes.

[@Wayoutthere]

Well, you kinda forget QUANTITY has a value of it's own. Overwhelming firepower mostly still wins. I'm talking about HUNDREDS of missiles.

[@bryansweeney1633]

@@Wayoutthere What do you think the US task force is sending up? they are spotting you before you spot them and you are getting hit in stages before you even get close to the carrier

[@JohnGaltAustria]

British Tornado pilots have some fun stories to tell when they engaged Tomcats in mock battles.

[@lindapowell117]

Have you ever been part of a Navy air wing? First off, hundreds of missiles will not happen. Also remember this, there is rarely if at all, only one carrier in a dangerous part of the world. There would be 2-3 carriers with there full compliment of ships. All ready for war. Any nation who would think they could destroy a carrier air group, would be committing suicide for their military and country.

[@kekistanimememan170]

@@bryansweeney1633 millennium challenge 2002

[@richgrinham8684]

You should do a comparative series on how to kill a Kirov group; or just pick your favourite tactics from this series and just do one video. Great watch though, really enjoyed it.

[@Cheeseitnow]

You should do this with other players and see what happens. Would be interesting to see each ship used properly.

[@dankuchar6821]

Yes that is something I would really like to see!

[@IAmTheGuy1477]

Every time he mentioned the Moskva cruiser I was like ripp

[@lohrtom]

Awesome battle. 1. It’s the Montruex Convention that limits the type and tonnage of vessels that can transit the Dardenelles. 2. If you get confused by Russian missile names they are grouped by letters of the alphabet. Ks are air launched anti ship: Kelt, Kerry, Kitchen etc. Ship launched anti ship missiles start with an S: Siren, Styx, Shipwreck etc 3. OHP used SM-1s. There were plans to update to SM-2 capability but never happened. 4. The Harpoons on an OHP frigate are fired from the same launcher as the SM-1s. Standard load out would be 34 SM-1s, 4 Harpoons, 1 TSAM for running simulations, one empty cell so you could move missiles around to do maintenance.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks man, I would ask how you know all this, but I already know how you do!

[@stillamarine1001]

I have no idea why we are even talking about a Russian carrier group. Russia in effect has no carrier that can sail. The one they have burned and Russia was supposed to have it back running again but the person in charge of the repair was jailed for taking money from the repair budget and pocketed the money. Rumor has it the Russian carrier is to badly damaged to repair.

[@bearcatracing007]

The question the whole world wants answered...

[@jacobhearn5835]

“Have you ever seen a Moskva in such bad shape?” “The Moskva is on fire!!” That aged interestingly didn’t it? 🤣🤣

[@MeatVision]

Man, DCS combat simulations are awesome. Opens a world of possibilities, provided that they add more official models and vehicles

[@Szalami]

The commentary is just as epic as the battle, I've only recently found the channel but now I'm hooked, these vids are epic.

[@grantmcfarland3690]

Great video with that surface action at the end!

[@awesomesauce3938]

It puts a smile in my face when cap gets excited 1:09:09

[@pavelgalitsyn3417]

"Russian carrier group" is even more fantastic than ten 1144 (aka Orlan aka Kirov)-class battleships in the previous video. Even if Kuznetsov would be operational once again, it's not even a true carrier, it's a carrier-cruiser hybrid made to meet the Montreux Convention. It has only 30-40 fixed-wing jets at most

[@aZX14blurr]

Ex USN sailor here, served during first gulf war which was first time anyone ever risked an aircraft carrier transiting the straights and operating in the small pond called Persian Gulf. When transiting the straights, the battle group first sends 2/3rds of its escorts through ahead of it, then after they transit safely the carrier goes through by itself but with ALL it's helo's up and a strike group providing air cap. The helo's flit from ship to ship in carriers vicinity as a show of force and to eyeball them making sure they aren't Q ships in disguise. The straights are so traffic jammed that there will be dozens of massive tankers and some cargo ships within a few miles of the carrier at any given time - and my carrier (Nimitz) only transited at night. Interesting factoids: Iran land launched 6 silkworm missiles at our carrier. The Arley Burke shot down 5 of them with its CWIS before it jammed, the Nimitz got the last one with its own rear CWIS. DOD covered it up and told us not to say anything. Iran also gun boat swarm attacked the Persian Gulf War command and control ship that was used run the entire war as it entered the straights just as we exited on the other side: our captain decided we were closest ship to help and launched our 2 ready 5 F18's and then turned the carrier around and we went back through the straights at full emergency power, dodging tankers at speeds up to 40 knots, literally sliding around some ships in order to shoot around congestion points. Talk about an adrenaline rush to watch that from the hanger deck! Never had a clue that something so big could maneuver so adroitly.

[@beezo2560]

Russianguyovitch here. Thank you for this. Now we know to launchski all miskels at once instead of 4 at a timeski.

[@jiminverness]

_"Can a Russian Carrier Group Kill a US Carrier Group?"_ No. Not in 2023 at least. Poor old Admiral Kuznetsov would have to be towed into the action.

[@myplane150]

I always wondered how effective the deck guns would be on US Destroyers. Impressive (if truly accurate).

[@ashleybishton742]

Type 45 destroyed a rock island in about 20 seconds doing it lol literal carnage.

[@Knightfang1]

A typical Nimitz class carrier usually carries: 24-36 F/A-18 E SuperHornets, 10-12 F/A-18C hornets, 4-6 E/A-18 Growlers, 4-6 E-2C Hawkeyes, 1-2 C-2 Greyhounds, and 6-8 Seahawk anti-sub helicopters

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@chipbarnes3991]

Very few 18Cs remaining, fourth squadron is usually 18Fs now. 4 E-2Cs in a wing being replaced by 5 E-2Ds now.

[@TheWareek]

I am pretty shore that that that 5 inch gun would have switched targets after 6 to 10 hits. Also an Arleigh Burke carries about 600 round. They are not running out of ammo.

[@jessicaferguson4484]

Those subs were super helpful, lol

[@manlatycon]

I'd suggest there's a market for a naval equivalent of DCS with ED bringing their expertise to create really accurate weapons and systems, and, of course, the ships themselves. The multiplayer options are endless as well as multi-role on board each ship.

[@raul0ca]

Sound like CMO

[@Mariner311]

USN shouldn't have gotten rid of the RGM-109B TASM Oh WAIT - in 2021, the Navy now has the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) - range of 250 nm

[@tupolev141]

An poignant poem springs to mind: Boom, boom boom boom .. booom boooom booom... boom boom

[@jamesmcshane7855]

Boom boom boom?!?!? (Classic Blackadder 👍)

[@bimbkin2830]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIecqaCPaKh_pbs was it this lol

[@onasknox9284]

@@jamesmcshane7855 a year late to the party, but I was on my way to say Blackadder lol

[@jackgamer6307]

Few things to note: (some pepole might have pointed any one or more of them out, but I'll mention them anyways) First: What you called the "AK-30" (the big thumpinator cannons) are actually called "AK-130" (in reference of the barells' calibers of 130mms) Second: The Kirov-class battlecruisers have the same system mounted above the helipad (130, not 120mm) Third: The actual "AK-30" cannons are the 6-barelled primary weapons of the "Kashtan" CIWS turrets. These guns are also found on Moskva-class destroyers, held in two single turrets between the bridge and the primary cannons. These by themselfs aren't a part of the "Kashtan" CIWS network.

[@themelonman7363]

Awesome video. I'm interested in DCS for the air combat of course, but the naval stuff is the real cherry on top for me. I really wish that ED would make the naval combat more fleshed out. I saw plenty of Bushmasters on those US ships that would've been used, but alas, restrictions. Ship-mounted flares would've also been cool to see in action. In any case, good job lads. Looking forward to more stuff like this.

[@edwinsiyabonga7701]

I can't wait for DCS to include Kh-32, Zircon, Kinzhal, p-800, kalibr into the mix in this battle since all of those missiles are *in service* and the Russain group would most likely include these missiles in this epic battle.

[@tonym2513]

I think not, propaganda boy. America would end Russia in hours without nukes. Air superiority in 90 minutes tops. Russia is fraudulent in every way.

[@nicomeier8098]

Both sides annihilating each other's missiles, planes are useless and sub's aren't doing anything........ so it ends up being a WW2 like cannon fire battle?

[@kills456]

Pretty much

[@Josh-iv2bw]

Bracketing a ship, as many of those shells did from the Moskva's did to the OHP, still damages ship hulls. That's why modern ships get shock tested by actually blowing things up near the ship.

[@IrishCarney]

The key thing here is having given the Russians AWACS. But they wouldn't have one in a real naval battle. The best they have is a Kamov helicopter AEW, much weaker than the US E-2 Greyhound. The Russians did have an E-2 equivalent in development, the Yak-44, but canceled it. The Chinese are working on a similar plane, the Xian KJ-600, which is already in flight testing.

[@stickiedmin6508]

Did Russia ever try putting a big radar on some variant of the Bear, to act in an AEW role? They obviously couldn't base the thing on the boat itself, but depending on where they were operating, they could get coverage that way?

[@IrishCarney]

@@stickiedmin6508 The Soviets/Russians have had radar picket airplanes for a long time, but my point was that didn't have any that were carrier-launched like the US E-2. Russian/Soviet AWACS/AEW planes have all been land-based and too big to fit on carriers. One of those was indeed a derivative of the Tu-95 - - the Tu-126. Well the Tu-126 was a derivative of the Tu-114 civil airliner, and THAT was derived from the Tu-95 bomber. They also had a maritime recon & patrol plane, the Tu-142, which, unlike the Tu-126, was directly derived from the Tu-95. It was more focused on anti submarine warfare though, like the later Il-38, based on the Il-18 airliner. More recent, jet powered AWACS was the Beriev A-50, meant to be equal to the (large, land-based) E-3 Sentry. In the process of being replaced by an updated version, the A-100. Anyway, again, the Soviets and Russians have had to rely on far inferior helicopter AWACS at sea. Maybe this scenario's use of a land-based AWACS is justifiable given that it's not in the open ocean but rather close to shore. But then you'd have to assume Iran or somebody else would let the Russians have or use an airbase. If Syria, you'd have to to fly over Iraq or other countries to get to the area. And if the reds can have a big land based AWACS, why not the blues? Especially since the US does have local air bases with the E3 Sentry, and would likely use them instead of only using the smaller less capable carrier based E2 Hawkeye (which in turn, again, is still better than a helicopter).

[@strenggeheim5793]

There are as many Russian Carrier Groups as Swiss ones... 0. 😃

[@warhound7781]

Exactly this is pure fantasy.

[@trololoev]

russian carrier group that wreck terrorists in Syria: what?

[@strenggeheim5793]

@@trololoev That "aircraft carrying cruiser" wrecked itself in the process, as well as losing several planes due to faulty recovery mechanics, has more tugs then planes and is rotting in port ever since... I'm pretty sure those terrorists tremble in fear (considerably less than the insurance, of that vessel, though).

[@rajkaranvirk7525]

The Russians have a carrier

[@rajkaranvirk7525]

@@strenggeheim5793 How does that Aircraft carrier look like a cruiser to you?

[@johnrollex680]

By the end of this I thought the crews were going to have to get out on the deck and throw rocks at each other.

[@aleksa3025]

It's 0:55 for me and I have an important examp tomorrow, but this seems more important!

[@grimreapers]

lol oops

[@CH3TN1K313]

Kirov-class cruisers are actually built to be balanced between many roles, with one of its main roles as a defensive, anti-sub cruiser using one of the most powerful sonars ever used on a combat ship. Yes, the "carrier killer role" gets mentioned a lot, but that's only one facet of its many capabilities.

[@CH3TN1K313]

The Russian's also would ripple fire their whole missile battery to overwhelm the enemy defenses. Also, a lot of these missile have complex evasion programs on their way to their targets. The P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) for example, would send one missile up high which would be popping up at higher and and then lower alts, and repeating this process, to draw the enemy missile defenses onto it, while it's "brothers" skim the sea. They also would be pulling hard defensive maneuvers as they approached the target.

[@jat3956]

Interesting how there is no ship adjustment by speed or angle to make it harder for opposing fire. It would seem at least a couple of adjustment to factor in so there is maybe more misses.

[@ronin1915]

Not accurate Russian fleet, it’s missing the tug boat for the Kuznetsov!

[@petem6755]

*Russian ships closing and firing on US ships* US Ships: this is fine

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

Had to fill out the proper paperwork before they could return fire :P

[@jpvardy]

I think this scenario needs updating :) Apparently the Moskva would just catch on fire, explode and sink without any need for an attack 😉

[@chipbarnes3991]

Moskva of late was the second name of the lead Slava-class cruiser, sunk this month in the Black Sea. If you're referring to the Kiev-class, those were all decommissioned by the 90s. The closest is the Kuznetzov, called a cruiser to legally be allowed to transit out of the Black Sea (where it was built in Sevastopol). Kuznetzov os not capable of sustained ops without multiple breakdowns. Its wing is roughly half the size of a USN carrier air wing...not a really fair fight. China has the other Kuznetzov hull in service as the Liaoning CV-16, also with a small air wing a bit light on strike capability.

[@chipbarnes3991]

Sorry, missed your very current swipe on the Moskva with the Russian statement of cause. 😁

[@jasondiaz8431]

Submarines would have turned one side or the other into a pile of steel. That would only depend on which subs could sink which first.

[@jeffburnham6611]

You completely forgot about the AWACS as well as the CVN's E2C. Those airborne radar platforms can see much further than soviet surface radar. Plus, the AEGIS data can be integrated throughout the US fleet, including the AWACS/E2C. You also forgot there was a Tomahawk ASM variant, with a range of 300nm.

[@jimrussell4062]

Yeah it came down to: Russia has unrealistically over-capacity. Americans get nerfed to nothing but back up 5 in guns and CIWS. "fair"

[@Backdaft94]

To be fair they made this for entertainment. Wouldn't be entertaining if it was over in 2 minutes. They had no choice but to nerf the US. With that said I do agree..fair happens at the Olympics, if you find yourself in a fair fight in war your tactics suck.

[@toastrecon]

Could be interesting as this advances. Better AI all around, better servers to handle more units. Would have been sweet to see the subs get involved

[@themacker894]

Those older Phoenix missiles were strictly designed to kill bombers. Any modern enemy fighter pilot shot down by a huge, lumbering Phoenix should be ashamed. BTW, this would be better modeled by a superior application such as Command.

[@gregorylumban-gaol3889]

I always had the thought that Carriers are weak in close engagements. Then I saw the Kuznetsov wipe the floor with that Arleigh Burke and I’m like “Alright then goddamn”

[@RaV591]

Always excited to watch these, really great stuff as per usual!

[@namja01]

I did a massive single-player custom mission similar to this. But instead I used two carrier battle groups because the USN would likely employ at least two CBG's together in a single theater. I also added in two LHD's in sea control/Harrier carrier config (20 Harriers each). I also had USAF B-52, F-15C and F-16C squadrons along with Russian AF squadrons of every single type of in-service aircraft available in game. There was close to 500 total units on the map. The first scenario I did was attempt to re-create an escorted alpha strike on the Russian fleet. The combined USN/USAF air fleet had a numerical advantage of about 220 to the Russians 180, if I recall correctly. I did over a dozen tweaks to get around weaknesses in the AI. The AI is dumb so the air superiority assets didn't do a good job of protecting their respective strike packages and killed each other off almost entirely. Only a few of the USN's anti-ship strike package were shot down, half of the Russian anti-ship strike package were shot down. Again, because the AI is dumb the strike packages weren't well coordinated. Both fleet's anti-missile defenses held up, with only a couple of the Russian ships getting sunk (because hundreds of Harpoons). The fleet action was similar to this video in that they couldn't punch through each other's missile defenses, but it was much more spectacular to watch since the missile strikes were much more coordinated until the magazines went empty. But the Russians ended up winning the gunfight by a country mile in 3 out of 4 runs of the scenario; when the Americans won, it was similar to this video in which there were only a couple ships left.

[@edwinsiyabonga7701]

I wish you recorded that hellish battle, my only issue is that Russian weaponry that are in service are not included in DCS. Weapons such us Kh-32, Hypersonic missiles (Zircon and Kinzhal), p-800, kalibr, S-400s (in land or close in land battles) and etc. Whereas the US weaponry are mostly included in DCS.

[@vanguard9067]

“Makes me want to write a poem.” Hahahahaha! Great one

[@ceberskie119]

Yes you can Salvo fire asms but you can also individually track and kill them with sm-2s so its sort of a moot point unless they're all VERY close together in which case one missiles destruction might prevent another from being hit...but it might also cause a multi missile pile up and knock out the whole salvo so it's risky to fire then TOO close together

[@trihard7323]

51:33 Life imitating art

[@rubiconnn]

This should become a spectator sport. You make good commentary, cap.

[@grimreapers]

Good fun.

[@FlightDreamz]

Seconded! :)

[@mrnostalgialover1275]

So basically, the point of carrier groups are the carrier, if you make the carriers entire ability (planes) useless, then there is no point for them to be here. Without the point of the carriers then this isn’t anywhere near realistic to what would happen..

[@sovietwhirl4719]

This would technically count as the Russian fleet before they got the Grigorovich or any of their modern Frigates or ships, and well the fleet would be missing the Sovremenny and Udaloy class of destroyers along with the Kara class Cruiser. The Moskva/Slava class uses AK-630 Close in weapons systems. Love the vids and im happy to watch

[@davidjakiela9553]

I saw a poster on how the soviets view our combat doctrine. They said the biggest problem with it is the Americans rarely follow it. The Germans during WW2 had the same view. It seems that our ability to keep the enemy guessing on what we will do next is a great asset.

[@NSAdonis]

Without the Russian anti-ship missiles working correctly and fired off in a single salvo this question will not be really answered right IMHO

[@drksideofthewal]

Or the full Carrier wing. The US completely relies on fighters, so it’s not even a battle without them.

[@TheNicestPig]

@@drksideofthewal yep, 50 Hornets, each with 4 Harpoons. However the Russian fleet's ships with older 3d models can't defend themselves with CIWS for some reason as well, only the Moskvas and the Kuznetsovs can use their CIWS i think.

[@mattsez2879]

In an all out war.....a carrier has a life expectancy of approx 45 min. JUST long enough to get every aircraft, fully loaded, in the air. Those aircraft alone, with proper arms, can take out most of any one small country. To last long enough to allow the aircraft to land and re arm a second or 3rd time, is a bonus.

[@texasknight5175]

This was exceptionally satisfying.

[@michaelholland3944]

I've worked on our radar systems for our National Defense the range is considerably more than what you think it is

[@liammarra4003]

Actually, in a real life engagment, the US would SSNs for antiship duties. Thats the doctrine for US SSNs: sink navies. Harpoons arent good enough, and im not sure if hornets have the legs either. SSNs are and have always been, the US navys number one weapon agasint surgave combatents.

[@johnanderson5500]

Oh i agree, those attack submarines would have fired off their anti ship missiles then bubbled down, came came around and torpedoed the enemy ship, then bubble down again, come back around and sank another enemy ship and so on. I can't believe these subs did nothing, it almost acted like a ballistic sub with no mission directive.

[@Wallhammer480]

Despite the fact that I live in the US I’m in favor for the Russians. They got cooler troops and better looking ships

[@blademaster2390]

@@johnanderson5500 its less that they did nothing, and more that they aren’t coded to be able to fight in DCS. Irl, yes, they would’ve done something, but in DCS, they literally cant do anything but watch.

[@johnanderson5500]

I know, im just saying.