1990's VLS Iowa vs Entire Russian Baltic Fleet(Kirov, Slava, Sovremenny, Udaloy etc) | Sea Power

[@Hunterinadesert]

I can imagine the first sign of trouble for both fleets is the radar operator jumping up and diving overboard.

[@anthonysacco5010]

This was an American operators dream come true on an Iowa class battleship.

[@TheEnergizingbunny]

1990's VLS Iowa would've been the closest thing to achieving the Arsenal Ship concept.

[@austinhughes1924]

That would’ve looked so cool!

[@RealBelisariusCawl]

I mean… for the first attempt, I have to say that a single BB without escort getting caught with its pants down by an entire FLEET in a MISSILE war could do worse than to take two of the enemy’s biggest and best ships down with them.

[@StephenElwess]

Iowa wasn't even badly hurt in that 1st attempt. Zero hull damage but most systems knocked out (from shock) but it quickly resumed firing and it seems none of the other missiles still in the air hit it. I'll bet if he'd have went back and checked on Iowa before moving on to the 2nd match, he'd have found most or all the knocked out systems were back in service, probably after DC teams closed some open circiut breakers and restarted some electrical systems.

[@firstname8637]

Yeah, is it just me or is the Kirov always going down no matter what scenario she is in?😅 Even it's comrade the slava completely dunks on her in a 1v1 in my experience (ran 5 matches, Slava winning 2 and Kirov none). Although that might have been different if I interfered and told them to send everything.

[@RomanianReaver]

@firstname8637 1). Slava's newer than the Kirov. 2). If you test with the last Kirov-class launched it should be quite different. 3). Kirov's a digital era battlecruiser, Iowa's an analogue era one, former's designed to try to not get hit, latter's designed to go "I heard no bell" so if both have similar weapon systems and FCSs it's literally down to who sneaks in enough dick into the other before getting swarmed. IMHO opinion pitting the late 1980s Kirovs vs the 1990s Iowas is grossly unfair because for the last decade or so the USSR didn't really have much going for it FCS-wise. I'd really love to see speculative Iowa (2020s era tech) vs modernized (2020s) Kirov as Pyotr Veliky is gonna be a fucking menace when done retrofitting.

[@cadetrenew]

@@RomanianReaver "when done retrofitting" lmao that's a good joke

[@RomanianReaver]

@@cadetrenew Wanna hear and even better set of jokes? Zumwalt class and Littoral combat ship class :) (don't throw shit as asides from their carrier and 2 nuclear battlecruisers, for whom the infrastructure was lost when the USSR fell, the Russians haven' had major issues with their sip upkeep and retrofits since Kursk)

[@jg3167]

The locations for the VLS is pretty accurate, as the Navy didn't want the difficulty and expense of cutting through the armored deck to put them in the hull, so they would have replaced the high-mount 5-in guns and their ammunition handling rooms with VLS towers fully above the armored deck.

[@stonecoldscubasteveo4827]

The plan involved removing the aft 16-inch turret.

[@SuperVeeZee]

@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 Some of the plans/concepts involved removal of the aft turret. Others did not. The version in this video is accurate to one such concept. To be sure, there were a whole bunch of conversion concepts between VLS conversions and ski-jump/VTOL light battlecarrier/amphib. assault conversions. My personal favorite was actually built in real life as a 1/350 scale ship model that the builder, Rusty White, calls the USS Tinian, HAL-1. It's an amphib. assault variant that removes the aft gun and puts a VTOL flight deck there. Basically a third of a Wasp-class gets glued to the front two thirds of a battleship.

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

@@SuperVeeZeeI forget where but there was another good one that is similar to the MK 41 VLS but it has the 5 inch replaced with modern 5 inch guns and the number 2 16 inch turret replaced with a VLS farm ( the reason being is the kit portrays Iowa herself and the refit was done after the turret explosion)

[@unfortunately_fortunate2000]

@@SuperVeeZee so basically he wanted to turn it into an even weirder version of those early soviet helicarriers, what a pug fugly vessel

[@SuperVeeZee]

@@unfortunately_fortunate2000 To each their own, I think it looks dope. And unlike the Kiev and Moskva class' air compliment (don't know if the Moskva ever actually got the Yak VTOL jets), the Harriers were VTOL jets that actually worked. Arguably, it makes some sense when considering what the Navy/congress wanted the battleships for. At that point in time, the battleships were around to provide gunfire support for shore operations. So, by fitting the battleship with a VTOL flight deck, hangar, and accommodations for marines, it could do not only the gunfire support with the remaining six 16-inch guns, but the shore/landing operations all on it's own with it's own helicopter wing and marine compliment. And the addition of Harriers increased it's effective range outside of the 25-mile gun range. Downside, stupid expensive to do that to what was at that point a 50-year-old hull.

[@jamison884]

Thank you, Cap! Especially for that second round (for science). I've decided to write out a relatively lengthy overview below, which I consider a general analysis of this video and the core game in its current state, combined with research and reports from individuals who claim to know more about these specific weapon systems. Of course, it's entirely optional reading, but I hope at least a couple of people find it interesting. Observations of Current ASM Technology in Sea Power: During round 2, when you selected targets for each Tomahawk salvo, it appears the Tomahawks largely kept to their targets, but just before the map was closed, I noted some Tomahawks targeting the outer ships on the far flanks (with smaller RCS) changed targets to ships with larger RCS, which is reasonable. It also appears quite a lot of the Tomahawks were spoofed by the chaff, including some that picked up new targets after flying over their first target. However, I didn't see any of the Soviet missiles go for chaff unless they were simply too fast and we couldn't see them fly over visually. Considerations for Modern-era Sea Power Anti-ship Missiles: Overall, I believe this was a good test for the current limitations of Sea Power and shows that the missile targeting is likely adequate for this era of naval warfare, but it will likely need to be improved (at least somewhat) to allow for modern-era anti-ship missiles modded into the game sometime in the future. Modern anti-ship missiles are serious business, using a combination of radar, infrared sensors, and AI-assisted databases containing various profiles of enemy ships, effectively making chaff/flares worthless. Modern countermeasures likely rely heavily on electronic warfare and decoys that can mimic the radar profile of ships, but I have no idea how to spoof a modern ASM that combines radar, infrared, and ship profiles if the electronic countermeasures are unable to fully scramble the missile's electronics (including that database of ship profiles). In addition to those features, they are designed to intelligently network and aim for the most vulnerable areas of the enemy ship based on that same database of potential enemy ships. Realistic Solution to Future Sea Power Modern-era Mods: Ultimately, Sea Power does NOT need to emulate this high level of modern technology, as it will rely on the future mod makers to be clever in their balancing and transparent in the technology of the weapon systems they design, likely having to rely on manipulation of the variables they're able to configure (the power of electronic countermeasures/jamming for example) to fine-tune the differences between various modern systems and how effective they ultimately are in comparison to each other. Future Mod Outlook: I'm hoping that the developers allow some of the core game and core engine code to be modified in the future once the developers have stated the core game is in a good enough pot to enable full mod support. If I recall correctly, they ultimately plan on officially supporting modders, providing mod tools, and enabling the addition of both new 3D models (including entirely new ships) and new sounds to be imported and used with the mods. Introduction to Game Balance Observations: Based on this test, I believe we can form some observations. As a caveat, I know this video utilized mods for both sides. I also fully admit my bias for the blue side, just as Cap does, but similarly to Cap, I'm not interested in merely watching scripted content or videos where my side wins all the time. My goal is always to view content (and play some games when I have the time) where the weapon systems are modeled as accurately as possible and the game hopefully will one day reach the level of a simulator, specifically including weapon systems and features modded into the game as accurately as possible to include the eras of WWII through the near future. With that said, based on the general feedback and hints/comments from individuals on both the NATO and Soviet/Russian sides for the capability of systems during the 1970's and 1980's for NATO and from the 1970's through the 2000's for Soviet/Russian equipment, it appears Sea Power (core game) has some inaccuracies. Here are the items I've seen mentioned more than once. 1. CIWS Systems: The Phalanx CIWS uses an independent fire control system and both J-band and I-band radars self-contained within each respective CIWS "dome" on top of the rotary autocannon, in addition to having a link to the ship's primary fire control system. This allows each CIWS to detect, track, and target an incoming threat, and when it fires, the outgoing rounds are tracked to make adjustments for accuracy. According to open sources, the AK-630 Soviet-era systems utilized a shared radar and fire control system that only had an I-band radar and controlled two AK-630 turrets. In other words, using the Kirov as an example, to the best of my knowledge, it's currently modeled to allow for each AK-630 CIWS to independently fire at one incoming target each (rather than realistically being limited to two guns aimed at one target), and it doesn't feature a secondary radar or fire control system linkage to enhance the accuracy of its fire in real time or during the overall engagement. 2. Sea-Skimming SAM Limitations: Multiple people have reported and open sources have stated that the Soviet/Russian naval SAMs, with both the SA-10 Grumble and SA-20 Gargoyle specifically used as examples, were unable to hit sea-skimming anti-ship missiles at the altitude of Harpoons and ASM Tomahawks during this era, with a minimum intercept altitude of 20 to 25 meters (25m = 82 feet). Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single person who claims to have been a sailor during this era dispute Harpoons and Tomahawks being capable of sea-skimming under 20 meters (claims support the Sea Power sea-skimming altitude of between 10 to ~20 feet above sea level). 3. Soviet/Russian Anti-ship Missiles: In general, I believe most of the Soviet anti-ship missiles were as fast as depicted and also were able to sea-skim at approximately 30 feet as depicted. However, I believe their transition from their initial high altitude profile to their low altitude profile would have been more gradual (executed over a greater distance) than currently depicted. Specifically, in this video, you said the G forces were likely too great for it to perform that way. I'd like to add that in addition to the question of G forces, the amount of control surface area and/or thrust vectoring required to dive at that supersonic speed towards the sea and immediately pull out of the drive within only ~10-30 meters is most likely not realistic. The control surfaces need to be considerable, and the precision of such a maneuver would likely be too great for reliable missile attack profiles. 4. Capability of SM-2MR Block II: In addition to the above, I noted something else in the video. The RIM-66H's were fired at the incoming ASM's when they were at high altitude, which is expected. However, when the ASM's switched to their low profile, I don't believe I saw any of the intercepting missiles ultimately hitting their target. There were a couple hits I saw made just moments after they began going to their low flight profile (in the dive), and there were hits once the radar gained track of the missiles again as they apporached at sea-skimming levels, but per open sources, these standard missiles were able to adjust their flight paths with a high level of agility, including following an enemy track from their high profile to their low profile as long as they still received radar data from the source (in this case, the ship and perhaps the AWACS just depending on how Sea Power is coded). To clarify this, as long as the ASM was detected on radar still, the kill rate of the SM-2MR Block II should have still been high up until the radar track was entirely lost as the ASM fell below the horizon per its speed and dive profile towards the sea. 5. Minimim Engagement Altitude for the US SAMs: I attempted to research the minimum engagement altitude of US SAM systems (as a comparison to the Grumble), and I couldn't find an estimate. I can only state that, given the fact Soviet/Russian doctrine for the past half century plus has involved sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship missiles, I imagine the US Navy has spent many hundreds of millions or even billions specifically to ensure the SM series of missiles was able to engage sea-skimming ASM's as early as possible. As to which decade that was, no idea, of course. Conclusion on Sea Power Balancing: Despite this video using mods, I suspect Sea Power developers had to make some relatively minor changes to core game weapons systems in order to balance the game. And ultimately, I'm okay with that. As I stated before, I'm not here to complain if my side loses a virtual battle, as I simply take comfort in the real-world history and current events, which provide me with the confidence that US/NATO systems are up to the challenge.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks J, interesting read. I also agree that core game has been balanced to create a fun gaming experience whichever side you play on.

[@NemoGraynameA8]

The locations of the Iowa's VLS is accurate to the proposed refit. The battleship New Jersey just released a video of a box of designs they found in their archives. I believe you can get digital versions of their discovery on their website. Or will be able to do that soon.

[@anthonysacco5010]

There was another design of removing number 3 turret and turning the aft into 50+ vls or 100+ rail launch like the CG

[@davidwelch5768]

I am a decom , (former crew member, 3 years on board), crew member of USS Iowa, BB-61. True- a lot of Rumors about VLS from towing to fixed

[@bernarrcoletta7419]

The Battleship New Jersey channels has been running a series of videos about possibilities of what the Iowas could have been. They started about Thanksgiving. Includes stuff like the carrier version, the VLS version, etc.

[@jovianr9498]

@@bernarrcoletta7419 Interesting, thanks for pointing this out :)

[@WarrHoll]

Now we gotta see this with the same Russian fleet against a 90s US Aegis-equipped SAG with a Mk41 Ticonderoga and a couple of Flight I Arleigh Burkes.

[@billwhoever2830]

the Russian ships got upgrades too, the latest Kirov version, Pyotr Velikiy, has 96 S300 missiles in VLS (48 of which are upgraded-extended range mach 6 version), 64 TOR VLS (medium range sams, for cruise missiles) and 6 new Kortik CIWS (each has 8 short range missiles and 2 30mm Gatling guns, all sensors are on the turret unlike the old soviet ak630) this upgraded version has in total 160 SAMs in VLS, on top of that it has 12 30mm gatling guns and another 48 short range SAMs that can be reloaded in 6 turrets, this is a very big step up compared to the old Kirovs this is just the Battle cruiser, the rest of the smaller ships got similar upgrades, for example the Udaloys replaced the crappy SS-N-14 Silex with the SS-N-22 Sunburn (one of the most capable soviet missiles found only on the Sovremenny in game) a lot of corvets that were introduced in the '90s also have the Sunburn missiles onboard, for example the Tarantul-class (60 built, 19 operational today) launched 4 Sunburns each and later in the 2000s they got the version with 16 subsonic Kh-35 each so, even a complete fleet with with Burkes and Ticos would have had a very hard time getting and staying in the baltic with hundreds of attack corvets and coastal launchers everywhere, all the big ships like the Tico/Burke and the Kirov/Slava were meant to fight in the ocean

[@exAirMover]

Now that would be a fight!

[@MST-p8d]

@@billwhoever2830 This is why when some makes a mod, they should make it with the opposite upgrades as well. Remember, everyone can just push a button, but setting up a the tactics is the winner.

[@Tedger]

​@@billwhoever2830the latest refitting of one ship is never getting done and they cannot afford run or maintain those shipa,,, or single ship.. i dont think any even that single shipmis operational.

[@bogdan192]

Last time a Slava fought anything on the high seas it sank to a country with no navy and 2 60 year old antiship missiles. Just sayin.

[@HerpilyDerp86]

Yep. No doubt sea power shows these ships at their theoretical max strength. Not their actual real life. Otherwise this would have been embarressing for Russia

[@devilman2197]

noob player thinking emcon saves them smh

[@HB013b]

Russian surface fleet is severely corrupt and underfunded, because they don't need it, they basically keep it to play superpower. They are pumping all of their money into subs. This game portrais these vessels as if they were in fact manned by well trained personell and with all of their radars and anti ships missiles working.

[@Simulcrom]

I mean, chances are the systems back then would have actually worked.

[@azuaraikrezeul1677]

loosing the donbass in exchange for a ship is the true ukrainian experience.slava cocaina.

[@1949crewchief]

According to the curator of the USS New Jersey the VLS system was vulnerable to the concussive force of the big guns. They couldnt make a system rugged enough and compact enough so the program was scrapped.

[@tankgunner37]

Love the sea power videos!

[@RedTSquared]

Okay, this was an awesome fight. Thank you Super Cap!

[@jovianr9498]

Good job Cap :) Your videos are amazing, looking forward to more :)

[@BravoCheesecake]

USS Iowa USS New Jersey USS Wisconsin USS Missouri USS Alabama USS Massachusetts USS North Carolina We await our VLS

[@gigipeedee]

what are those emojis lmaooooo

[@BravoCheesecake]

@@gigipeedee

[@Nobody10115]

@@BravoCheesecake I don’t believe the older classes of South Dakota and North Carolina battleships would ever be reactivated, the Iowas even are unlikely to be used again.

[@billwebb9643]

And while we're at it, USS Texas with a directed-energy weapon.

[@ivanvenema5052]

@@billwebb9643 What about USS Constitution with rail guns?

[@NFS_Challenger54]

I'd love to see the 5-inch/54cal variant of the Iowa. Those secondary dual-purpose guns were only used on the Midway-class aircraft carriers and was planned to be mounted on the Montana-class battleships. I like the different configurations of the Iowa-class IF they remained in commissioned in the 90's.

[@SHP72]

There is one already

[@NFS_Challenger54]

@@SHP72 In a video, I meant.

[@armandorodrigues144]

I've watched the videos from the Battleship New Jersey museum channel, the most extreme refit would make way with all the guns and replace those with 424 Mk41 VLS cells the refit that: - keeps all the guns - adds 96x VLS cells - replaces all 4x PHALANX with 4x 30mm GOALKEEPER - adds 2x Mk38 25mm - adds 2x RIM-166 RAM - replaces all 5' dual mounts with 4x modern 5' single mounts - gives the 16' guns extended range SABOT and RAP munitions is my favorite

[@bigk5203]

Does this sim take into account the Iowa's armor when assigning damage inflicted on her? Many modern missiles would have a difficult time penetrating her armor.

[@Paulie820]

I think he's talked about it before and came to the conclusion there was no complex armor modeling. In the second scenario 2 dozen missiles got through so I don't think her armor would hold up anyway

[@billwhoever2830]

missiles have no problem penetrating armor, we see that on the tank warfare today, a tiny shaped charge goes through huge amounts of armor larger missiles like the soviet carrier killers were equipped with penetrating HE warheads, for example, Slava fired the P-500 which was a 4800kg missile with a 1000kg warhead and a maximum speed of mach 3, this is much heavier and faster than an IOWA AP shell at muzzle speed, it would go through and detonate inside killing the battleship in a single hit, if the battleship carried ammo for the guns the explosion would be big enough to damage other friendly ships around smaller and slower missiles like the Harpoon or the Russian Kh-35 can carry shaped charges, if the current tank vs drone combat has shown something then it is the fact that a tiny shaped charge can go through a lot of armor for example a 6-7kg RPG-7 can go through 600mm or solid metal armor, the iowas sloped side armor is 439 mm, so even an rpg can in theory penetrate it but the effect would be small and reduced by spaced out armor pannels a 150-300kg shaped charge would go through the entire battleship and might come out the other side, the damage will be less consistent compared to a 1000kg explosion inside the ship but it is still likely to hit the ammo or critical equipment like boilers on a battleship

[@StephenElwess]

​​@@billwhoever2830anti-ship warheads don't use shaped charge HEAT, dont even have armor penetrating caps, they are designed to punch through modern 1/2 inch thick hull plating and detonate inside the ship. Only the largest and fastest Soviet missiles had the KE to punch through a foot thick slab of side armor and even then without major modifications to those missiles the warheads would be so smashed up from punching through the side armor that they wouldn't detonate properly. Also, being ships designed to take massive damage and continue fighting, internal bulkheads and decks were designed to keep the blast contained to the compartment that was penetrated. Bottom line is that these kinds of ships are incredibly hard to sink short of using heavyweight torpedoes.

[@johns8364]

@@billwhoever2830 A 300kg shaped charge would not go through an Iowa. It would detonate at the outer hull at a less than ideal distance from the internal main armor belt. It would probably penetrate the armor and wreak havoc on a compartment or two. Honestly, I don't see a buttoned up Iowa sinking in this scenario.

[@dfsdude]

@@StephenElwess There was a Iowa video explaining that they had two belts of armor because of the considerations of stopping Yammy's 18" shells. That could be a pisser for missiles to deal with. I guess. Of course, we sank the Yamato and Kirishima so in the end, it looks like armor always loses.

[@portabsam7039]

You can control bolth teams with F10->tools-> top left option :)

[@supersyber7]

Hey Grim, don't know if you'll catch this but there is a shot scoreboard in the debug menu. There's also a hit scoreboard per boat as well.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks!

[@chrischros8790]

I've always wondered if those Tomahawks and Harpoons really would attack from basically only one angle. I'm not an expert but to me it would make much more sense if they came in from lots of angles to basically overwhelm the opposing countermeasures.

[@chriskerwin3904]

This is exactly what would happen

[@dfsdude]

another video from GR mentioned that while doctrine was to encircle, it's actually easier at least for Aegis to handle that since there's more radar bandwidth. That is, instead of having to deal with everything coming in at one array, more arrays can be brought to bear.

[@Western_1]

Can't wait until we get more Iowa mods. There's all sorts of stuff in the works like battlecarriers. There's some limits though as to what can be done so hopefully some mod tools come out in coming months.

[@Warlord9000]

I presume the game cant simulate the BB shooting its big guns into the water in front of a missile to put up a wall of water to block it? (I know it was a discussed tactic, but don't know if a doctrine was ever developed)

[@admiralrover74]

Where did you learn about this?

[@washablechunk1653]

great videos, cant wait to see future what if battles

[@chuckhood9659]

I've always maintained that sims like DCS, Sea Power, or even Harpoon back in the day, overestimate Soviet naval defensive system capabilities almost to a ridiculous degree that has never been demonstrated real world. Obviously their modeling can't be based on much more than advertised capability which the Soviets then and Russians now always oversale. Even inside the US Navy though, when comparing, we always consider threat systems at the high end of expected capability and Blue systems at the conservative end of expected capability. The thought being better to overestimate your enemy than underestimate. Of course, this also plays a large role in justifying budget requests and requirements.

[@trentvlak]

US CIWS is really nerfed in this game.

[@ActuallyJamie]

90% of the US equipment in this is. There's a reason why our ships NEVER go out alone. The Aegis system is designed to work in tandem with other vessels. He also fails to realize that in this game when you tell everyone to fire everything at the same time it naturally overwhelms the tracking systems for everyone allowing the smallest things that WOULDN'T ever get through, get through. And he expects different results yet ends up with the same results 85% of the time. If he played it like real life, aegis would win 98% of the time.

[@AxlePlaysGames]

1x 1986 Tico vs Baltic fleet plx? Thoroughly enjoyed Cap, loving the Sea Power videos!!

[@grimreapers]

Problem is the only offensive weapon she has is 8 harpoons, so not sure what we can expect her to do?

[@techypriest7523]

@@grimreapers Maybe see if her self-defense is sufficient to protect her. A test of endurance one would say.

[@TheLastPhoen1x]

Bluefor fired most of the missiles in one salvo because they have more enemies to shoot at, opfor fired only part because they fire only at one ship.

[@subpardave2727]

There is a mod to fix the target deconfliction for the Tomahawks

[@markwirez]

Name of mod?

[@ChristopherSloane]

I'm shocked that 12 inches of Armor does not mean anything as well as redundant sectional armor and compartments thought the ship? While we know Russian ships lack armor and interior sectioning as simple drones and 2 missiles sunk them easily. It does not pass the smell test. Also all the Russian stuff worked which we know from current accounts is incorrect.

[@AgentFrosty]

I know you were focusing on the VLS aspect of the Iowa here, but I'd like to point out that you had 16 RGM-84D's (Harpoons) that never got launched, that could have been used for a few of the smaller vessels. At the least they would have added a bit more saturation to the enemy's AA systems.

[@xpk0228]

they are 100NM+ away, the RGM-84D on that ship is only good for 80 NM

[@AgentFrosty]

@xpk0228 Ahhh, I thought it was the same Harpoons that are in the NTU upgrade, the 120nm Deltas. My bad.

[@Colonel_Overkill]

A ship so impressive that it makes the near limitless budget office of the US Navy have an outbreak of mass self detonations at the prospect of buying that many missiles to fill the magazine of a single warship.

[@TheInfamousMrFox]

The IAS planned to remove the aft gun turret and install a v-shaped flight ramp that would extend past the exhaust stacks and conning tower. Two elevators were to be installed and the ship would support a dozen AV-8B Harrier II jump jets. Between the two ramps, it would have held 320 Mk. 41 vertical launch cells for a mix of BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine rockets, and Standard surface to air missiles. The 5 inch guns were planned to be replaced with 155 mm howitzers for additional naval gunfire support. The forward two Mark 7 16” triple gun batteries would have been retained. Four Phalanx CIWS would have been installed on the super structure for air defense.

[@TheFoulMouthNews]

Go check out the Battleship New Jersey channel out here. Her curator, Ryan Szimanski, he came across a bunch of new, well new old, documentation on the 90s modernization of the Iowas. There was actually two different proposals but both removed the rear turret and barbette. One was for the battlecarrier the other was to convert them to a dedicated missile launch platform. The battlecarrier was only to have one angled flight deck, not the V shaped split double one which has been a topic of debate for years. Szimanski before finding the documents recently, he has talked about this and speculated it was only to have one of them as opposed to the double V. Turns out he was right. The battlecarrier refit/modernization also didn't substantially increase the Iowas missile capacity. A few were added but the flight deck and things necessary to support flight operations took up almost all of the gained space. The missile modernization/refit was to replace the the turret and barbette with vertical launch missile tubes. I believe it was well over 100 of them. From what he was saying with both options was that the Navy was considering making one Iowa a battlecarrier while making the other 3 missile launch platforms. He was also saying that the brass was leaning towards making New Jersey the battlecarrier too. I hope this information helps.

[@brendanrobertson5966]

the secondary take-away is how effective 'fleet defence' matters against so many missiles.

[@SFish-wr4kh]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1319">21:59</a> what a masterclass of timing

[@bryans2102]

Just for the fun of it…. The US did have 4 Iowa class ships…..

[@JohnWilliams-sq7cj]

We still do 😊

[@billwhoever2830]

and there were 4 Kirovs too, the Kirovs in game are old, they were upgraded irl. The currently operating one is on the '98s.

[@guyyoung2355]

Unfortunately half of them had to be scrapped because post-1991 Russia didn't have money

[@Oldguy1900]

There is a real good in depth discussion on the USS New Jersey vs a Soviet guided missile cruiser over at the battleship New Jersey Channel done a bit ago, the simple version is the Soviets have nothing that can damage a Iowa class battleship there armor is too thick, it really is just superstructure damage add basically all they did was poke a dragon with a stick. The real only hope the Soviet guided missile Cruisers have is there fast enough to stay ahead of New Jersey's gun range and if they're not..

[@theeradicator110]

Stealth17 Has A Very Good Guide On How To Upload Missions, It's The First Tutorial Video He Has On Sea Power, Where He Explains The Mission Editor

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@charlescassels3826]

Try the BBG version of the Iowa! It’s an Iowa with a nuclear reactor, modern ECM suite, better placed CIWS, and VLS. She’s formidable but not invincible. I put her with a task force of Ticos and Arleigh Burkes and put it against a huge force of Russian cruisers. Lost two of the DDGs but took down the whole Russian force. I think it was the SM6s that would get sent on an intercept mission but if their target was destroyed then they would follow through and search for a surface target. Don’t know if it’s a real capability but it should be!

[@StephenElwess]

I wonder how many of those ships it would take to ovwrwhelm an actual USN Battleship Surface Action Group, which usually consisted of an Iowa BB, a Ticonderoga CG, a Burke DG, a Spruance DD, 3x Perry FGGs, and a Sacramento AOE. Ill bet that double those Russian ships would be a fairly even match.

[@ДмитрийМехов]

one submarine with a nuclear torpedo

[@stephenmichalski2643]

🤔🤔🤔how realistic is it the Iowa would be alone n unsupported? Please dont turn into Binkovs battles😒😒😒

[@JohnWilliams-sq7cj]

Totally unrealistic

[@matthewstefancin6972]

Gotta check out the Battleship New Jersey and their research about all of this

[@rogeranderson8116]

Hi Cap, Tomahawks can and should be made to maneuver to their targets. A subsonic missile flying straight and level to its target is like a Spitfire doing same in the Battle of Britain. Advertised range of antiship Tomahawks includes zig zagging and search mode, this was as designed in the 70's, so newer missiles should do this even better.

[@ycplum7062]

The Slava is an air defense cruiser and Sovremenny it destroyer equivalent. That is why teh Slava survived in the 2nd scenario. I wwould have ignored the smaller vessels and went after the Slava and the Sovremennys first with the later portion of the salvo going against the Kirov and the Udaloys only. The others are older, smaller, and less valuable in my opinion. Also, the Iowa could have turned almost head on to the incoming salvo. It would have concentrated teh damage to the front, rather than dristribute over the entire length of the ship. You end up with damage saturation. Basically the bow gets totally destroyed so additional missiles can't do much more serious damage. I doun't know, but it just might keep the ship afloat.

[@danielkleiner7369]

You didn't fire the harpoons

[@grimreapers]

Not enough range.

[@ivorharden]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="422">7:02</a> thats is where they would have gone according to the internet. There was talks of exchanging turret 3 for VLS in the 80s. (There was also talks for two angled flight decks for a USMC harrier squadron aswell).

[@ActuallyJamie]

Next round, don't tell them to fire everything at once. This keeps happening to where no matter what it over saturates the air space which is not what would most likely happen. You also have to track your own and so when EVERYONE fires EVERYTHING it makes the AI lock up and then it's not going ti be as effective and juat be overwhelmed.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

You can hold shift after selecting salvo 8 and then click on every ship to que the attacks.

[@theonlyegg]

Never heard Cap genuinely laugh like that shallow water sinking.

[@FleetDefenderRA5]

Wow! Thank you!

[@jimmcneal5292]

What it also means is that if Iowa got its main guns removed and VLS installed instead of them it would be very formidable ship

[@theworsthokage3015]

Wish the battle ship wasn’t always alone… I swear these fights are always out of balance. We already know how capable the ussr ships are.. make the fights fair add some support frigates or something.

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

Whoever did the sound effect for Russian missile launch loading cycles included a serial killer like “ssssshhhhhhhhhh” - anyone else hear it? I can’t unhear it

[@Architraz_PHX]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="940">15:40</a> Just a periodic reminder that Friendly Fire isn't. Nothing like raking your flagship's superstructure with CWIS.

[@thomashenshallhydraxis]

That would be crazy. A Iowa on its way by itself; 10 ships jump it without prior warning. To then have sunk two ships; and critically damage two other ships? Maybe even three? Even slight damage to a boat takes awhile to fix.

[@jamessmith5266]

no one is saying it so I will..... 4 1990s iowas vs the same fleet?👀I just want to see the bbs win ahahaha

[@jamison884]

Some mods were just released to mimic various variants of the Arleigh Burke all the way up to Flight IIA at the moment, so I sent a message over to Cap, and I'm hoping he will allow for another modded video to compare the various flights and see how they perform. :)

[@barrylinkiewich9688]

It'd be interesting to see the VLS Iowa with a couple aegis escorts, maybe a Ticonderoga and 3-4 Arleigh Burkes. Based on this I'm thinking there would be an awful lot of new coral reefs on the Russian side.

[@griffis705]

where are the Iowa's escorts'?!?!?

[@normanhuman114]

I guess we forgot the the Iowa class has 9 x 16in guns. If she closes in the first battle nobody lives.

[@PaulSmith-zx2ru]

Could the Iowa have launched her land attack missiles slightly ahead of her anti ship missiles as a diversion and to use up the Russian defences after all in real life she would know from her AWAC she wasn't surviving this encounter I also think she would have steamed full ahead towards the Baltic fleet to give as small a target as possible and her best defense 6 16" shot gun's

[@maxcaysey2844]

I very much doubt a single missile is enough to mission kill an Iowa class battleship! I mean it was basically build to brawl against other battleships. At least the legacy stuff was. The modern additions not so much ofc. While speed was prioritized over armor its still a very armored ship and modern missiles are not build for battleships. Granted, a lucky hit is a lucky hit, but on average this battleship should be able to tank a multiple P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) missiles and still be at to at least to have her main and secondary guns firing! Also, remember that any 1990+ version would have upgraded versions of both CIWS and EW-suit, which should in theory be able to scramble and take out more missiles... Lastly, the Iowa should have accelerated to flank speed as soon as it saw the Russian fleet...

[@anthonysacco5010]

The Iowa's were the fastest ships in the fleet next to the Nimitz class.. The Iowa's would beat the battle group into the Persian Gulf by 3 days

[@AuraKnightTheLucario]

hey cap stealth17 posted a guide on how to publish a mission

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@jamesvanderpoel2135]

Cap I have never and will never buy DCS or Sea Power but you live through me I love your videos they are amazing. That said please do a video on the battle off Sanmar with a Arleigh Burke

[@Umbreona]

The Iowa would not be all alone though. Let's see if it would be a better investment, like a carrier, with its support fleet protecting it.

[@FNR]

Is there any technical data on the expected performance of any of these sea-skimmers vs battleship belt armour? I buy a superstructure or top-attack deck hit being damaging, but an impact on 12" of belt armour (never mind the armoured bulkheads behind it) I would expect to do little more than scratch the paint. Those missiles don't have armour-piercing warheads the way the projectiles the armour array was designed to defeat did.

[@highlanderknight]

Wonder if in reality the Iowa wouldn't fire her 16 inch guns into the ocean creating shell splashes into the air to possibly deflect incoming missles, or if that is even a realistic scenario.

[@Revener666]

Is that the 5" shells passing by the the missiles a few times? Shouldn't the proximity fuze explode and kill them or ar the missiles too fast.

[@Devydev305]

I would like to see this again with 2 Iowa's or with 1 Iowa and 1 or 2 Ticonderoga's would be interesting to see

[@StKapiVru]

But can we simulate russian ineptitude and lack of maintenance? Like the moskva that couldn't use comms and radar at the same time, with it's autocannons only working in manual, and complete lack of damage/fire control. Also russian ships tend to spontaneously catch fire and lose propulsion. Another example is their stolen aircraft carrier. That thing's engines are shot and it couldn't leave port without a tug to accompany it since it broke down all the time, plus the multiple fires on board, and the hull so corroded due to lack of maintenance, that now it basically can't move under it's own power anymore

[@waffle3632]

Yeah tomahawks lock onto the largest radar signature in view and unlike the ship wrecks there is no autonomous retargeting and retasking to different targets.

[@camarols6712]

I don't understand why they dumbed down the American ships like they're not powerful the game takes away the full power of American Navy

[@rodgemic]

I love these videos but something always feels off with the American close in systems and after watching so many videos of Russian ships getting hit by slow-moving basically cessna's turn drone I think they're defenses are a little too high😂

[@jaelwyn]

Next up: Space Battleship Yamato vs. an entire fleet of Kamchatcas

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

Hey cap the real Iowa’s weren’t decommissioned in the 90s they served all the way into the 2000s with the last iowa class battleship being retired in 2011

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@ericvonp]

1990’s battleship had nuclear tipped warheads. 1 tomahawk nuke tipped. Game over. Your computer is wrong!!!!!!

[@GenJackOneill]

i would be really interested to see this same battle, with Iowa being in 16in Gun range. How different the battle would go.

[@unfortunately_fortunate2000]

"how embarrassing for her" lmao she's now a navigational landmark

[@JonathanSchattke]

the model is wrong, none of those missiles should get through the Iowa's citadel. Or turret barbettes, or turrets. Or bridge.

[@robertopiedimonte2078]

Don't know Iowa radars how many targets can track, but for sure you can't manage 52 Vampires limited by channels firing control radar are available. As modern navies are showing only solution is active guided missiles like SM-6 (Aster, ESSM II, HQ-9, S-300, SM-2 Block IIIC, ect.)

[@maxlin3442]

HQ-9 and S-300 are SARH missile

[@robertopiedimonte2078]

@maxlin3442 their latest variant are active too... If you are searcing for native missiles ship launched only Aster and SM-6 where designed alike. I forget to mention in both list CAMM. There are other option for example french VL Mica that among different guidance system has the active radar too. P.s.: I specified the SM-2 because it's personal. I missed the block IIIC variant so I was not aware SM-2 could be active too, but someone give me a lesson about. That's why I know it by name 🤣

[@maxlin3442]

@robertopiedimonte2078 None of their varient on Wikipedia are ARH

[@robertopiedimonte2078]

​@@maxlin3442 check for HQ-9C or active radar variant for S-300, but even easier have a look to chinese Type 55 and find a fire direction radar 🤣, like on new american Frigate the Costellation there isn't. They'll use only active anti-air missiles. Russia is pushing more on ground system cause they lack ships, like the Aegis one, to track and engage multiple targets at once. Now the limit is how many priority targets your system is capable to track: half will be targets the other half missiles! All these wonderful capabilities will mean nothing if drones will leak under the cupola of area defense coverage!!! Otherwise merchant ships must have their point defense on board and don't know if it is possible to manage such a thing.

[@ser43_OLDC]

@@maxlin3442 The 40N6 can use ARH or SARH seeker. And the HQ9 best missile uses an IR seker like the rim66 bockIIIB

[@themax9913]

I wonder how this same baltic fleet would fair against a flight 3 DDG or two, armed with SM6 and ESSMs.

[@robertgarrett5009]

This refit also included a flight deck and a wing of marine harriers.

[@TheFoulMouthNews]

There was actually two refits/modernization proposals. One was for the battlecarrier and the other was to convert the Iowas into missile launch platforms. Ryan Szimanski, the curator of Battleship New Jersey came across some new old documentation on the 90s modernization of the Iowas very recently. Both removed the rear turret and barbette for the space necessary to do them. Beyond that, they depart from each other substantially. With the battlecarrier, it only would've gained a few more missiles but not an amount to write home about. You could count the number of launchers on one hand even if it had a finger or two missing. The flight deck and things necessary to support flight operations took up most of the space gained from the turret and barbette removal. The missile launch platform refit/modernization, it would've replaced the area where the barbette was with if memory serves well over 100 missile launch tubes. Going by what I remember from Ryan Szimanski's videos on this, I believe both modernization options were also supposed to updated their close in weapons systems as well similarly. He was also talking about how the Navy was considering doing both of them in the 90s. One Iowa was to get the battlecarrier treatment while the other 3 got the missile launch platform one. From what he had found in the documents, I guess they were leaning towards making New Jersey the battlecarrier. Hope this info helps.

[@dalelowery3164]

thank you.

[@level98bearhuntingarmor]

As much as I love the 5"/38s in their heyday, it sorta hurts to see them on a super modernized Iowa

[@nachoakajrod]

So one ship on its way to be decommissioned takes on a fleet and takes half of them down and forces them to expend all of their munitions. Then another one sails up😂😂😂😂😂

[@DrRussian]

I'd love to see all 4 of the Iowas with this refit vs a fleet. I also believe that the Iowa in the 1st match was still combat capable, and could have won that.

[@quantM_]

Not sure how much sense it makes for the Iowa to use a balanced tomahawk ashm and tlam loadout

[@HAL_9001]

Slava class will always find the bottom. :P

[@cupcakeinvasion5674]

This configuration would be an insane expeditionary escort/fire support vessel.

[@markwirez]

Used in 4 ship sets and the different loadouts (1 anti-air/2 mixed/1 strike) gives you the best defense and most area denial capabilities, and 4 Iowa really take out multiple Kirovs easily. 1 strike Iowa has MORE loadout THAN a combination of two SSGN VLS Ben Franklin's with 112 vls slots each.

[@daniellee5192]

Fun boom boom, but no battleship goes out by itself. Its defensive capability comes from cruisers, frigates, and destroyers. Would you send a carrier out unescorted?

[@AlphaGatorDCS]

does the friendly gun cross-fire damage the ships?

[@grimreapers]

I think so.

[@jaelwyn]

Definitely saw plenty of painful "helping" from other ships on the RU side in the first round...

[@whitenoise25]

The sequence beginning @ <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1294">21:34</a>

[@billrich9722]

Weirdness of the programming aside, looks like the Iowa did pretty well.

[@davidkearns3096]

In the end, 1 IA. took out 3 Russians, but it took 10 Russians to take out 1 IA. Why not try the IA. vs. the 3 Russians it defeated. That sounds like a fair fight. What do you think?

[@FlordiaMan14]

Is it just me or are the soviet missiles insanely satisfying to watch launching. The VLS just turns on god mode, what a great piece of engineering.

[@Fakename-ub8pw]

Maybe the results would have been better if the Iowa fired its TLAMs just ahead of the TASMs. Just saying.

[@benjaminmitchell7767]

I know the armor isn't fully modeled - but are these missiles even using shaped charges? I think most are blast frag. And even if they are shaped charges are they enough to punch through a 12 inch armored belt? It seems like damage would be mitigated a lot.

[@jeffreyr4560]

Anyone else curious about the amount of friendly fire the Russians had in this engagement?

[@dfsdude]

Just makes me think about how crap our ASM's were in the 80's. We were so impressed with Tomahawks navigating through Baghdad, meanwhile the rooskies were developing mach-3 ASMs. I mean, IDK if would matter a bit, but you could've run a sim with the Iowa within gun range just for kicks. Also, I think the modular nature of CIWS made the navy kind of lazy, just bolting them on ships instead of making something a little more capable (reloading, longer barrels, things that could be accomplished if mounted in a turret).

[@TheRealSteve42]

This is really fascinating how potent of a warship this still would be even today had this upgrade occurred, with the potential to add even more VLS cells. Did this upgrade plan to have AEGIS and SPY-1? Too bad the operating costs and upkeep for these ships is just too high for it to be worth it. I wonder if just salvaging basically just the hull for a new ship would be worth anything, with nuclear power?.... I don't know.

[@chrischros8790]

Propbably not. You'd basically have to construct it anew if that makes sense. Upgrades can only be done to a certain extent. The idea itself is fascinating but not realistic.

[@donchaput8278]

Would just need to build a new ship, cost of retrofitting and operational manpower is too high for existing ships. You could do 2 dual turreted 16" auto loaders and then an insane amount of VLS as a Battleship. Nuclear is not an option though for any ship designed to take significant damage. If you make it lightly armored and stealth (Missile Cruiser) you could make it nuclear (like a big Zumwalt), but a fleet of Zumwalts with the VLS mod is really the way to go so that you have your arsenal spread out. Too bad there are only 3, and they put that dumb turret system on it. Should have been VLS based from the start.

[@jimmymcgoochie5363]

Can you fire land attack missiles at coordinates? If so, could a massive salvo of land attack missiles acting as decoys could make the proper anti-ship missiles more effective?

[@wernerviehhauser94]

with sea skimmers that close to each other, the shrapnel cloud from hitting a few of them might be a huge problem for the rest. Is that accounted for in the sim?