USA vs China: To Sink a Carrier

[@charlesdecker2680]

Hey man, retired marine here. Stumbled across this channel last night. Absolutely loved both videos. I noticed however that you only have two videos posted over the last 6 months. I don’t know if it’s because you became disinterested or the fact that it takes a long time to produce these videos, but I do sincerely hope you keep pushing out content. This was fantastic.

[@HypOps]

Thank you for your service! I'm certainly not lost interest, these videos take time to make and I've also taken my sweet time learning and rethinking my process which will pay off in better quality videos in the future. I intend this to be the last major dry stretch and intend to ramp up upload frequency very soon. Next video will be out in about a weeks time.

[@ShingoShojiPL]

@@HypOps Jus subbed and waiting. I'm very interested in these types of games and videos, recently I joined my country army and want to learn about modern tactics and strategy, and let me tell you- your videos are great when we talk about capturing atmosphere of modern conflict. Great learning experience.

[@HypOps]

Modern conflict and the possible strategy and tactics behind them is absolutely fascinating, I'm surprised my sort of video hasn't already been done before. I'll do my best to fulfill this niche. Next video drops on Dec 4th!

[@forfun5238]

@@HypOps In a real war, why would chinese subs launch a torpedo?? subs can launch antiship missiles staying atleast 70-100 km away from a warship or a carrier.......launching a torpedo might be risky coz the sub might get detected

[@mirekslechta7161]

If anything like that would ever happened, than China might go full power against USA together with Russia.. USA would look worse than if Yelowstone would have erupted again (After 600 000 years long pause.) So what?

[@thomaspinney4020]

Writing as a retired Naval Captain, I found this simulation to be inaccurate, especially concerning ASW, antisubmarine warfare. Traveling at 25 knots neither the submarine nor the DD could passively detect one another. And ASROC rockets with their MK 54 torpedoes are fired singly as the MK 54 sonars interfere with one another. There are other inaccuracies as well in the air war. Still, it was an interesting video. The end results are probably accurate.

[@stanmarks3950]

Welcome to KZbin land, where factual technological limitations are merely obstacles that get in the way of telling a fun story. None the less, interesting. While he does not have update knowledge of all technical aspects of the weapon systems, his presentation carries a significant level knowledge. He is limited in making assumptions that are untested (but merely assumed). Also the human factor does not appear to play the part, as if the conflict was being played out by the bots.

[@patrickyeung9432]

@@stanmarks3950 Hbomb is untested in war too.

[@istoppedcaring6209]

I assume they may be, even if modern aircraft carriers would be ten times tougher than their ww2 counterparts those were routinely sunk using a couple of torpedos and armor piercing bombs, it stands to reason that even a single modern anti ship balistic missile might be able to cripple a modern AC, and if not one, two or three certainly could if you were to ask me a modern war would swiftly see equipment simplify, missiles would be produced as they are as well as having many simplified ones introduced, planes would largely be replaced with drones and mass production of decent planes would be prefered over slow production of superb aircraft, perhaps even more importantly, massive cargo ships would immediatly become obsolete and instead a large fleet of much smaller cargo ships, perhaps the size of liberty ships would be created logistics and infrastructure would win the day, any side that can continually produce weaponry and ships would win, in this case the US stil has an advantage, massive domestic resources+ wider north and south America+ Europe+ Asian allies,... would all happily supply the US, Nato would likely join in the war, Russia would likely sell to China, but they would not outright declare support for them, perhaps they would call for an end to the conflict, Russia follows the primakov doctrine which has as main goal the end of a single superpower in favour of many centers of power on earth, when Beijing falls the greatest rival of the US falls with it, if somehow Washington dc does then the Chinese wil likely be an even more agressive superpower than the US had been,

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

@@patrickyeung9432 . . . I don't think anyone wants to be testing them in war. The sad thing is, the Chinese people are going to be destroyed when this happens, and probably the rest of us will die too. The dictators there honestly are making the very same mistake the Japanese made. "America won't fight". They will you know. And EVERYONE will help them, and NO ONE will help China.

[@billyjoejackson5477]

@@patrickyeung9432 nuke bombs have been used in war... The U.S. is the only country on the planet to drop nukes on people..the Chinese forget that little detail...lots of Chinese young people that don't know history..Japan had the same ideology about their military and nationalistic attitude..it didn't fare well for them..china will suffer the same fate..only far worse..and not one country will help them..oh..may be one country would..the U.S. would...they would help rebuild china..

[@warhorse9347]

I'm a sailor attached to a fighter squadron, and i've been deployed to the south china sea. This kind of situation was always in the back of my mind, and the way this was portrayed is so accurate to how I believe it would go down its scary. You really know your stuff, this video was fantastic. Frightening to think about, but fantastic none the less.

[@calypsohandjack9278]

No Chinese ever called me a cracker, fuck the anti white USA. As an Iraq veteran I got the hugest boner watching the USS Ronald Regan getting plastered. Can't wait until a foreign country destroys the US government. 🖕

[@TheMonotoneMan]

thank you for your service

[@warhorse9347]

@@skullwy8494 cus you saw what happened in the middle east when we werent there to stop the taliban. They took over almost instantly. Same goes for China. They have been trying to take over countries and claiming international waters as their own for years. We are there to stop them from being hostile towards our allies. There is no provoking, thats why there hasnt been war. We are just there to let them know if they try to take over our allies, we will be there to stop them.

[@warhorse9347]

@@skullwy8494 yeah dude stuff that happened nearly half a decade ago is my generations fault lol. my gen was trying to clean up the mess, but it is what it is. people were mad when we were there and they are mad now that we left. cant win either way but dont sit here and say if china was unchecked by the US they wouldnt try and take everything they can get their hands on. Just look at Russia v Ukraine. China v Hong Kong. China v Taiwan. Geopolitics isnt simple. my country is not free of criticism, and neither is yours.

[@warhorse9347]

@@skullwy8494 thats a lot of words, too bad im not reading em

[@RuskiVodkaaaa]

Damn, didnt know bro had the script for 2024

[@joeblowe3180]

This video is so biased in terms of China. It's pretty clear this channel has an agenda, and you fell for it

[@MalzysFoldraankonid]

@@joeblowe3180I wouldn’t say so he says at the start that this isn’t a full carrier fleet so it’s not completely accurate

[@MalzysFoldraankonid]

@@joeblowe3180the US prides themselves on their carriers and even if it was not needed the carrier would have a full strike group especially through the South China Sea as a show of force to China

[@floatyboi4390]

Did we watch the same video​@@joeblowe3180

[@117-0]

@@joeblowe3180 Fun fact. The Chinese comments say that Biden must write him cheques personally. The American comments say that he's biased towards the Chinese. He's managed to piss off both sides lmao.

[@mivan5652]

I find it hard to believe the US attack submarine played no role in this battle

[@Hyperious_in_the_air]

or that the US assets in Guam, the Marianas, and the Philippines didn't do anything. CSG's also roll with way more surface combatants than this, especially if they're shooting the south china sea gap.

[@alexalbrecht5768]

⁠@@Hyperious_in_the_air the full strength of CSG 5 includes 3 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and 9 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. Armed with modern SM-3 anti ballistic missiles the DF-21 strike depicted in this scenario would almost certainly have been completely intercepted.

[@garysanderson5774]

@@LeviBulgerthere is no US base in Vietnam or the surrounding region. They have to wait hours from the one in Guam and Japan if it's in range

[@felipemendoza9393]

That sub carries nukes - you can imagine what happens next 😅

[@GordonFreeman-sl6pi]

@@felipemendoza9393 Shanghai erased from the map. 2 hours before Washington and New-York. What a victory, Americans really showed them, lol. enjoy the United Craters of America if you think China wouldn't be ready to retaliate.

[@jungtaemin1639]

Its mind-blowing how easily things can escalate, and the fact that it didn't for almost 80 years is even more so

[@michaeljohnson4258]

That is because neither country wants to destroy Earth using nuclear weapons

[@euunul]

Simply because either side knew it's oponent capabilities and didn't push too hard and engage in behavior that could lead to miss judgment. When US put its carriers between mainland and Taiwan in mid 90s China backed down not to escalate into a war with US. Now days, considering overwhelming superiority of Chinese forces near China's shores no carrier would put itself in the middle of SCS in case of conflict brewing around those islands. And certainly no destroyer would engage in foolish provocations as freedom of navigation. US is most likely to retreat to a safe distance and wait and fight from there. Safe distance meaning at least outside the combat range of Chinese aircraft.

[@euunul]

@Jack Sung but not when there are high tensions like in the scenario of this video. In fact in the last months US and UK ships actively avoided crossing teritorial waters claimed by China (near the islands in SCS). At any sign of possible hostilities US ships would retreat beyond first island chain/in Japan sea, because in SCS they would be sitting ducks unable to resist a saturation attack.

[@fulcrum2951]

@Jack Sung i doubt the inaccuracy will stay the same permanently

[@euunul]

@Jack Sung China does not rely solely on DF21/26, China has thousands of cruise missiles in the area. And could track and paint target on CSG without their AWAC ever leaving the cover provided by land based AA defense systems.

[@NobodyMinus]

Fun video; a note of constructive criticism on the Type 39 bit: A submerged submarine is going to have pretty much no way to detect missile launches unless it actually has masts up. Particularly if it were attempting to be discrete and stay under the layer, it would probably have no idea that a surface action had even taken place. I guess they might hear the debris hit the water, but I don't think they'd start shooting based on some distant and not easily identifiable splashes.

[@burningphoneix]

The submarine was very shallow in the water and not under the layer. The reason it knew what happened on the surface was because Chinese ISR assets were relaying it info.

[@NobodyMinus]

@@burningphoneix Using what? A 700 foot VLF antenna? It's still a submerged submarine; no practical surface ISR asset is communicating with it in anything like real time unless it has a mast up.

[@burningphoneix]

@@NobodyMinus C:MO models a C2 network where all units are constantly sharing information together in a "comms cloud" so the ISR assets are shunting it up the chain to be sent to sub later. It's a bit simplistic since its almost "borg-spotting" like in RTS games but it can be degraded with electronic jamming. In the video, it cuts immediately but the time in the scenario shows that 15 minutes have passed since the shootdowns of the JH-7s. The submarine doesn't start shooting immediately or in real time to the attack. That being said, it introduces a new problem to the scenario: The only way the Sub would know what happened is to receive the info directly from Naval command and that info wouldn't come without instructions on how to proceed next. They would not leave it to the crew to decide amongst themselves.

[@engineeringvision9507]

@@NobodyMinus That and the very unrealistic assumption that the entire Chinese airforce are only good for human wave attacks. That is a really dangerous assumption in reality.

[@scalywing1]

The biggest oversight is saying that a Yuan class sub is able to shadow a DDG that is traveling at 25 knots. Simply not possible. But yes, the sub wouldn’t be able to communicate at all, unless it used a mast, or some type of VLF wire based antenna.

[@saltyroe3179]

Seawolf: survives sinking of CBG. Sinks PRC group.

[@lanceclement4087]

Seawolf solos them all

[@wizzzer1337]

this is actually terrifying, how much stronger war machines are compared to the human body. imagine yourself a sailor on any of those ships, or a pilot in any of those air battles- your life gone, your body disintegrated in seconds and most of the time you have nothing to do against it. thousands of lives lost in mere seconds.

[@rg500delta]

Have you read the book "japanese detroyer captain" ? Just one of many to capture the brutal nature of ship to ship combat. Whether you're vaporised by a missile or if you catch a 5" shell, unpleasant business either way.

[@nukekilla432]

Yeah,imagine being a recruit in basic and your drill beats you with a 30rnd 223 stanag mag

[@Salaci]

@@nukekilla432 Speaking from experience?

[@nukekilla432]

@@Salaci not mine. But one that a brother has

[@georgethompson1460]

@Jordan Winders aaaaaand emp's the drone fleet.

[@tippa7328]

Small detail, but i really appreciate how you took the time to research the tones of the chinese words. I know it's not much especially to people who don't speak the language, but it's something i personally really really like, it really speaks volumes to your dedication to getting things right and accurate

[@pacervault3350]

Wow, this really took me back to my time training in carrier strike groups as a member of the US Coast Guard. (Yes, the Coast Guard routinely partyicipates in Naval Training Ops). Thrilling and terrifying at the same time.

[@dominuslogik484]

I imagine in the case of a full blown war the Coast guard may be utilized in an auxiliary role to the US navy so it makes sense to have cross organizational training so personnel could be shuffled around in a pinch.

[@themacker894]

Nice video and scenario. The thing I see missing is another key component in the US arsenal - EW. All carriers have dedicated EW wings, and it seems the first goal of the US CV group would be to disappear and likely turn south at high speed. Continuing to head north with nothing but AA for defense makes no sense, considering China's overwhelming numerical superiority.

[@guillaumelalonde7945]

I agree that the EW component would play a big part, but since we don't really know the capabilities of modern EW systems it's hard to model it.

[@李白-m1m]

中国也有自己的电战机，还有无法被干扰的量子通讯卫星

[@gravis2000]

@@李白-m1m 右量子通信衛星ONE衛星於2016年發射升空，目標在進入軌道后5分鐘。

[@JohnDoe-gn3rg]

⁠@@李白-m1mquantum communication? That just means radio with a fancy synonym 😂

[@FishbedMyBeloved]

​@@李白-m1m一切都可能被干扰。如果你认为中国设备在某种程度上不受干扰，那么你需要停止宣传。没有什么是无敌的。

[@antonleimbach648]

I was a Fire Control tech on a DDG in the 1990’s. There is no way this scenario even gets off the ground. First of all the Capitan of the destroyer who loses his nerve would not be able to just start launching missiles while he’s standing on the bridge. Secondly launching “white birds” or live missiles goes through its own chain of command. To start a war because one person freaks out, even the skipper, is not possible.

[@nibs991]

29:50 will say this

[@tryanniuszhin2795]

@@nibs991 you fool, you think he watched the whole thing?

[@nibs991]

@@tryanniuszhin2795 gosh darn it aren’t I the biggest silly in history. Sorry for the D word.

[@saybrowt]

@@nibs991 Then what is the point if this video? I thought it was to explore/wargame actual potential (future) scenarios. Also imo "that" wasn't said, it was only said that this is a simplification. If you take that disclaimer as stating that, then you'e taking it as "This video is a load of nonsense" in which case I'm once again asking: What is the point of this video?

[@maquettemusic1623]

@@saybrowt Because it's fun. Maybe he enjoyed making it. It's a free video on KZbin, not the fucking Naval Academy lmao.

[@angsumanchakraborty]

The summary of the simulation is that magazine depth determines the outcome. The strategy then is to deplete missiles with low value targets (drones?) and then mounting attack, overwhelming with volume.

[@fludblud]

Pretty much, it was a mistake to not continue with the Arsenal Ship concept following CNO Jeremy Boorda's suicide in 1996. Not only would the US Navy have retained the missile per vessel advantage now lost to the Chinese Type-055 Renhai Class Cruisers, but they also would've been the first US ships to be laid down with the BB designation since the cancellation of the BB-71 Louisiana.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

I suspect drone swarms are in their niche are at or approaching the epoch of their effectiveness before high energy weapon systems become more commonplace. So, now is the time to use them in terms of near peer warfare (although there will always be a use for them in providing numerical advantages like you note). Of course, for a lot of regional conflicts and against guerilla warfare, they'll remain a staple.

[@de0509]

@@aymonfoxc1442 so the drones will function like missiles? Whats the difference then?

[@derek96720]

That's part of what China is focusing on, with their wings of retrofitted aircraft that now act as trash drones to soak up enemy munitions.

[@480darkshadow]

@@de0509 Attrition, 3 million dollar missile wasted on a 1 million dollar drone is net loss of two million dollars at the end of the day.

[@goregalore_]

The biggest thing that I would consider an inaccuracy was the lack of escort for the CV. In a situation like this, we would likely rely on our allies to pick up the slack on patrol duties and even if they didn’t it would be unimaginable to have a 2 billion dollar asset with hundreds of millions worth of additional assets so poorly protected so close to the OPFOR

[@MysticEagle52]

At the very least id assume allies would intercept incoming missiles

[@BITStudioCode]

True, japan and maybe south korea would probably help since if it doesn't there would be consequences.

[@EnglishScripter]

True, in 2021 I'm pretty sure the British had a Carrier group out there too.

[@mop330]

they would still end up as an artificial reef

[@Joh1002mm]

This channel is waiting to blow up. The quality production and research are excellent. There’s a lot of technical information that’s not the most digestible out there, so this is a step towards informing the public. This’ll probably be up there in terms of reach along binkov or shadow cabal

[@HypOps]

Thank you for your high praise! We will continue to grind and put out bigger and better episodes. We aspire to have our technical analysis as good as anything currently on KZbin and yet still be approachable and enjoyable to the public.

[@fraznofire2508]

@@HypOps I agree with Voxy, I give it a year from now before you have 100K subs

[@everydayperson8372]

@@HypOps Make more vids!!!

[@LWRC]

How is it even possible for US vessels to travel under freedom of navigations while not turning on radar crucial for self defense purposes?!!

[@fraznofire2508]

@@LWRC radar is a military counter-measure and can be used for espionage purposes, so it's banned when under FONOPs

[@SkyWKing]

I think the US Navy must have already run this scenario hundreds of times and they also concluded a CSG is indefensible in China's A2/AD bubble. They must have used more realistic expectations for chinese assets. In this simulation it was pretty much a slaughterfest against chinese assets and they only won with magazine depth. This is the reason why USN is going with much longer range assets like hypersonics and distributed lethality to prevent exactly this kind of scenario where few assets get overwhelmed in a bloody mid-range melee.

[@willwozniak2826]

Interesting here that the famous Carrie Killer Missiles were used here and are counter missile what ever it was managed to take a few down, even though they accomplished there mission.

[@germsage6726]

The assumption is based on IF US air assets in SEA do not react to the engagement. The amount of time they have is just as good as the number of airframes China can deploy from the mainland.

[@Zetalpa187]

If I'm not mistaken the given scenario also leaves out some fairly robust weapon systems that would have a fair chance at eliminating threats such as CIWS, but also leaves out the fact that China has little naval warfare experience and have constant quality control issues with assets. On top of that China is constantly overstating their capabilities when in reality, they have very few if any actual advantages. This scenario is VERY limited in scope and assumes the absolute best case for China and worst case for the US, and while the potential tactics may be sound, the real world version of this would be quite different. That's not to say it is a terrible breakdown, for this exact scenario it may well be fairly spot on, however, the given scenario is highly unlikely to occur at all.

[@Mithril_Antimarr]

the decision to get closer to China by the CSG is unrealistic, any US Admiral would realise this would be suicide and immediately headed south once all threats in the immediate area were addressed

[@joaomoraes9323]

@@Zetalpa187 By this point even american sources don't expect the kind of slaughter against the chinese showed on this video. It's not like they're just waiting while americans do military research, they do their own and are capable enough to be seen as a threat by the USA. Also, people put a lot of enphasis on "China has not fought a war" as if the US experience of fighting will 100% be the difference and makes China's war unwinable when if the anything the difference will the technological.

[@gtagamerman1234]

Just want to state, I’m 21. I’m not current military, but these videos are so well put together and definitely the best of there kind on KZbin in my opinion. You deserve a lot more credit and views then you currently get, but I’m sure you’ll blow up without a doubt. Thank you for how much you research and put in to these videos! The visual simulation also just puts the cherry on top! I look forward to seeing you grow and view more content.

[@HypOps]

Glad you enjoyed it! I try to make my videos approachable to anyone with even a casual interest in modern conflicts. Any topic can be made both informative and entertaining if presented well.

[@bc-guy852]

@@HypOps Agreed. And you do it well! Success imminent. (Better clear a spot on your wall for the KZbin 100 K plaque!)

[@MasterChief37]

@@disabledu.s.veteran3910 how many of those allies are going to get involved? They have to live with China you don’t.

[@louischau7982]

Too much weeds are going around .

[@warrenpuckett4203]

The problem with Horseshoes, Hand grenades and Nuke rounds is. You do need to be in another zip code when a nukes go off. The other two? Not so much. Then you may suvive a near miss. But the real question how long will that survival be? Actual combat exposure stats are real and pretty much are just enough to complete the mission. That leads to highly trained killers and when my cold dead hands can not pull the trigger any more. Alot will, but but some will just sit and cry in a pool of their own urine. Most .mil are not in it to payback the college loans. Then there is the BTN response to concentrated incoming air threat. Also there is a underwater counter part. Actuall wartime rules of engagement are gone and Earnest E. Evans takes command. If you hear a lot of large underwater screws going at max speed. May want to follow the same direction or opposite depending on what signature.

[@AquaMidget]

This video is explained so well it creates a terrifying precedent for an incredibly realistic and believable scenario for the beginning of WWIII

[@Talishar]

There are a few things that kinda throw a spanner in some key things stated in this scenario. While the ships may not be allowed to use active radar while traversing these areas, they're allowed to use passive radar and standard ESM sensors. The moment those aircraft turned on their active radar emitters, the ships would be instantly notified that they got tagged by said radar and those sensor suites can differentiate and tell the crew that it came from a military aircraft and the approximate direction and range. Once they get pinged with fire-control radar, the entire fleet would go active. Also, unless those planes are submarines, there really isn't a lower radar horizon dead space that they could dive into and stay invisible. Ships since the early days of the Cold War have been using surface skimming anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles and their radars have been upgraded accordingly. Now, the radar may not have the fidelity needed to get a strong firing solution on the aircraft, but they'll still be tracked and their position known. There won't be any "invisible" aircraft sneaking up on the carrier group. Modern US Carrier groups move pretty quickly. Most modern submarines would have issues keeping up with such a group as it moved on the surface, let alone submerged. A submerged sub would be going all head full and would essentially be blind to the carrier. Also, due to the very shallow waters and the high speed, there'd be a very high likelihood that the sub would have been detected much like previous FONOPs have detected Chinese subs trying to shadow them. They get an ASW frigate or Destroyer to play with while they're "shadowing" the fleet. The moment the aircraft launched the missiles and the fleet defended, they would immediately be designating all other non USN vessels in the area as hostile and that sub would have been getting some rocket torpedoes and ASW aircraft devoted to it. They wouldn't be trying to launch torpedoes, they'd be doing everything they can to survive as they'd hear the splash of the torpedoes from the sky and its active sonar going off and would be fighting for their own survival against those torpedoes. The Chinese would know of such tactics as it was what the Russians were trained to do early on in the Cold War. This video also mentioned a U.S. sub, but it magically is just mentioned but never does anything and appears to have been forgotten in the simulation. Then there's the very odd behavior of the pilots. They aren't going to just launch all of their AMRAAMs, call it a day and fly back to the carrier for rearm. They carry short-ranged missiles as well as guns and would continue the engagement even after firing all of their AMRAAMs. The last thing any of them would do would be to fly back and land with the enemy closely following them to their carrier. They also would leave another squad behind, in the air as defense incase anything got passed the first line of interceptors. The carrier would probably stagger its squadrons with newly launched squadrons taking over CAP while the CAP squadron would fly out to engage and unload their payload and come back. The carrier could theoretically keep up a cloud of fighters indefinitely so long as its own stores of missiles held up. During this whole time, the carrier would have turned away and would be fleeing the area to get out of easy range of the shore. The final issue I saw was ignoring the issues with the "hypersonic" missiles. The reason why most nations neglected hypersonic missiles was that by the nature of physics, they have a very limited payload size. Nearly all of the missile's mass is taken up by boosters and fuel as it takes a massive amount of energy to accelerate that mass and sustain that speed long enough for it to be effective. This is why those missile designs need to get into space first, in order to do most of the real acceleration outside of most of the air resisting its acceleration. This leaves the missile vulnerable to conventional EW as it re-enters the atmosphere. That carrier is going to launch its EW aircraft immediately and they're going to lockdown the EW emission spectrum commonly used by fire-control radars as well as neighboring ranges. So you would have a missile the size of an ICBM that doesn't have the benefit of a nuclear payload to allow it to hit much harder than it's volume/mass would normally allow it using conventional explosives. This was why when China made its claims, a lot of folks on the engineering side chortled a bit. The physics of the issue was plain to see when they present something the size of something a little larger than a cruise missile but claimed it had nearly quadruple the payload capability but also had enough fuel/thrust to go hypersonic. Those hypersonic missiles don't have the payload yield that they are claimed to have and would be vulnerable to EW during reentry which would greatly hinder their ability reacquire and correct their course to hit a moving carrier. By the time it got under the EW jamming, the ship could already be outside of its sensor field of view or it'd have to pull a nearly 80G turn to be able to pull an instant 90 degree turn at hypersonic speeds with its purported payload size. In other words, it'd rip itself apart trying to pull off that turn and become ineffective. Hypersonics are good in theory against stationary targets that can't move independent of the Earth's surface as the extra speed potentially allows them to slip past conventional ICBMs and Patriot batteries. They don't theoretically do very well against things moving as the readjustment after reentry requires the missile to pull ridiculous Gs to get itself back on target which would usually result in missile self-disassembly.

[@jenevivelancia3012]

You've confused two types of missile, I noticed you said "re-entered" insinuating that these missiles leave the atmosphere, they do not. In the video air breathing in-atmosphere missiles are used. These missiles don't leave the atmosphere. STOP SAYING THEY REENTER. STOP SAYING THEY REQUIRE FUEL TO GET INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, THESE ARE SEA SKIMMING MISSILES THAT ARE NOT THE SAME AS HYPERSONIC REENTRY VEHICLES USED BY ICBM. Hypersonic missiles use high supersonic and hypersonic recon aircraft to guide them to their target. The energy transfer of a lifting body impacting a carrier deck alone without any payload at all would still be enough to cripple launch and recovery ops. There are no rocket motors or boosters or fuel in a terminal phase lifting body reentry vehicle. As their name implies, they're glide vehicles. I believe you've confused HASM with HGV, a common mistake for someone unfamiliar with the differences in fundamental and operational application. The danger in a conventional shooting engagement involving surface combatants comes not from HGV but from HASM. HGV have a constant link with off-board sensor platforms like the W-Z7 which is designed for continuity of targeting information in an electronic signals denial environment. I agree there are things that are off in this representation. However, I assure you that a Chinese HGV targeted at a carrier group would almost assuredly find and impact it's target. This stance is corroborative with the current architectural ABMD literature and is an opinion shared by Dr. Ashton Carter and the USASMDC/PLARF BMD community in general.

[@Talishar]

@@jenevivelancia3012 Aircraft which the Chinese don't really have, with uplink technology they don't really have. I also wasn't "confused" between the two technologies, because they share the same basic limitation. They still require massive amounts of fuel and boosters to lift that payload off the ground and into the upper atmosphere. The missile's onboard sensors won't be able see anything with all of the EM radiation and its radar won't be functional. Even if it were, it won't have the ability to make any last second corrections as its flight controls are going to be completely G locked. High maneuverability missiles that go slower and with less mass got around this using powerful thrust vectoring to augment flight controls. These were limitations that were noted for years as the U.S. and DARPA have experimented with and tested hypersonic missiles for years. These were the limitations that they noted and found that such missiles would be overly expensive and lack the conventional payload to make them viable. They also lacked the ability to maneuver so would be primarily limited to stationary targets. I also wouldn't trust a single thing Dr. Carter would say in the technical world as he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. The guy's a theoretical physicist and that's about as far away as you can get from engineering in the physics-based disciplines. All his experience in the realm of defense are all political in nature, not technical. He's a politician and he's just doing the same song and dance the military has done since at least the 1920s. Claim potentially adversaries are ahead in order to get Congress to throw them more money. It's worked because they've thrown billions at multiple Defense Contractors since then. It's a false argument of authority without looking at the facts or people showing any healthy skepticism. Neither Russia (which has many more years experience in development of hypersonic missiles) nor China have proven that they can reliably hit a stationary target, let alone a moving one that's actively trying to not get hit while using every defensive tool it has to protect itself. China was still having issues getting these missiles to not blow up on launch or self-destruct on re-entry due to structural failures. The claims made in this video weren't that the CVNs would be slightly inconvenienced with a damaged deck, it was that the single hit would be a game ender. Previous generation carriers that were intentionally scuttled proved that these things can take inordinate amounts of abuse and still keep floating. The Chinese are probably lying about the payload size as the basic physics for the missile size and amount of fuel/thrust required just to get the thing off the ground for its listed mass doesn't work out. The Pentagon and their stooges are publicly going all in with the Chinese propaganda because it's an extremely easy route to boosting their budgets and keeping their defense contractor buddies happy. It's literally the S-200 fiasco all over again which got us the F-35s. They played up the Russian propaganda about the super AA missiles and how we needed a more universal stealth fighter to counter such missiles and how these missiles were better than anything that there could ever be even though many engineers were doubting such claims as they didn't logically play out with even the most basic tenets of engineering at the time. This is that all over again.

[@jenevivelancia3012]

@@Talishar ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CONFUSING WHAT I AM SAYING. I AM TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE CONFUSING TYPES OF MISSILES AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THE PART ABOUT MISSILES NOT "REQUIRING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FUEL." YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ICBMS. PLEASE STOP REPEATING THE SAME THING. ITS INFURIATING. HASM don't leave the atmosphere and Dr Ashton Carter wrote the US's modern missile defense regemine. You have less than no idea what you're talking about and at this point, you're just making stuff up. HGV and HASM are two completely different things and they share exactly none of the supposed boost phase characteristics that you suppose. HASM don't even have a boost phase. You're an imposter.

[@mesoflushy]

@@jenevivelancia3012 if the df-21 could make contact it would do major damage with inertial damage however the last test the Chinese did on that missile missed by 24 miles so it's hard to say whether it would or would not connect with the carrier and I agree with tell Esther that is tough to trust the US government on the capabilities of their adversaries as they are big fans of budgets

[@mesoflushy]

@@Talishar @Jenevive Lancia if the df-21 could make contact it would do major damage with inertial damage however the last test the Chinese did on that missile missed by 24 miles so it's hard to say whether it would or would not connect with the carrier and I agree with tell Esther that is tough to trust the US government on the capabilities of their adversaries as they are big fans of budgets

[@randomrandomnesss2188]

Current active duty sailor and I love your channel. The only thing I would say is that is is HIGHLY unlikely that the Mustin would fire upon those Chinese aircraft due to the captain’s “nerve.” US ships are routinely harassed by foreign aircraft without firing. The only time the ship would fire is if the aircraft deployed weapons against the ship.

[@flyingtanks9313]

Thus the whole situation was averted. Phew

[@nobodyhere1023]

that's why this scenario won't happen...China-Taiwan on the otherhand....

[@MessInMines]

Isn't a weapon lock warning considered an attack ?

[@dznuts123]

or maybe don't send the ships that give the other side a reason to "harass?"

[@NoxIF34]

All it takes is one mistake. Human error is always possible. Human element is always the weakest link of any system.

[@kevinna319]

First time I've ever anticipated a youtube video. Good job dude, ur channel is going somewhere

[@HypOps]

Thank you for your high praise! We will continue to grind and put out bigger and better episodes. We aspire to have our technical analysis as good as anything currently on KZbin and yet still be approachable and enjoyable to the public.

[@GTSA-mk7iz]

I really like how you employed soundtracks from Made in Abyss, such as Dark Reg's theme at around 20:00 to further deliver the grave significance and tension of a situation that can escalate in the blink of an eye. Awesome work!

[@RokeJulianLockhart.s13ouq]

I'm surprised that there would be any overlap between those interested in that story and military tactics. I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice.

[@leeswecho]

For everyone taking the headline at face value, note importantly that the outcome was effectively determined by 0:26, where the USS Ronald Reagan is operating with only three guided-missile escorts, instead of five (or six). since (spoiler) the scenario ends with the CSG running out of missile interceptors.

[@manupontheprecipice6254]

And that's why it fails since it doesn't take into account real world military doctrine and the like, such as Japan and South Korea, and to a lesser extent North Korea, quite literally dogpiling in on that SNAFU. Cool scenario though.

[@donderstorm1845]

@@manupontheprecipice6254 doubt SK would want to get involved. too risky with NK and China that near.

[@MysticEagle52]

​@@donderstorm1845mutual defense treaties. And if the us is pushed out of the area, south korea becomes vulnerable

[@donderstorm1845]

@@MysticEagle52 mutual defense treaty if the US is attacked.. and likely only US territory, not ships in the area. not if China attacks Taiwan and the US defends Taiwan. that's not how mutual defense works. otherwise you'd have an endless chain of countries getting involved and it's not 1914 anymore.

[@crystalball020]

@@MysticEagle52 treaties are never respected 100% of the time

[@nyag1337]

Continue the story telling. It's EPIC

[@HypOps]

We are considering doing a second part where the US comes back and they are NOT happy!

[@samuelheyi7145]

@@HypOps Do It!

[@nyag1337]

@@HypOps a triple CSG would be typical along with help from India, SK. Japan, NATO, and Australia. Remember, due to the high continental shelf, sub warfare is limited off the Chinese coast. Also the US has the means to distrupt the kill chain of the DF 21 causing it to not be able to fix target on a vessel

[@rayraylego770]

@@HypOps please do it i’ve already watched this one like 5 times🙏🙏🙏

[@joyalsajan1168]

@@HypOps Allies can play a key role but imgine if russians came to the chinese rescue...🤧🤧🤯

[@TheLonelyViper]

I really want more in the spratley series

[@Ashadow700]

You know what is a little bit scary about this whole scenario? Throughout all of it, not once would any of the combatants actually have come face to face with another combatant. In fact, most of the time, they wouldn't even have seen any hostile vessels and planes with the naked eye; the "enemy" would have consisted almost entirely of anonymous and emotionless dots on radar screens.

[@MrStevenMosher]

this is damn good job. as an old simulation guy my hat is off to you for the realistic scenario and excellent understanding of Ops and the CAG

[@HypOps]

Glad you enjoyed it! I've got mixed feelings on this video and not 100% happy what the end product. I hope to do a proper multi-part series in the Pacific later in the year so watch out for that.

[@EmbeddedWithin]

@@HypOps😢

[@Charlie-ii5rr]

This battle was lost before it even started. How did they think that one depleted Carrier Group could slug it out with a whole country? By sending a carrier into confined waters, like the SouthChina Sea, or the Persian Gulf, they set it up for disaster.

[@sadddee]

This is like the Ukraine war but with 100s of "ghost of Kiev". Similar endings are also expected for both. In the absence of any ghost-of-Kiev, however, the reality will be even more bitter for the Americans in a fight close to China.

[@TorontoSaurusEx]

Oh no! you sank my battleship !🤣

[@sensibledriver933]

Although the carrier group was sunk significant losses were felt on the Chinese side too. The Americans have a dozen more CV's.

[@TheMythOfTheThickSix]

@@sensibledriver933 the united states can only deploy 3 carrier strike groups at a time.

[@sensibledriver933]

@@TheMythOfTheThickSix that may be true but it won't take too long to send another. Within weeks they are back in the fight.

[@NikhilSingh-mk9kc]

This is insanely good. I have no idea what was happening most of the time but it is incredibly immersive and excellent storytelling ties it together. Good work

[@williamyoung9401]

Reminds me of my days playing Ace Combat. Garuda 1 FTW! =P

[@josephrighter7790]

Current SWO here. Lots of little inaccuracies but best you could do with solely unclassified information. Really great video man.

[@rare_kumiko]

Just happened to find this video, loved it! The narration, editing, everything is so well done, the CM:O visuals work so well too, I didn't expect this level of quality from a channel with half a thousand subscribers.

[@HypOps]

That means a lot! We’re just starting out! You can tell your friends you were here for the beginning!

[@walterneville2625]

THIS VIDEO WAS PRODUCED BT THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OF CHINA.

[@sproge2142]

@@walterneville2625 oh? Are you sure it wasn't produced by the capitalist government of China?

[@thatotherguy9]

This sort of scenario could get dull and clinical, but you gave just the right amount of pacing, narration, editing, and sound design to be ABOSLUTLELY enthralling! Amazing job! Instant subscribe can't wait to see what you make next. Curious if CMO has other nations (Russia/Nato/EU and the Black Sea around Crimea comes to mind) modeled to the extent they have China and the US? Callsigns reporting: Sousa Gallows Hognose

[@bobtank6318]

CMO models everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in the air and naval operations area from post WW2 to the near future. Though some things are inaccurate and the DB can have some errors, it is theoretically possible to simulate any potential conflict that could occur in the modern day.

[@HypOps]

BobTank63 is correct. In my opinion CMO does naval and air units with the highest fidelity. Which is why the conflicts we've chosen so far play well to its strengths although you can theoretically simulate any conflict between from WWII to the near future. And your callsigns have been noted!

[@thatotherguy9]

@@HypOps oh wow, with that level of flexibility and the storytelling prowess on display here, I'm 100% on board for wherever we go next!

[@infinati]

It was very interesting of Clark Air Base, located in the Philippines, to just stand by and watch an aircraft carrier group get sunk. I guess they forgot they were supposed to support our naval operations in the region. It was a nice simulation nonetheless. I found the missile analysis fascinating.

[@vitamemec4708]

Not to mention the other INDOPACOM assets placed in the vicinity of the Philippines

[@crowfeedreactions]

There are no US forces at Clark Airbase.

[@alexmuenster2102]

@@crowfeedreactions "In November 1991, the USAF lowered the U.S. flag and transferred Clark Air Base to the Philippine government. With the U.S. military's withdrawal from Clark, the base was systematically looted by the local population and was left abandoned for several years. [...] In June 2012, the Philippine government, under pressure from Chinese claims to their seas, agreed to the return of American military forces to Clark." - Wikipedia

[@natbacli14]

I'm no expert and not even in the military, but I believe that within minutes after the first shots were fired, US assets from Guam and Hawaii would have been making its way to Clark and other Philippine bases available to them under EDCA to reinforce the carrier strike group. The Philippines is legally bound to assist an ally under their mutual defense treaty with the US. But then again, I could be wrong, and with the way Philippine politics is going I think it would take time before our politicians open our bases even to our allies.

[@crowfeedreactions]

@@alexmuenster2102 Yes. But occasionally hosting US planes is quite different from hosting an entire air wing (even multiple ones) as was the case in the past at Clark. It's simply not equivalent to what we had there before in any way. The areas where we have that are Okinawa and Guam. Perhaps the Philippines will BECOME another key part of that defensive ring as China gets more assertive and capable, but it isn't currently.

[@ivanandriyanov4426]

And it was that battle... A friend become an enemy, A mercenary become a knight, A coward become an Ace.

[@davidlee3499]

nigga this ain't ace combat

[@davidlee3499]

just blips on a radar

[@Two-Checks]

I know it's a sim, but I just felt for those sailors and pilots.

[@usecriticalthinking243]

Yeah all in the ocean for probably a week, if a pause in fighting was made for at least the Philippines to rescue off sides.

[@stuartburton2139]

When the Made in Abyss music started, I got chills. Absolutely genius.

[@ryandebolt6326]

Took me a few minutes after the end to realize this was a youtube video and not a tom clancy movie... Great work dude -Vanilla

[@klubcj]

I miss his books

[@jeffreyzhang1796]

My favorite part about these series is that while both sides act like they are in a war, once the war actually starts none of them do

[@Notaffiliated1]

Hey man, I was on the CSG21 out in this area. Scary to think how quick it could’ve all gone south. Keep up the good work!

[@AsrielDreemurYT653]

Cool

[@joeyglasser2574]

Since 5th gen aircraft are now being integrated into aircraft carriers, I'm very curious how this scenario (or a similar one) would play out with more modern aircraft like f-35 and EA/18 growler. Basically what you did with the s-400 video but in this scenario.

[@engineeringvision9507]

The Chinese air force already has their 5th gen aircraft deployed.

[@joeyglasser2574]

@@engineeringvision9507 true. Maybe we need to see a scenario with both.

[@johnsullivan8673]

@@joeyglasser2574 it’ll be hilarious. Basically everyone loses their in theater airborne ISR within 2 hours. Everyone’s got either LPI or aren’t radiating and the whole thing devolves into a furball and the CSG turns tail and run if they’re lucky enough to not get picked up by Chinese OTH radar. The biggest unknown is how the sub surface engagement looks like.

[@brandonbowerstx]

Grim Reapers just did a full up naval battle between Russia + PLAN vs US and UK carriers.

[@patthonsirilim5739]

maybe a few more kills and less prone to being taken out by pl15 due stealth reducing the range advantage with the extra range of the f35 and stealth capability us might even down some aew surporting the chinese attack but saturation attack on the carrier would still be deadly and without the carrier the f35 would still have to mass dicth in this situation the us csg operating by itself is really sitting duck against this much asset they really need more then 1 csg a 2 csg strike group with extra escort and mainland tanker and aew surport would play out very differently.

[@alanOHALAN]

The whole point of DF-21 is that you don't have to engage the American fighter jets, just take the carrier out right away when the war started.

[@alanOHALAN]

Satellites and advanced warning airplanes, the ones with big dish on its back? @@levilecrone3456

[@levilecrone3456]

The Chinese attacks were meant to drain the American magazines. The only reason any DF-21s got through was because the Americans ran out of interceptors.

[@shawnweed265]

As a retired Army guy and military planner (SAMS), you guys do great work. This was fascinating.

[@HypOps]

Thank you for your praise! More to come. (:

[@shawnweed265]

@@HypOps I look forward to it...so what is the story on your team's background. Are you ex military guys?

[@shawnweed265]

@@HypOps Can't wait. I don't know much about China, but your scenario seems pretty well thought out. I'd like to think that Darpa, NSA, or CyberCommand has developed a TTP to mitigate those threat missile systems, but I just don't know. It's definitely a problem.

[@mirekslechta7161]

If anything like that would ever happened, than China might go full power against USA together with Russia.. USA would look worse than if Yelowstone would have erupted again (After 600 000 years long pause.) So what?

[@onerimeuse]

Right? This is, like, quality s2 wargaming, but with the best possible level PowerPoint and an actually interesting briefing. -former s2 guy

[@CharliMorganMusic]

I love that you chose to start this conflict with a misunderstanding. It really feels like how it would start.

[@kimkeller7210]

Stumbled across this channel tonight and was amazed at the quality and believability of the production. While watching, I found my adrenalin rising and a longing to back in-service (I'm retired). I subscribed immediately. Keep up the great work HypOps...Well Done!

[@napobg6842]

It is amazing how much firepower can a single underprepared carrier strike group bring on the battlefield

[@mafiasquirrel15]

This is horrifying. The loss of life, the absurdity of war, the global and national political consequences and implications. As a foreigner living in China, this is such a big nightmare of mine, and to see it played out is like watching a lit fuse slowly burn down to the bomb

[@tonysofla]

But this conflict looks like both parties agree is a international waters war, and once one side is wiped out, that is it. Attack on civilians on mainland from either side would lead to NO winners.

[@mafiasquirrel15]

@@tonysofla Your right, but also international political implication, relationship straining even more to the brink where any other event could spark something.

[@antiglobaljoel532]

Yeah, the ChiComms are set on intimidating as many nations as possible. The Phillipines and Vietnam lay claim to the Spratly Islands as well. American doesn't intimidate easily, especially sailors and naval aviators.

[@tonysofla]

@@antiglobaljoel532 Name calling is so Vietnam War, btw USA did not win that one.

[@haharrr7018]

Leave xhina and live somewhere else

[@Razgriz_Gundam]

Question, for your Music, did you use something from Made in Abyss?

[@jamesbogart3334]

Yes it's from the new movie

[@puddingpanda3473]

nice profile picture

[@robotontheinternet0122]

I love the realism of the fights and the focus on often left out factors like fighter experience. Amazing video with excellent narrating, hope this channel blows up!

[@WhiteSwan21]

"Everybody has a plan, until he gets punched in the face." - Mike Tyson -

[@historylover7394]

Anybody with a gun vs Mike Tyson. Winner: Anybody, except retards.

[@Raumance]

I haven't seen anyone do this type of detailed simulation. Loving it. I'd say I know a lot compared to your average person but I'm having a hard time following names and assets. So would suggest slowing the pacing at points and providing pictures of what is being referred for easier mental allocation. The pacing is very fast throughout now. Breaking the engagement into more distinct parts. And doing short recaps of the assets involved. And when introducing a new asset make that it's own small segment. Mentour pilot does pacing like this well.

[@PhoenixO8]

I know very little about modern military airframes and missiles so I would have had a better time with pictures 😅. Still for what it was worth, I gasped when the US fighters intercepting the PRC wall launched their missiles (22:40 and 23:17)

[@scifidino5022]

Damn I was at the edge of my chair the whole time. Incredible video and more packing than some movies. Also I really like the way the atmosphere of the scenario was portrayed, no one villain or bad guy, but showing how the series of events was more a tragedy than wanted by anyone.

[@Husker5454]

Not only is this a sick ass video but my man used Kevin penkins made in abyss music .. what a madlad .. i think that was butterfly atmosphere oh and throw in tower of god for good measure top tier !! on a side note the absolute wall of spamrams is hilarious

[@xsu-is7vq]

A question immediately after the aerial engagement segment started. Why didn’t the simulation assumes Chinese aircrafts that launched the longer ranged PL15 would also engage in evasive maneuvers immediately after launching their missiles? Then the US fighters would have to fly into the Chinese missiles for much longer to get into firing range, and PL15 should have more energy when reaching their targets than when AMRRAMS reaching theirs.

[@snakeoo7ca]

100%

[@ionsilver557]

To simulate PLA pilots' lack of experience I think.

[@myopicthunder]

because Murica

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Yeah, I thought the same thing at first but if they evade too early, then they'll have nothing left to do once missiles are locked on (i.e. the energy gained from diving would have been wasted as they will lose speed once at the bottom and climbing back up is a bad idea). US fighters can target low level aircraft very effectivel, so being at sea level is not a reliable defence. Besides, perhaps the US fighters could potentially lower their altitude closer to the enemy as part of preparation for evasive manoeuvres and then their missiles' energy wouldn't be drained as much by the dive. So, although I think HypOps blamed inexperience, but he accidentally had the Chinese pilots do everything right 🤭

[@jayy7842]

Its like because Chinese pilots wanted to fire multiple salvo's rather than just one. The longer range only provides the PLA with the opening shot, but longer range missiles also tend to be less accurate, so shooting multiple salvoes would increase the Pk of the salvoes. However, the tradeoff is that in the time it takes for the PLA pilots to shoot off second and possibly third salvos the F-18's can unload there more accurate, and lighter, AMRAAM's onto the PL-15's. Due to the less weight, the the pilot (or on board flight system) needs less time to compensate for the weight imbalance caused by launching such a heavy missile on such a small plane.

[@quinlanal-aziz6155]

How in the hell did you manage to put this together? That’s amazing.

[@HypOps]

HypOps has great people. Some amazing stuff can be simulated in C:MO and we have just enough storytelling skill to explain it to people.

[@1fast72nova]

@@HypOps what is your background and do you have any sponsorship or otherwise

[@Simons3301]

Bedankt

[@WarrenatCLS]

Callsign “Midget”: Great video. A few things I’m thinking. A) USN would not have so few surface ships protecting a carrier strike group. Would certainly be more Burkes and constellations (destroyers/frigates). B) as last line of defense, you didn’t have any sky sparrow or aegis weapons go after the final aircraft or missiles in their terminal phases. C) the US would likely have more than 1 carrier strike group, or at least a combined larger group with 2 carriers, with squadrons launched staggered, to prevent just as you have aircraft with no weapons or landing during critical attack phases. And lastly D) I’m not as familiar with the area, but the mass ditching heading towards Vietnam, it would seem various filipino islands and reefs would be in range to splash down at or near. But great video. I love these grand theatre-wide simulations.

[@shoktan]

I think the point of this video was to put a CSG in a worst-case scenario. In the beginning of the video he discusses how the USS Ronald Reagan had a minimal escort since no conflict was expected in the simulation. That and the CSG was placed in the most ideal spot for the PLA to attack it. Not bad for a worst-case fight.

[@captainbroady]

@@shoktan also the new Constellation frigates have not been completed as of writing this comment but yes there would be more Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga AEGIS-equipped ships. However, it is possible these ships could have issues with maintenance, and so the number of ships available that could be rushed to a warzone is limited.

[@captainbroady]

@@shoktan and yep nowadays US carrier strike groups have relatively few escorts. Sometimes in pictures and videos you'd see only one destroyer and one cruiser escorting the carrier, other times you'd see more destroyers and cruisers escorting, but thats not always the case unfortunately

[@jerithil]

Yeah realistically if the US got into a shooting war with China in the South China Sea and they only had 1 carrier in the area, they would pull all their major surface units back possibly beyond the Philippines until more reinforcements could arrive. Likely at the start of the war the only things in they would keep in the area would be subs. It is similar to how during the cold war the US doctrine was you needed a 4 carrier force in the Norwegian Sea to fight and survive up there.

[@felixgutierrez993]

I was about to say! It seems silly we would launch all our Hornets and its missiles effectively leaveing the Carrier defenseless...

[@codebasher1]

What happened with the Seawolf? It's job would have been to lock down the location of the Chinese carrier fleet, and deal with it should the gloves come off.

[@AbsoluteZero6714]

I also wanna add that although this might not be modeled, platforms like the MQ-25 will make things interesting because traditional tanker aircraft are big and make easy targets. This leads to my suspicions that the J-20 isn’t designed with the intent to match the F-22 / F-35 in a dogfight, but rather as a stealthy long range assassin meant to take out the enemy’s logistical assets.

[@HypOps]

Yes, I've also read sources that say something very similar regarding the role of the J-20. It's shape appears to be in general most stealthy looking at the front and less so on the sides and especially behind. It's role is likely to approach vulnerable support craft such as tankers and AWACs head on, fire ultra long range PL-15s or PL-21s and duck back out. This will force support craft further further back, decreasing combat aircraft's amount of time they can spend on station and decreasing sortie rates. I enjoy talking to you! Unfortunately KZbin comments section isn't the best way to talk to people interested in these subjects. Please consider joining the HypOps Discord, we have conversations like this every day and I can reply to you more easily!

[@AbsoluteZero6714]

Please send me an invite. :) my ID is AbsoluteZero.

[@HypOps]

I also need the Discord number. I'll just give you the link instead: discord.com/invite/Gk44tvmQPg

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

I doubt the j-20 is as good as they claim given it was made from stolen f-35 secrets and it still has a bit of a reputation so i can't imagine what the J-20 is like

[@pangeanbordelo3071]

F-22 aren't built to dog fight

[@underpaidJanitor5179]

hearing him pronouncing chinese words is unbelieveable

[@kauffner]

Innocent passage means that the ship recognizes that it is passing through another country's territorial waters. A freedom of navigation operation is a form of non-innocent passage.

[@AlanTheBest97]

I agree with your simulations in this context. But even with a full escort It would be suicidal to have a flashpoint so close to chinese ground based missile platforms. China can easily saturate anti missile defences. Its only a question on how many missiles they want to expend in that endevour.

[@kbm2055]

Exactly. Any military action that close to China would be extremely costly in equipment and casualties.

[@panan7777]

Everybody forgets the fact, about the unbelievable amount of corruption in Chinese Army, both the weapons production and promotions; generals caught with billions from bribes in their basement. The whole culture built on lying and deceit. Historically they were conquered regularly by much smaller armies. Check how all the "traditional martial masters" get obliterated by a MMA trained fighter.

[@markpukey8]

As Nathaniel Bedford Forrest is supposed to have said "the war goes to whoever gets there firstest, with the mostest". So don't be fooled that China HAS a lot of missiles. They are staged all over China, where the Chinese think they will do the most good. If you don't have enough to saturate the enemy's defenses right HERE and right NOW, it doesn't matter how many you do have. And how many would they expend? All of them. It's pretty standard doctrine. If you aren't CERTAIN you can destroy the enemy with 10, you send 11. If you think you need 20, you send 25 if you can. After all, the price of sending off say 75% of your missiles and being wrong... so the enemy survives gets a chance to fire at you... is much higher than the cost to shoot them all and go build new ones. (This is true for ANY defender, not just China.)

[@scottgalbraith7461]

Quanity vs quality.

[@eldricliew6223]

Do you even know how big a basement it would take to contain a billion yuan? It's a large truck full of cash. Incredibly hard to actually use in a country... That mainly uses e payments, so you know, the government can track things.

[@remielpollard787]

A few mistakes here. The biggest one, the one I stopped the video on, is the idea that the F/A-18s would be using Sidewinders to take out drones that are within radar range of a potentially hostile enemy warship. This is not what would happen. The cost of training a pilot, the cost of the plane, etc, would be factored in to the decision, and knowing that the frigate is there, because it's not trying to hide, you would instruct the pilot to use AMRAAMs instead, at range. Due to drone evasion not being the best, and their lack of countermeasures, you are very likely going to get a hit, but you wouldn't fire just one. You'd fire two. One at range, and then one in bulldog about 10 miles closer, then turn around and avoid entering the radar range of the frigate entirely, robbing the enemy of the ability to return fire at all. When you plan a mission, one of the top priorities of planning is mitigating the risk as much as possible to the people who will be carrying out that mission. No strike group commander is going to send his pilots, very expensive pilots, and very expensive planes, all much more expensive than a single AMRAAM, into a known radar zone unless he absolutely has to, and if they absolutely have to, the mission will be accompanied by a SEAD/DEAD escort, which will fly in first to engage enemy air defences before the main mission passes into or through that particular corridor. Otherwise, the focus will be staying out of the zone entirely, and longer range weapons will make that possible, especially in the case of a single drone.

[@Raumance]

This isn't your standard mission. This would be the largest air to air action in the history of the world. It's not the same as flying sorties against an inferior nation. Well everyone is inferior to the Americans but still China is as close as you can get to a near peer. Certainly cost analysis plays a part but not in the same way as in a traditional mission where you aren't expecting to nearly ever lose an aircraft. Losing multiple aircraft is quaranteed. And being risk averse like normally would only result in sub optimal results.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@remielpollard787You’re dangerously deluded. We rarely have more than 3 or 4 carriers available at one time & they’re scattered around the world. One of the big lessons from Ukraine is that land-based missiles have become A LOT more dangerous with modern sensors and the democratization of computing. Carriers are good for beating up on weak opponents but they’re no longer capable of operating in the large numbers. Their escorting warships are too expensive & have limited capacity when matched against a capable enemy operating in its own backyard with loads of missile platforms on land, at sea, and undersea. You don’t even need that many high-quality missiles. If you have a few hundred older land-based missiles you fling them against the task force first, exhaust the SM magazines & then launch a second or third volley using your newer, more lethal weapons.

[@remielpollard787]

​@@grahamstrouse1165Yeah great way to start a conversation there, mate. Start by calling me deluded, and then show how deluded you are by underestimating how powerful a single carrier strike group actually is. 4 of them is more than enough for substantial overlapping power projection for the US across the world. Don't call me delusional if you don't even have the first quarter of an idea what you're talking about. The missiles used by Ukraine against the Moskva were very fucking old Neptun systems, and the Moskva is a very unusual battlecruiser design that should have been able to withstand more than 7 hits by Neptuns with ease. The reason it went down was a lucky hit on the ammo stores. Deluded? Maybe check your facts before pretending you already know something. You're completely wrong about everything you just said. Completely and utterly, especially if you think a Carrier's missile systems are something to balk at. Anyone who understands carrier operations knows that the carrier's primary missile systems, offensive and defensive capabilities, are on its fighters. Its escorts are too expensive? On what fucking planet? Maybe one without water I suppose.... I'm delusional? I'm a former RAN A-4 Skyhawk pilot. Thanks for playing, fucktard.

[@remielpollard787]

@@RaumanceI distinctly remember using the phrase 'unless absolutely necessary'. SEAD systems are still perfectly viable for dealing with air defences, especially if we're talking about F/A-18s since they are more than capable of fighting both air to air and air to ground missions simultaneously, and fight both very effectively. There is a hell of a lot of underestimation of US hardware capability here too. There seems to be this impression, long held but still very misguided, that Soviet/Russian/Chinese hardware is a match for American. It just isn't. Not even close.

[@remielpollard787]

@@grahamstrouse1165"If you have a few hundred older land-based missiles you fling them against the task force first, exhaust the SM magazines " Lol. You know what CIWS is right? No one's wasting SMs on Neptuns, mate.

[@pieflavr]

bro i did not expect the made in abyss ost to start playing 💀

[@spicyd6213]

I served a few decades ago. Even back then we had a weapon to handle large numbers of anything flying towards our ships: nuclear tipped surface to air missiles. These missiles were designed to handle the Soviet's threat of launching large numbers of anti-ship missiles from their aircraft then turning and running for home base. Hard to believe we would have removed this capability since the threat is still there. Always has been, particularly for ships traveling near any coastline. When I served, we would have dispensed a few missiles and it would have been Miller time. No carrier Captain is going to let huge numbers of missiles or aircraft attack their fleet. There have always been plans for this.

[@patrickyeung9432]

fighting with small and poor countries lowered the capabilities of us force. They have high tech weapon for the goat farmers.

[@miltechmoto]

@@patrickyeung9432 goat farmers and soon to be American Patriots.

[@zacharyhernandez1483]

@@patrickyeung9432 I wouldn't say lowered just gave us experience in a different field of combat which is never a bad thing. Why do you think Russia moved into Syria. They wanted actual combat experience whether a goat farmer or a trained soldier. Never underestimate your enemy cause those goat farmers were a hell of alot smarter than yall give them credit for.

[@jadedandbitter]

Right, and then there's the fact that we would probably go nuclear IMMEDIATELY as soon as conventional war broke out with China in expectation of a Chinese first strike-we'd want to beat them to the punch. And our anti-ICBM tech is very solid. China has none.

[@fgk765jkh]

@@miltechmoto LOL. Your shitholecountry just Retreat from a bunch of farmers. Nice try loosers. You haven't even won a war that you have solely been involved with. You had their ass handed to you and retreated like pansies from Somalia Benghazi Iraq Afghanistan Syria Vietnam Korea and the list goes on and on. The only thing that you've done of power in the past 70 years is nuke Two Cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Your country is a s******* and pathetic. No wonder it's currently the laughingstock of the planet

[@LXHFIRENKING]

Great content! Just want to point out some elephants in the room: 1. The J-11s armed with PL-12 only are practically useless in this scenario. Given how the capability of Super Hornets and AMRAAMs are well published and the probable fact that Chinese have no doubt studied them, I highly doubt them would just banzai-ed in like that. 2. In a similar fashion, it also seems weird that the US carrier air wing focused all their BVR capabilities on the J-11s while pretty much ignoring the H-6s, which essentially turns the 0 to 34 Chinese air defeat into an actual tactical Chinese victory (all the H-6s got their payloads off so the J-11s completed the escort mission!) 3. Letting DF-21D into play runs the risk of escalating the whole thing into a total war, but if the Chinese were to do it, all the aerial operation seems to be an unnecessary waste. The CSG had all its available anti ballistic missile capability intact when the DF-21s got into re-entry, but the interception failed nonetheless..

[@zhua2964]

what you mean by "escalate into total war"? the behaviour of sinking American aircraft carriers is already a total war, Because the US doesn't have any other method which is more effective than by using aircraft carriers. If the US starts to attack Chinese cities by ICBM, then Chinese DF-41 and JL-3 will also be launched and then whole world are destroyed

[@skinsornothink1913]

@@lifefun1987 China is not numba 1

[@LXHFIRENKING]

@@zhua2964 There is a none zero chance that the launch of DF-21 would be misjudged as an IRBM attack towards US bases in Guam or Okinawa (both DF-21 and DF-26 are mobile launchers with similar initial signatures, so misjudgment is totally possible), which would be considered as a direct attack against each other's territories. That would be total war.

[@russellfisher2853]

@@lifefun1987 Please be informed, China would not have that real opportunity. Lol

[@russellfisher2853]

@@lifefun1987 Read some Real history, and learn.

[@robinblankenship9234]

So, the USN’s answer is to reduce the number of cruisers, replace destroyers with frigate and otherwise reduce the number of available missiles. Yeah, make a lot of sense.

[@callofdutyguy9]

USMC getting rid of their tanks too.

[@phillipsertich8523]

You are truly killing me. These are truly the most interesting videos I have been able to find on all of KZbin. How is it possible that you have created some of the coolest and most interesting and captivating videos on KZbin and then absolutely nothing this is some kind of cruel joke where are you

[@heavysix439]

Absolutely amazing, well worth the wait! Hope to see more from this series.

[@HypOps]

More to come!

[@mirekslechta7161]

If anything like that would ever happened, than China might go full power against USA together with Russia.. USA would look worse than if Yelowstone would have erupted again (After 600 000 years long pause.) So what?

[@danielsummey4144]

The only problem I have with this is that the carrier would have gotten land based support before those bombers got there. No way that carrier would have been naked like that.

[@dominicross3901]

Just finished watching this video I can’t believe how well this simulation turned out I always wondered how a carrier strike group would defend it’s self if it was ever attacked by an enemy. Awesome

[@HypOps]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@walterneville2625]

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED THIS VIDEO, THAT WHY THE QUALITY IS HIGH.. WAKE UP

[@takeshikovacs02]

@Jack Sung "neville" is subscribed to a number of right-wing wackos who believe the big lie about the 2020 US presidential election. Also, rapists and serial sexual assaulters. Rudy Giuliani, Bill O'Reilly, charming people like that. He is, unfortunately, likely beyond rational discourse.

[@burgercook1741]

This is a great video, but I think this also highlights how terrifying modern warfare is. You just get obliterated by mass incoming missiles. Sure you can intercept barrages of them but all salvos of missiles fired form rivers of unending steel that usually outlast counter measures. Absolutely haunting.

[@trentvlak]

Every carrier group should just add three cruisers and three destroyers for missile protection.

[@kostakatsoulis2922]

Yep, modern warfare is by and large going to be fast, like scary fast, and extremely deadly to those involved, but also it won't take long to wrap up. At least in that way there's less room for collateral damage to noncombatant targets to happen.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@trentvlakWe don’t have the assets to do that anymore. Any peer/near-power with a large land-based missile force can effectively negate a carrier group.

[@BayernLean]

In the early part of a war. Those missiles get depleted fast though and take time to make.

[@starliner2498]

@@trentvlak m8 you cant just add assests like that, as if you're queuing up a build order in age of empires or something

[@williampiland7722]

the sea wolf didnt do anything? the sea wolf has the capability to destroy an entire fleet

[@newtypealpha]

This simulation seems hopelessly optimistic considering none of the weapon systems used here have ever been deployed under these kinds of intense battlefield conditions and some of them have never even been fired in anger. I would expect the hit rate for weapons on both sides to be MUCH lower, between 50 and 70%. It's been like 30 years since anyone fired a standard missile at anything more sophisticated than a target drone and it has literally never been fired in a mass engagement in a chaotic, target rich environment. Neither has the AMRAAM, neither has the PL-15 or the DF12. What I would actually expect is a whole series of incredibly frustrating engagements where both sides suffer a lot of seemingly ridiculous setbacks and spend several days learning how their weapons ACTUALLY WORK under peer-opponent battlefield conditions rather than the theoreticals they've been training for. Kill rates will start very low and the CVBG will end up fleeing the area low on ammo while a relief force scrambles across the ocean from Japan. I mean, it's a simulation, so I'm sure there are error margins in the software. But the number of aircraft actually shot down by AMRAAMs is historically low enough that I don't think their reliability is even close to a safe bet.

[@theedain]

Was thinking the same thing...

[@Ongezellig_American]

yeah nobody cares, go improve your party skills and go ramble to somebody else

[@reasonableraisin3366]

@@Ongezellig_American did you just like your own comment?

[@Ongezellig_American]

@@reasonableraisin3366 sadly it seems people actually agree with me, which may not fit your naritive

[@reasonableraisin3366]

@@Ongezellig_American nice beans pfp

[@Dhrazor]

6:36 NIIICE ...Kevin Penkin... Made in Abyss soundtack(Tour the Abyss)... great taste!!! Edit: Stairway to the Fifth at 18:18, Relinquish at 20:10 ; Transcendence and Hanezeve at 26:00 ; 27:10 - Prayer and Immolation ; 28:10 - Dark Reg,Nightmare Fuel ;

[@michigancube4240]

I have been looking for the names of half of these! Thank you!

[@XxXAC3XxX1]

Yes! Appreciate it dude!

[@MichaelDobrzyn-m8v]

This simulation ignored the US Seawolf sub which would have engaged the Chinese carrier and ships. Despite the eventual loss of the US Ships. The US assets would have inflicted greater damage than illustrated. Further, US ship to ship missiles were also discarded in your analysis.

[@barbarossax6606]

Also, ignored the other assets like J-20 of Chinese air force. And Pl-12 has retired.

[@bradenhagen7977]

@@barbarossax6606 j20 hasn't show to be worth much (yet) so there is that. More of an unknown if anything

[@expertbrody9914]

Pl12 has not been retired and china barley has enough pl15s@@barbarossax6606

[@NeostormXLMAX]

@@bradenhagen7977 lmao of course, keep underestimating your enemy, this video is actually way to overoptimistic, the usa is like the japanese this time around, thinking they could get a swift victory over taiwan against the manufacturing giant of the 21st century china, like japan did with the 20th century manufacturing giant usa.

[@NeostormXLMAX]

@@barbarossax6606 americans love giving all the enemies the worst stats and worst capabilities, its like the serbian invasion the usa did, where their "stealth bomber" boasted to be super advanced and invisible was shot down by a simple non radar guided missile. also the same with vietnam war there their more expensive m-16's did horribly against the ak 47s the vietcong used. same with ukraine with their abrhams getting annihilated in the summer offensive, even at a higher rate than ukraines old soviet tanks

[@dieselyeti]

Excellent simulation. Not so sure of the accuracy of the ASBMs though. Hitting a 30kt maneuvering carrier with EW assets on full blast would be a huge challenge for a hypersonic reentry vehicle I'd think.

[@colemantrebor1610]

Yes, I don’t think he mentions if there is any Chinese airborne radar platforms in the area providing the constant track needed for targeting.

[@richardroberson9277]

Didn't we have pigeons in the 1940s that would peck to guide missiles to hit ships

[@MrLeoLian]

Kudos to you for pronouncing all the names in Chinese. Amazing accuracy and attention to details

[@coenogo]

Ever since I learned of the existence of this game/software, I've been trying to simulate a similar conflict, but have never succeeded. Seeing how much work you've put into this is amazing! It's an exceptionally intricate (potential) battlefield, and your analysis of the situation is great to see. If you do a further simulation in this region, I'd love to be one of the names in this fight. Coen Voors - "Olympus" If possible, a Dutch unit would be preferred, but otherwise, any inclusion would be well appreciated!

[@calebmartin5899]

The name of the game?

[@coenogo]

@@calebmartin5899 Command: Modern Operations

[@calebmartin5899]

@@coenogo Thank you!

[@milotura6828]

@@calebmartin5899 very complex

[@francosamuel4028]

this isn´t an accurate simulation, is just for fun. Acurrate simulations are reserved to military spheres

[@literallylysander3444]

hey man, i really like your videos! the way i ran to your channel to see if there were any new updates to this was insane! please keep adding to the series, its absolutely amazing!

[@UnicornMeat512]

As a person who did some stuff a few times now and then, I really enjoyed the story you created here. On the surface it is easy to believe that this scenario is plausible. If we ignore the undermaned carrier group that would never happen no matter how many uneventful stroles we take through the south China sea, the carrier group isn't china's concern. The carrier groups are meant for conflicts against nations further down the capability hiarchy than China. There are many many things that would make a first appearance in such a conflict with China or Russia.

[@zsqduke]

like nukes?

[@UnicornMeat512]

@@zsqduke carriers made their first appearance in 1920. nukes made their appearance in 1945. Stealth tech in 1988. This is nearly 2022. You think an idea that 100 years old is what we bet our military dominance on? Or an idea thats 80 years old even? Monsters hide in the shadows. And the United States has plenty.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@UnicornMeat512 Yeah, there have been some pretty crazy patents publicly issued thanks to Bill Clinton era changes that made secrets harder to keep (you know cos it was the nineties, the Cold War was over and there was no way that there'd ever be conflict again...).

[@patrickyeung9432]

@@UnicornMeat512 They have their 100years tech bullying small and poor country and think the tech is capable for another superpower.

[@UnicornMeat512]

@@patrickyeung9432 the point is that we "bully" the smaller weaker countries with our 100 year old tech, as you put it. In the mean time, we spend trillions every year designing new tech, and everyone thinks that a carrier group is the most they have to fear from us? Think space launched kinetic energy weapons, Cloud seeding, harmonic resonation that can trigger seismic activity. We wouldn't have to go to China to beat China.

[@rommelperena4995]

Wow!. Great attention to detail on the capabilities on both sides. The scenario was very plausible which stems from miscalculation from both sides. I hope to see part 2 of this scenario. Thanks for this very informative video.

[@HypOps]

Glad you liked it!

[@mbaxter22]

Part 2 is where the US, smarting from the loss of an aircraft carrier and virtually the entire battle group, sinks every major capitol ship of the PLAN, including all 3 or 4 of their carriers, in a matter of hours or days. The Chinese simply have no way to protect their large vessels from US stealth aircraft and submarines (to be honest, the US could do it without stealth, but would incur some losses). This is why the Chinese wouldn't get into a fight like this. Even if they could somehow sink a US carrier, the response would be devastating and impossible to prevent.

[@levelazn]

@@mbaxter22 we build Chinatowns everywhere. It’s game over son

[@mbaxter22]

@@levelazn All your base are belong to us!

[@levelazn]

​@@mbaxter22 if you are japan, korea yes.. China? nope

[@UD2]

great work. Although the effectiveness of the PL-12 might be understated while the accuracy of the DF-21 may be overstated. However the variables may cancel each other out.

[@Marinealver]

If the DF-21 is all that, then Aircraft Carriers have become as obsolete as Battleships.

[@UD2]

​@@Marinealver Mid range anti ship ballistic missiles are siege breaker weapon that excels at preventing an offensive force like the USN from coming too close. However aircraft carriers will continue to be the mainstay of force projection for the foreseeable future. Just further away from China. That being said, we can only imagine the potential that SpaceX's starship has if used to delivery military payloads.

[@MoMo-cz3vr]

All Chinese weapons are not proven Chinese are know to fake it to you make it

[@007kingifrit]

@@Marinealver i assume most missiles will be obselete in 10 years with the rise of energy weapons

[@burningphoneix]

@@Marinealver Without the absolute barrage of planes and missiles coming in, I doubt the DF-21s make it through

[@lonemaus562]

Wow that sucks.. thank god we have another 10 aircraft carriers lmao

[@MrB1923]

They're all obsolete.

[@Diabetesboy408]

@@MrB1923hah you wish those aircraft carriers could take out a nation individually if they wanted too

[@leonguyen743]

@@MrB1923they’re not, lol clown

[@blue_ish4499]

@@Diabetesboy408 depends against wich nation.. maybe against iran it will be enought but even then they extremely vulnerable against drones and hyper sonic missiles.

[@Diabetesboy408]

@@blue_ish4499 those hyper Sonic’s missiles were shot down by an anti air system from the Cold War

[@FirstDagger]

2:46 One small error, the aerial variant of the Harpoon is called AGM-84. RGM-84 is for the ship borne weapon and UGM-84 for the submarine launched variant. 5:08 Another small error on JH-7AII where it is the roman numeral two not eye-eye.

[@strix4667]

That really shows the issues with fighting the Chinese, the sheer number of missiles they can through at a target poses an incredible risk to large, and extremely important, targets like carriers.

[@richardroberson9277]

Video could be off by an order of magnitude. 5M missile 20B carrier group. 4000:1 ratio. Not counting morale/military value. Missiles popped off an assembly line in a few weeks. Carrier that took years to build. It's just America's 1940s+ wonder weapon.

[@attilathenun]

The effectiveness of DF-21D is likely exaggerated. At the terminal phase it slows to Around Mach 5 to deploy its own surface search radar, making it susceptible to jamming and interception. The effectiveness of its terminal guidance is also questionable and if anything, it is likely that all of the DF-21D would be directed against the CVN and not at the escorts. With that said - it is still entirely plausible that a volley of DF-21D could score a hit against the carrier and neutralize it, if not destroying it outright.

[@patrickyeung9432]

Nothing can survive with 1500kg warhead with Mach 5 nor 9. Any ship will sink immediately.

[@attilathenun]

@@patrickyeung9432 Not necessarily true. Aircraft carriers have a huge amount of reserve buoyancy. It will still depend on exactly how it was hit.

[@euunul]

@@attilathenun but the damage would be so severe that it would lose any capability to resist to future hits. And certainly Chinese would throw kitchen sink at it after being incapacitated by DF21.

[@attilathenun]

@@euunul No arguments here. The carrier would be neutralized even if it is not destroyed outright, and a supercarrier dead in the water in South China Sea is a nightmare scenario for the US - diplomatically and militarily.

[@euunul]

@@attilathenun but if I think about it, if incapacitated Chinese would win even more if if they capture it and it's crew. I don't know what's the US policy regarding scuttling of vessel under threat of being captured but I'm pretty sure that Chinese would see great benefit in that.

[@BorderKeeper]

You couldn't believe how much I love this video, but the fact the audio fucks up at 14:55 breaks it a lot. Can you please reupload with fixed version? Does not have to replace the original, I just want to enjoy this without the glitch.

[@tarrker]

This was amazing. Definitely subbing and will be keeping an eye out for future uploads. My dad was an airman for 30 years and he actually used to organize exercises like this. We both loved the video although, he had an interesting retort. There were a few situations where missiles were coming straight at our Hornets and he thought it was odd that they would choose to "hit the deck" instead of simply shooting at them with their main guns. He told me that anti air missiles are deadly when you don't know their approach vector but, if they're heading straight into you from the front you can just shoot them down. But, he also admits to having no clue about the capabilities of Hornets or modern AA missiles. It could be that they travel so fast that, by the time they're in range to get shot at, it would be too late. Either way, thanks for the upload. Not sure if you're gonna make more but, don't feel obligated. I've been doing this sort of thing myself since 2009 and I know it's a ton of work. Still, I hope you're monetizing your videos. With the views you're getting you could get some decent ad revenue going. :)

[@brianb7388]

modern missiles fired at your nose are closing as fast as a mile a second. the range of the hornets guns is potentially more than a mile but you're trying to shoot at something with the cross section of a beachball on a curved trajectory and you have basically a split second to see it and shoot it down. You've got less chance of hitting the inbound missile as you would hitting a major league pitcher's fast ball with a dart. It's actually worse than that, there's a tiny chance you could hit the fastball. I'm not sure if it's even possible to control the nose of the F-18 fast enough to get the gunsight on the HUD onto a missile before it's already hit you.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

You can shoot them down. They even train to shoot them off each others tails in certain situations. Although, the play book of a fighter pilot makes an NFL quarterbacks look like a kindergarteners. They have a lot of complicated variables to consider and not a lot of time to consider any of them. That's why we put the money up to train those decisions into instinct, that' why they can't be beaten.

[@brianb7388]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw they definitely do not plan on shooting down inbound missiles with guns, particularly if the gun is controlled by a human. anyone telling you that is kidding themselves or kidding you. The rate of closure is simply too fast and the volume of fire and accuracy at that speed is simply not great enough. Even a radar controlled gun with thousands of rounds of ammo like a CIWS/Phalanx struggles to hit something closing at over a mile per second.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

@@brianb7388 I'm talking about a missile closing on your tail with you on full throttle going away from it and a wingman of yours potentially putting out a spray of rounds in its path that it would fly into. Like you would shoot a duck with a shotgun. Aim ahead, let the duck fly into the spread. Better then nothing. But like I said, they might have a whole shitload of other problems to prioritize besides dealing with a single incoming missile, in a very specific situation where they could react fast enough to make a difference anyways. Your best bet to deal with a missile is to hit the deck. At least from everything I have heard.

[@brianb7388]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw if anyone ever shot down a missile in this manner I've never heard anything about it. It would be pretty remarkable because unlike a duck at relatively short range you would be forced to use deflection shooting at something moving several times the speed of sound. shotgun pellets are likely flying at more than 20 times the speed of the duck but even a really fast bullet is only going roughly the same speed as the missiles go. maybe in a weird circumstance you might have some rounds approaching twice the speed of the missile but you also would run into situations where the missile was going faster than the bullets which makes shooting them down EXTREMELY unlikely. What your suggesting would only be possible at an oblique angle and really close range and that would mean the missile was crossing your sights at a ridiculous speed.

[@lumpsum746]

Been playing DCS for a few years now. During air to air BVR contact, a somewhat trained sim pilot don't just rely on RWR to do defensive maneuver. They usually have a pretty good guess when the first salvo is being fired. The first salvo is usually not aimed at killing either, but to force the other side to take defensive maneuver. That's why most of the time the first salvo only fires 1-2 missiles per target at least in DCS, so that later on in 10-30nm they have plenty of BVR missiles to actually score a kill. There are quite a bit of mind games going on between Russian jets and American jets considering late RWR warning of Russian jets and total lack of warning of American jets when facing BVR infrared missiles. I don't know how much of my sim experience translate to real life but the AI in the vid looks extremely dumb. Nitpicking aside the vid is very entraining and well scripted.

[@Billy-sm3uu]

In CMO BVR combat is badly modeled. The missiles don't bleed so much energy, thus the non-escapable zone is almost equal to the max range. TBH everything is quite off, those missiles are all capable of launching on datalink (not the irl datalink but rather the info on the command panel) and go active as indicated on the command panel as well. There are no terrain masking. This makes FOX 3 carrying planes with more range insane and others useless.

[@arnavsadhu]

Exactly, the chinese fighter pilots seem to have no idea how to engage in simple air combat maneuvers too. Having more trained pilots in US inventory is imaginable, expecting cessna pilots in J11s is just dumb. Also chinese investments in there defence is huge and these pilots wont be the same as the third world pilots whom US has faced before.

[@jiajizhang8983]

​@@arnavsadhu Exactly, I don't know if it is because I'm Chinese or I've been playing dcs. The bvr combat in this video just looks kinda stupid. Not only that there is no tactics involved, just how the f18's can get a lock when the j15's are flying horizontal respecting to them is dumb.

[@sunrisejackdaw1779]

@@jiajizhang8983 DCS's radar modeling is wiggly, I think. I rmember something about DCS's antiradar maneuvers being obsolecent and not representative of reality. As for this... *shrug.*

[@qiyuxuan9437]

@@arnavsadhu He seems to greatly nerfed the parameter for the PL-15 and also reduced the skill for the pil3 on the chinese side. On his last sim, the PL-15 destroyed most F-15 on the first wave, keep in mind that F-15 has much higher top speed and thrust to weight ratio than F-18, so it should been much harder to kill than F-18.

[@ichuisaac123]

Everyone has already mentioned the overall quality of the video, but I would like to acknowledge the effort you have put into the pronunciation of Chinese location/vessel names. Even the Mandarin Chinese accent was decently captured in your narration. As a Chinese (race, not nationality) it's just nice to hear my mother tongue being spoken respectfully as you have done. Thanks

[@yeroca]

I noticed that too. The only exception was the pronunciation of meng wasn't right.

[@globalvirtualmilitary2051]

What song is that on 20:05?

[@TommyEngdahl]

Love the detail and no-nonsense jargon. Short, concise and to the point. Keep it up.❤

[@HypOps]

Thanks, will do!

[@airmanautismo.6481]

I suppose the depths of the ocean is a sort of Abyss too, isn't it? I didn't expect to hear the MIA OST here, but I can't say it didn't end up fitting.

[@HypOps]

Kevin Penkin is a master of his craft :)

[@geoffreybaumer3037]

Nice video, even though possible I doubt it ever happen like this. I served 13 years in the US Navy in squadrons, so I was on many carriers so I do have some knowledge on how the US Navy operates. The 1st thing is the Captain of the Mustin, it's very unlikely it will happen due to the structure of things. Note, the E-2 sees what's happening as it has a three-million-cubic-mile surveillance envelope, so the Mustin's Captain would have known. My opinion in this that the E-2' crew sucked. Again the scenario presented is as possible as many others. By the way I was in the Diamondback squadron and it's not VFA-101 but VFA -102, VFA-101 is the Grim Reapers, I was attached to them briefly as well, not that it matter for this. Note F/A18's also have a 20 mm M61 rotary cannon, which would be used on many of the Chinese targets once missiles are gone. unless fuel is low. The main question I have is why wasn't the US sub used to attack? It would have done a lot of damage to the Chinese shore bases as well as the ships. Seems this scenario was geared more towards missiles vs all weapons. Regardless how these scenarios turn out, I always consider Murphy's Law and the human factor in realizing mistakes on either side can make a huge difference if it were to really occur.. Good job though, it surely took some work to make. I did enjoy watching.

[@richardroberson9277]

It's 2024. A missile is going to be the dominant weapon vs 40yr old air frames. As many as you see in this video they're so cheap and no morale loss they'd probably launch 10x more. 3 ships would never hope to carry more missiles around the world then defensive installations. A carrier is tailored for theater operations or a 1940s hour long engagement. Doubt they'd have the to launch a single wave again making most of the ship worthless. Just don't see why I'd pick 20B of carrier equipment and thousands of people over thousands of missiles.

[@RobinTheBot]

I hope with all my heart we never let a tragedy like this happen. I never want to see this happen, not in my whole life.

[@timprosser1710]

Awesome video. My takeaway is that a conflict of this degree would be catastrophically expensive in terms of men and material. Tens of millions of dollars in missiles, hundreds of millions in aircraft, billions in surface craft. Not to mention the loss of experienced pilots. Doesn’t appear to be sustainable - and it seems to me that the size of the US’s military in terms of replacement cost is its biggest vulnerability.

[@myroseaccount]

It is unlikely the USA would allow just one carrier group to act alone. And would have at least 2-3 carrier groups. That should be able to hold off a Chinese attack. Clearly the British and the Australians are going to be little use to the USA if this does kick off

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

Nothing in modern war is sustainable and with time it's only going to get worse. Weapons are more complex and more expensive. Munitions more limited and everyone specs into alpha strike capability. It is likely that should a conventional conflict appear, that does not turn into a nuclear war, every single side would be out of stream within a few weeks after suffering absolutely horrendous casualtie.

[@timprosser1710]

@@mobiuscoreindustries Right. And at that point - after both sides have run out of steam - then what happens? Would the war go “low-tech”? Would the two sides declare a truce until they can build back their reserves? And what are the strategic implications of this? It seems that an adversary with enough industrial capacity could simply bank on a strategy of endurance vs the US.

[@panan7777]

Peacetime production ratio for F35 is now one plane every two work days. Read history on US mindbogling wartime production numbers.

[@timprosser1710]

@@panan7777 I’m aware of WW2 production. But building Liberty ships and Sherman tanks isn’t comparable to the weapons of today. Nor is our domestic industrial capacity or workforce comparable to what it was 80 years ago.

[@wrightsublette1701]

Great Job! I'm a former cold war Gunner's Mate here, excellent real world story and very possible scenario. I used to play Harpoon during the 90s and feared such a mass attack on any of my units I was playing. Keep dreaming and keep writing such great content. Its far better to fight a war in simulation as a lesson to deter both sides from doing it for real. The tactician in me wanted the, "And then what happened when the USS Seawolf goes in for the attack..." Bravo Zulu for such a great simulation. My friends called me either Wrighteous or "Sub" was my handle was I was in uniform. IF we had a Battleship group still in service, then I was say use me on the next sim. Other wise, a Seaworlf SSN would be my primary ship killer to counter attack with.

[@Dawn_Bowers]

I really like these type of videos and I really think this channel has a future, I hope you return next year with more awesome simulations like this one.

[@wagonwheel6657]

this video is really an example of the importance of limited interventionism. its so scarily easy to escalate a simple misunderstanding/mistake into full blown war

[@michaelscott-joynt3215]

Could anyone mistakenly move warships 11,000km against another state? Is the US misunderstood when it builds up Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and Australia to militarily contain China? Or meddling in Asian states to bend them against China? Or declaring China a threat to global order dictated by Washington and its allies? The US has done this to many countries, some now ruined, some still occupied. Reminder, China flew a balloon in the US and Americans wanted WWIII. They currently say they want Iran "wiped off the map". The fact that there are simulations of the US attacking China says everything about who is escalating and who needs a lecture on risking the deaths of millions of people.