Sea Power | Four Virginia Cruisers vs Four Slava Cruisers (Naval Battle 144)

[@grathian]

I was a USN SWO retired in 1993 as a Commander, I have deployed operationally with and against these ships, so I have some grounding to answer your questions. First, why did USN build CGNs. The answer is strategic mobility. One midnight, early December 1979 my frigate was deployed with the Forrestal battle group inbound transit of Gibraltar at 15 kts. Watching three large darkened outbound skunks cruising at 31kts - "you did not see those". Nimitz, Texas and California disappearing from the public eye for the next four months, starting with a 30+ knot transit all the way around Africa, then parking in the Gulf of Arabia prepping for Operation Eagle Pull. As far as the Iranians knew, they disappeared off the coast of France and never showed up again. Second, comparing California and Slava, note that the Californias were ten years older, and were constantly upgraded throughout their careers. The Slavas entered service as the Soviet Union crumbled, there were no serious updates. I am not particularly familiar with the game, at first glance it seems OK. But I am VERY familiar with the real world ships and their capabilities. By the time the Slavas were entering service, Their Tartar-D firecontrol had been vastly upgraded to New Threat Upgrade, with RIM-66C SM-2MR missiles. As built with SM-1, they could engage 4 targets (3x SPQ-9 and 1x SPG-60) with SM-1 at a time at 25nm with .60 pK with 360º coverage. By 1985 this was now 9 targets with SM-2 at 70nm with .90 pK requiring SPQ-9 guidance only for the last few seconds. The Russian SA-N-6 (S-300F) system has ONE director handling up to 6 targets at 56 nm within a 120° arc. It also has greater difficulty with sea skimming targets like Harpoon. California did not generally carry TASM, in the service it was regarded as a failure, it was not a sea skimmer and thus presented a slow and easy target to Russian systems. TASMs flying on the deck a with a pop-up terminal maneuver is pure fiction. They usually had TLAM-C or -D. Harpoon, like Exocet skimmed the waves, presenting an extremely difficult target, with engagement only at less than 25 NM. Russian missiles were fast in part because they flew higher - easier targets engageable out to 40-70nm. By 1985 Vulcan Phalanx itself was extremely reliable and accurate, something the Russian systems were not. The Slava carries three systems, not six, each has two gun mounts tied to one director. Witness the 2022 loss of Slava to two Neptune missiles with about the same capability as a 1980s Harpoon. As for the "different jobs", Slava's were designed to receive targeting data from aircraft and fire at carrier groups approaching the Soviet SSBN bastions at over 200nm. Like the Kirovs, they were also distributed one per fleet, so you would never get 4 in the same ocean. Californias were intended for close escort of carriers. Also, SM-1 was not compatible with either NTU or Aegis. The game seems to model Tartar-D/SM-1 reasonably well, but that is NOT what they were using by the time the SLava's appeared. TASM is NOT at all as good as modeled. Phalanx is better. The probability of any Russian having fully functional advanced combat systems IRL was extremely low, much less all four ships. The simple things were very reliable. The complex things were not.

[@TheTemplarnight]

To be fair the slava in 2022 was basically completely turned off and was in a horrible state of disrepair i would not take anything that happened there as an accurate portrayal of a fully functional and maintained Slava being operated "correctly"

[@magnuslundin682]

Thank you for your service! And for your insights! =) Are you referring to operation Eagle Pull or Eagle Claw?

[@adamtruong1759]

@@grathian Really sounds like a Nuclear fleet was a ghost story.

[@andreaspedersen3952]

My thought too. This simulation is based on their statitics, but not on their real capability. Seems like the soviets from early on understood that the US was so far ahead on carriers, so they instead focused on carrier-killers? You know: just to take out the command ship?

[@kevinb4077]

Thanks for your service and excellent post. We always want these sims and games to be able to pit ships from different times, eras and parts of the earth against one another, but it's very hard. And no 2024 video game AI is yet good enough to fight a battle to the strengths of an individual fleet or ship. I know GR likes to do these battles, but obviously neither the US nor the defunct USSR would fight their ships this way. And Cap, while just trying to appease the viewers, ignores that each ship would have different strengths and weaknesses at different range, etc. Naval warfare has very rarely been 1-v-1 or 4-v-4 "duels" - it's combined warfare. It's comical to think the USN would fight a battle against 4 Slava cruisers with 1 E-2 and its Virginia cruisers. Virginia cruisers were NOT designed as anti-surface (anti ship) platforms. In fact, very little of the US Navy surface fleet was designed that way. If there were 4 Slavas out hunting, the USN would much prefer to deal with them via air-strikes from a CBG or SSNs. The bottom line is that the USN of the 1960s-2020s is built around Carrier battle groups and submarines. It is why US ships carry very little anti-surface armament with the exception of Tomahawks striking land targets. And back to OP - hopefully as these sims develop, they'll get to the level of granularity where systems are changed over time. As @grathian posted, a Virginia in 1979 had different capabilities than one from 1985. As it was, the Virginias were retired, probably too early, but largely because they were nuclear powered "white elephants" who at the end of the Cold War didn't seem to have a threat to counter any more. It's doubtful that the USN will commission another nuclear powered surface ship (i.e. not a sub or carrier) in the foreseeable future as they require a different infrastructure, port facilities, engineers with specialized nuke-school training, not to mention the mess when they need to refuel or decommission.

[@BamaCSX83]

Cap, youre partially correct. The Slava class ships were designed to be carrier killers first and foremost. They're also more designed to act as a single aggressor. The USN puts it's power in the carrier and it's air wing. The escorting ships are primarily there for anti-air and anti-submarine. Also the USN tends to operate in a group setting with each ship type complimenting the other. Also, to your earlier comment, in an American CSG, there are ammunition supply ships and fleet oilers that travel with. Also the carrier itself carries fuel and supplies for it's escorts.

[@jugganaut33]

Yeah the Slava, Kirov and Kuznetzov, Kiev classes were quite capable of occupying 3-4x the amount of vessels to ensure victory against them. They were anti everything weapons.

[@tbe0116]

Yep, in the US military, planes and submarines sink ships. Everything else protects the carrier.

[@adamtruong1759]

I'd say the Slava cruisers, despite being primarily geared towards carrier-killing, still provide a lot of utility as surface combatants. The VLS of 68 Grumbles helps it a lot (sure it's not as flexible as the Mk. 41 VLS w/ payload options, but it did come out earlier).

[@Tuning3434]

In the end: if you want to do the peacekeeping role, keeping the Ocean's free, you need hulls. Many hulls, all the hulls. And most of the time they will not be fighting out THE WAR. That is the USN doctrine: add better sensors and a rigorous doctrine to never ever get the Sovjets to get the drop on you, and that is the strategy. The Sovjet fleet was designed to sail out for the kill: it didn't need to get protect sea lanes, it needed to pose a viable threat to them. Your ships can even be carrying swads of large empty missile tubes (would be considerably safer in peacetime conditions), so long if you can convince the USN that they in no circumstance can afford to underestimate the threat and be wrong.

[@TheBelrick]

What is interesting is that from the beginning of the Ukr war, Ukr has done nothing but lie. They claim Slava was sunk by a combination of drones and harpoons. RF claims it was Ukr sabotage/espionage that sank the Slava. (either way, an Ukr victory). What is key to determining truth from lie, is a. remembering that Ukr only ever lies. b. We have photos of the sinking Slava. -no air search radar deployed. -no holes in the ship. (and we know what ships hit by sea skimming missiles looks like) Yet here were are, history written by those in charge of writing history.

[@scottcole7282]

I was aboard the USS Texas CGN-39 for 4 years, from 1979 to 1983. American Nuclear Battle Groups could do something that no other nations navy could do and that thing was reposition themselves anywhere in the world fast enough to be useful. On or about (it was a long time ago) Jan 3, 1981. The Nimitz, California and Texas pulled out of Livorno, Italy, 18 days later we were on Gonzo station (Gonzo Station was a U.S. Navy acronym for "Gulf of Oman Naval Zone of Operations" or "Gulf of Oman Northern Zone.). That was about 13,000 miles in 18 days. The cruisers ran continuously at 100% power ( the Nimitz was actually slightly faster than the cruisers) Except for a period of several hours when Texas's #2 engine room blew a seal in one of the main steam valves. We cross connected stem plants and ran #1 Rx at 110% power maintaining about 26 plus knots during the repair. A repositioning of this magnitude was never done before and without nuclear escorts for the carriers will never be done again. The reason the Tomahawks are mounted on the sterns facing backwards is simple. As designed all the Virginia class had large helicopter landing pad with an integral elevator and hanger. The hangers always leaked (we used to play D&D in it) and I believe the helicopter designed to fit was canceled so they were never used as designed. This left space to slap a couple of box launchers in place. Also I believe we carried SM2 missiles as this article i Googled suggests. "The SM-2 (MR) is a medium-range defense weapon equipped by Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers, Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers, California and Virginia class nuclear cruisers, and Kidd class destroyers with NTU conversions."

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

other navys dont need nuke tech to reposition over 13000 miles in 18 days to get from italy to oman cause they got maps and know its about 3 times faster to go through the suez canal instead of around africa xD

[@jimfrazier8104]

@@hernerweisenberg7052 Ships moving through canals are the easiest target of all.

[@SonB288]

Thanks for the insight - that's a really cool story and really shows what nuclear power could do. I think you're right and the game has got it wrong - apparently the Virginias originally had SM-1, but they were upgraded to SM-2 when they also received the Tomahawks, Harpoons and Phalanx.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

@@jimfrazier8104 Yeah thats true, good for them there is a way to leave the med without going through a choke point, oh wait, there isnt. ;P

[@scottcole7282]

@@hernerweisenberg7052 Obviously you were never in a Navy with a high value asset like a Nuclear carrier... Tell me how long ships were stuck in the Suez after a simple navigation error. You don't need to stop the carrier, just the unarmed merchant ship in front of it....

[@ronpeery3347]

Staff officer's rule number one. If the battle is "fair", your plan sucks.

[@greybuckleton]

Yeah, I try to explain this to people. War is not supposed to be fair, it's not a boxing match. The more unfair it is, the more heroic the general.

[@christopherchartier3017]

@@greybuckleton”b-b-but then it’s totally one sided” people may say. Yes, that’s the point.

[@tetraxis3011]

Yeah but this isnt simulating an actual war

[@Arks1103]

The main reason in design logic of soviet and american ships is the doctrine that both the navies follow US Doctrine: Focuses on element of surprise, operates in taskforce, basically "Me and my buddies protect each other" types, that's why AEGIS and all that stuff. Soviet Doctrine: Focuses on massive first salvo of firepower, and every ship should be "jack of all trades" type, and obviously, the more famous one "If you see a free spot, stick a weapon in there".

[@XCutie782]

The Soviet Naval doctrine are kinda similar to the Japanese Kentai Kessen Doctrine in some ways if you think about it then.

[@gibbo_303]

also americans had a large aircraft carrier fleet and relied on planes to do alot of the work

[@robertalaverdov8147]

Moar Dakka is always good and the red deck makes it go fasta. Warhammer 40k Orkz would be so proud.

[@MrCoolguy425]

I disagree with the "jack of all trades". Many russian ships are very specialized in their roles from the ground up. U.S. ships are much more adaptable with their focus on smaller, interchangeable missiles for different roles, meanwhile the russians design their vessels from the ground up with specific tasks in mind. The Russians love dedicated platforms for ASW, or for ASuW, or for Air Defense.

[@Arks1103]

@@MrCoolguy425 What does "Jack of all trades" means? Something or someone who is knows little bit of everything, but does not specialize in any of them, for example, even ships geared heavily towards ASW and Anti-Air do have some ASuW capabilities, so.....

[@_tyrannus]

25:40 You've got it right, there. The Slava was the Black Sea Fleet equivalent to the Kirov, with Bazalt missiles as diminutive Granit and a powerful air defence complement. It had to be smaller and conventionally powered to comply to the Montreux convention, allowing it cross the Dardanelles strait into the Mediterranean. The same treaty compliance led to the odd S/VTOL and helicopter carriers with large cruise missiles in VLS, represented by the Kiev class in game.

[@clangerbasher]

Virginia didn't have AEGIS.

[@spineless1]

Correct, they had NTDS

[@redgriffindiver7740]

Correct. But shows the power of 3D radar. SPS-48 is a very good radar. Any upgrade has made it better and better. Too bad all Spruance weren't built like the Kidd class, there might be a few left active :(

[@clangerbasher]

@@redgriffindiver7740 Exactly. I concur re Kidd / Sprurance. Probably the most important Western class of the Cold War. A great favourite of mine. Large. Robust. Simple. Sometimes I think post Falklands the UK should have purchased Kidd. Just three of them to accompany the CVS in a similar way to how the RAN purchased Charles F. Adams class. So a navy within a navy. It was obvious the RN of the time had gone too far along the route of ASW specialisation and the gaps were too large. Saying that they would have all been in commision just as the Cold War ended!

[@logansorenssen]

Indeed, a Virginia with AEGIS likely wouldn't have been hit! (Redo this test with a Ticonderoga, for example. I think an early-80s Tico would be a draw, a 2024 Tico would reduce Slava to scrap iron.)

[@clangerbasher]

@@logansorenssen Imagine a nuclear powered AEGIS cruiser..........Imagine if the US had also invested in a new AShM after Harpoon too.

[@norbertblackrain2379]

The limits of a carriers escorts is only one aspect. In the 60s and 70s the USN build several nuclear powered cruisers, usual 1 ships of springs of conventional powered cruisers. However the real limits of a Carrier Battle Group are the consumable needed to operate the aircraft, be it fuel, ammunition or spares. So the carriers were linked to conventional combat support ships to keep their extremely resource hungry air wing in operation.

[@zolikoff]

It's not really that big of a reason. Sure a carrier itself may not be able to fit that much aircraft fuel with all the other things it has inside, but each of your support ships can also carry a bunch of it - if they're all nuclear, they don't need their own fuel. Having an all-nuclear carrier group is definitely a massive advantage. I think the main reason the US abandoned it is - no, it's not necessarily cost - it's a lack of a peer level threat at sea against which you need to exploit all possible advantages.

[@cannon3267]

@@zolikoff i was on the U.S.S. Constallation CV-64, one of the last conventional carriers made, in the mid 70's. IIRC, under certian conditions, a fast fleet oiler could refuel EITHER our carrier, OR the rest of the escort ships...or some of all, but none completely full. with the new carriers being nukes, fewer refuel ships are needed.

[@chugs1984]

The number one reason why the Virginia's were nuclear power was due to the need to keep up at a sustained 30kt+ on a sprint across the atlantic in the event of a soviet invasion of Europe. It gave them the legs to not only do the the 6,000km journey to the North Atlantic / North Sea but it also allowed them more importantly to do maneuvers without having to refuel. Most warships have a 10,000km endurance at 15kt's with sprints up to 30kt+ during battle. If you're trying to keep up with a carrier conducting flight operations (they've got to be constantly maneuvering so they're facing the wind and running at the required speed of 20+ knots) you end up burning a crap ton of fuel. Fuel & oils are the number one problem for blue water navies. Seeing that ancillary vessels don't make close to 30kt+ (fully loaded they probably have troubles exceeding 20 knots) it's clear that the USN Carrier Battle Groups would have to go toe to toe, fighting back Russian Bears launching at Iceland and the UK, without their usual tenders and support. When the USSR collapsed the operational requirement for escorts to sprint at 30kt+ for 6000km dried up. Considering the insane cost for these cruisers being $1.6b in today's terms (imagine them with the AN/SPY-1D, cost would probably be north of $3-4b. Now days US Carrier Groups do not sustain these speeds with their non-nuclear escorts. Their trips are planned around refueling/sustainment meaning instead of the 4-5 day sprint in the 80s it's more like 9-11 days "at a sprint".

[@Reniconix]

@@zolikoff The ONLY reason was the cost. The Virginia class was only 4 ships because the Spruance class destroyer, with its gas turbine engines, was faster and just as heavily armed as the Virginia class, took half as many people to man the crew, and was substantially cheaper. The only benefits the Virginia had over Spruance was endurance (Spruance could go 6000 miles on a single fuel fill at 20kts, but only 3000 at 30) and usefulness as a flag ship with admiral's staff quarters built into the design. Then, of course, Spruance would become a cruiser in its own right when they fitted Aegis to it and called it the Ticonderoga. Ultimately Virginia was even decommissioned because of the cost, being cheaper to buy 2 new Arleigh Burke destroyers in the 90s than refueling and refitting the Virginias would have been.

[@zolikoff]

@@Reniconix Yes. What I said was, they would not have cared about the cost if they needed the advantage at sea. But the US just was so much ahead of everyone else anyway they decided not worth it.

[@xenoaltrax485]

Some weird in-game thing regarding missile fire control: The Slava uses the Top Dome radar for her SA-N-6 missiles via track-via-missile (TVM) guidance, yet the game shows her bow-on facing the incoming threats which means her Top Dome fire control radar would be masked by her superstructure ??? I really wish the final retail release of the game fixes stuff like this, the game looks absolutely gorgeous and I'm hoping it also plays like a military tactical sim rather than an "arcarde-y" video game.

[@patricklopez1799]

"Why were the Soviet ships more heavily armed" - carrier battle groups were our offensive arm, and we weren't anticipating ship on ship combat - mostly air defense/convoy work in the Atlantic.

[@forcea1454]

The US was anticipating ship on ship combat, they were going to use their carrier airwings to kill the Soviets first. Ships like the Virginias would never have gone anywhere near a convoy, they fast carrier escorts, and in the 1980s the role of the Carrier Task Forces was to conduct aggressive operations into the Soviet Bastions in the Norwegian and Barents Seas.

[@steveropa]

I served on the Virginia in '87. Cap, yes the Harpoons were absolutely just bolted on as an afterthought under the bridge. Also, the Tomahawk ABL's were on the fantail cuz that was the only p place they would fit. I remember at Christmas time we had them decorated to look like Santa's sleigh.

[@Marshal_Dunnik]

25:33 Exactly that. Most everything in the USN revolves around planes. Most everything in the Soviet Navy revolved around sinking the thing that carries those planes.

[@Aminuts2009]

I am a Plank Owner on USS Mississippi. I never did get my plank when they decommissioned her. The bridge console is all that's left at the Mississippi State Capitol if i remember right. I was an Operations Specialist. (radar operator NTDS). Basically we fought the ship. We targeted everything and targeted everything for the missile men and gunners mates. Some of the ships stats in the game seem to be off by quite a bit to me. Mainly in the radar detection ranges and missile ranges.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Shush, NCIS are watching…

[@lordsheogorath3377]

@@Davros-vi4qg Disregard Federal information security statutes. Publish all information to War Thunder forums.

[@河粉-k1h]

Only a game

[@lordsheogorath3377]

@@河粉-k1h You would think that, yet here we are, Thug Shaker Central exists.

[@LegitimateCK4120]

Seeing the damage to the Slava's antenna in that first battle is why the SPEAR-3 could be a devastating missile. You don't necessarily have to sink a ship to render it not a threat, just blind it or wound it. SPEAR-3s will likely take out important parts of a ship like the bridge, the antenna, the rudder etc. Great battle, Cap! I can't wait for some British ships to be included in this game eventually, some more Falklands re-enactments maybe? The HMS Sheffield incident/San Carlos landings?

[@popsbents3542]

The Virginia Class was in the process of receiving the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) package of changes when they were decommissioned, some had completed the upgrade. The upgrade gave them the ability to fire SM-2ER missiles (same as used on AEGIS) and replaced the SM-1 missiles used in this simulation. One difference between the two missiles is that the SM-1 required illumination (SPG-51 or SPG-60) throughout the flight while the SM-2ER did not (same as AEGIS) thus allowing many more missiles in flight at the same time. Although not AEGIS the NTU upgrades brought the capabilities of the upgraded ships much closer to AEGIS. All four of the Kidd Class had received the NTU upgrades prior to their decommissioning (now in service with the Republic of China Navy), additionally both California class cruisers received the NTU upgrade prior to decommissioning. Would be a more interesting simulation with the NTU capabilities as many of the limitations, mainly number of AAW missiles in flight at the same time. Would be interesting with the 4 Kidd class DDG's (same weapon systems as CGN-38 class) after the NTU upgrade if you program has their configuration when they were decommissioned/transferred to Taiwan.

[@Wolfe351]

they had the SM2MR version not ER which was used by the older cruiser classes like the Belknaps, Leahy and early Nuke cruisers, ER was a much longer missile with a big booster and almost double the range but could not be fired by the mk26 launcher EDIT I believe they already got SM2MR before the NTU refit when the missile came into service as they where designed for it originally

[@Wolfe351]

and the California class has twice as many SPG51 targeting radars as the Virginia's so can guide more missiles in the Terminal phase and has the mk13 launcher with 40x SM2MRs per launcher (80 missiles, in real life it would be 39 with 1 training missile(the blue ones seen during Port visits on ships with SM1 or 2 )), USS Long Beach is the big hitter in AAW with 120 SM2ERs.......

[@popsbents3542]

@@Wolfe351 True California had twice as many SPG-51 radars however on the Virginia and Kidd class the SPG-60 had CWI added so it gave them three targeting radars to the four on the California class. Don't recall how many missiles the Mk26 could handle (was different number fore and aft) but the rate of fire was several salvo's within a very short time. AEGIS cruisers have four Mk 99 FCS to provide guidance and AEGIS destroyers have three so California and Kidd would fit in. FCS's were very similar with the difference being the front end of the system (SPY-1 vs SPS-48 and associated processing systems).

[@popsbents3542]

@@Wolfe351 Possibly true as the SM2 could be fired in a home all the way like the SM1 until the ships got the NTU which gave them the ability for mid-course guidance and only required target illumination during the final phase of the intercept.

[@xet1sw156]

One of the reasons the USN didn't go with supersonic missiles is the size of the missile would restrict the missiles deployment. Harpoon and Tomahawk can be launched by subs, surface ships, and aircraft. There are even options for shore based launchers. The US can produce a lot of, with minor differences between models, the same missile. This versatility was seen as a positive. When the missiles were designed, making a supersonic missile with usable range would have meant a large missile with limited options for deployment. Each option has advantages and disadvantages.

[@adamtruong1759]

The funny thing is that the Virginia class CGNs don't have AEGIS, they were built just before electronics made a massive leap leading to only 4 ships being built out of the planned 11. Thus the Navy moved on to the "first AEGIS cruisers" aka the Ticonderogas. (Also in modern naval warfare "light" and "heavy" cruiser faded out in favor of "cruiser" or "guided-missile cruiser"). A little bit about the Virginia CGNs, in their current configuration, they should have the SM-2MRs since they came in the same refit as the Tomahwaks and CIWS. Another odd thing in Sea Power is that the Virginias have ECM while the Ticos don't, which they both should have. On CGNs in general, their purpose is to essentially keep up with the carrier in an emergency (especially in a peer-on-peer war) and can act as a QRF as the conventional fleet lags behind (Nuclear Task Force One in 1964 traveled ~34,7000 miles or 65 days w/o refueling) Also, by virtue of having a nuclear reactor the ship can output a lot of power allowing for powerful radars and electronics. All at the expense of cost when you inevitably have to refuel the blasted thing.

[@spineless1]

Correct, they should have had SM-2MRs. Interestingly, the USS Truxtun without NTU, had SM-2ERs though only Harpoons and no TSAM

[@adamtruong1759]

​@@spineless1 Ah, USS Truxtun, her CIWS placement annoys me. Well, virtually every US ship annoys me in that respect because they decided to put them on the sides instead of front and back (y'know, allowing for 360 coverage and 2 CIWS engaging a track when broadside instead of having two blind spots with only 1 CIWS defending each side). But Truxtun especially w/ both CIWS front.

[@julhelm1821]

It seems Ticonderoga was suffering from a typo in the sensors section. She now has SLQ-32 working like it's supposed to. Thanks for the heads up!

[@spineless1]

@@adamtruong1759 Yea, it was a weird ship, but she was fast

[@longlive289s]

The problem with soviet v usa on just specific class ships is that they have completely different doctrines on how to use them Soviets wanted to use big ass missiles from vessels to take down US fleet carriers. US doctrine is all about air power to bring the pain. All over vessels are mainly to protect that carrier I suspect the soviets will win most if not all of these battles

[@cuoresportivo155]

The slava was designed to defend the russian/soviet coast against NATO, or keep them from approaching. It didn't need to go far, or for long, so has less stores which frees up space for more weapons. They would likely leave port when a carrier group was detected or suspected to approach. Cape of good hope was realistically a bit far for the Slavas in war time. During peace time they can refuel and restock supplies at will.

[@ryabow]

Cap, the California and Virginia class CGNs were designed and built during the opec oil embargo as a way to maintain force projection while cutting back on fuel consumption.

[@tristanbentz224]

A reason I think the US went subsonic was the US battle group is about the carrier so why make only ship bound missiles and only aircraft. So the harpoon can be carried on both and in much greater numbers. While the Russians can only really fit maybe 3 on a strategic bomber. While you can but over 40 harpoons in a B52 and on smaller aircraft like hornets.

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

Leep in mind that those supersonic missiles have like 3 to 5 times more range compared to harpoons. Those supersonics with similar range to that of a harpoon are Kh-31As and fighters can carry up to 6 of them

[@jimmymcgoochie5363]

If the Virginias fired all their missiles at once they might saturate and get through that way, but firing half and waiting means the ships get sunk before they fire the other half. The arm-fired SAMs are the biggest weakness since they have to turn broadside-on to launch the rear missiles which then makes the ship more vulnerable, whereas a VLS can fire at any angle (and do very impressive ninety degrees turns straight out the tubes, it seems!)

[@sikhandtakerakhuvar9678]

Not to mention, arm-launched means much slower rate of fire, which really matters when trying to intercept supersonic missiles. Maybe two tries at most?

[@forcea1454]

It's not the arm launchers that are the problem, it's the number of illuminators they have. The Virginias have a pair of SPG-51 illuminators aft, that limits them to engaging two targets at once out to the full range of the Standard MR, plus a single SPG-60 for the Mk 86 Gun Fire Control System, which can guide Standard MRs out to a somewhat shorter range. Arm launchers do have lower rates of fire compared to VLS, but Tartar/Standard-MR launchers like the Mk 13 and Mk 26 are capable of firing very rapidly, that is if they weren't limited by the number of fire control channels. Aegis gets around this issue by equipping the missiles with datalinks and inertial reference systems, phased array SPY-1 radars capable of maintaining relatively accurate tracks (but not fire control quality) and uplinking that information to their missiles, with time-shared SPG-61 illuminators to provide last minute illumination to missiles in the terminal phase.

[@grathian]

@@forcea1454 By the time the Slava's were built, California Tartar-D/SM-1MR had been upgraded to NTU/SM-2MR. Instead of 4 targets at 25nm, it was now 9 targets at 70nm, doing the same timesharing/uplink guidance that Aegis did.

[@HENRISTARKS]

Uh hello IDIOT! A Wichita class AOR could RELOAD AT SEA CAPABILITY ALL 4 VIRGINIA CLASS CGN! WITH SM2ER! HAVING SAILED GM/FC TRAINED COLD WAR VETERAN BB61 87-90. AS WELL AS MSCPAC ABM OPERATED REFUELING RIGS AND CARGO RIGS ABOARD T-AE AMMUNITION SHIPS KISKA SHASTA. THE SLAVA CLASS WITH BEREZINA CLASS AOR WOULD BE SUNK BEFORE FIRST RELOAD WOULD TAKE PLACE. BECAUSE THE SONGLE TOP DOME FIRECONTROL RADAR! WOULD BE OVERWHELMED BY HARPOONS. THEU ARENT WORTH A TOMAHAWK! UH FOR YOUR SELF IGNORANT! THE SLAVA SUNK IN THE BLACK SEA? IT HAD 1 TOP DOME FIRECONTROL RADAR? IF IT COULDN'T PROVIDED TERMINAL ILLUMINATION. FOR NAVALIZED S 300 SAMS? FOR A HARPOO. TYPE ASM? HOW COULD IT SURVIVE AND INTERCEPT TASM IN 87-90? DO YOU SOME RESEARCH FOR REAL!

[@HENRISTARKS]

​@@forcea1454MidCourse Target Positon Updates via data links. Termi al illumination provided by axcellent AN/MK99 FIRECONTROL RADARS aboard GARBAGE AEGIS! WHICH JUST NOW AS THEY ARE BEING RETIRED? ARE BEING UPGRADED TO RELOAD AT SEA! YEAH LEARN FROM GM/FC TRAINED COLD WAR VETERAN BB61 87-90.

[@joshuagill395]

carrier groups typically have a tender that can break formation, sail to ports, and return with supplies for the battle group. I know for certain those tenders carry aviation fuel, I don't know for certain if they carry fuel for the escorts, but I'm comfortable in assuming they do.

[@VonMed]

Also americans went for subsonic low observable missiles, Harpoons are much smaller having a 500kg war head, but fly very close to the water. Only being detected in the terminal phase, russian missiles are much larger and heavier, which means radar can pick them up easier, but they have a bigger warhead

[@andyf4292]

some of those soviet missiles,impact would be the equivalent of being hit by a ww2 V2 missile

[@TheRealSteve42]

At 20:15 you can see concentrated flak on one missile actually managed to take it out on the right side of the screen

[@RES915SQD]

US carrier groups travel with replenishment at sea vessels for stores, ammo, and fuel. So usually at least one Oiler. That’s what keeps the group going indefinitely

[@XCutie782]

Pretty sure you cant resupply missiles at sea?

[@RES915SQD]

@ yes they can. New capability that US has implemented in the past few months.

[@XCutie782]

@@RES915SQD if it was only a few months ago, it means it has not been implemented

[@Iamabot4708]

​@@XCutie782tour correct we cannot reload missles safely at sea.

[@mstevens113]

Western navies seem to build surface ships with more of a focus on being defensive escorts for a carrier group. The air wing or a submzrine being the anti ship firepower.

[@TheCaptainbeefylog]

Carrier operational range is limited by escorts - true. This is why the USN spent so much time and effort perfecting un-rep (under way replenishment and refuelling). As long as you can get fleet support ships back and forth to them, the carrier and her smaller friends can stay out for months on end.

[@gregpruitt1647]

I like that the user does not have to control every aspect of combat, and that the AI can and does act on its own. Very good! WW2 assets would be great for this game. Would love to fight the famous Pacific navel battles of WW2.

[@clangerbasher]

Virginia's are one of my favorite ship classes.

[@WorldWide-q8v]

Truxtun was fastest.😃

[@JdeMonster]

If you have two hours this video is a great lecture on how ASuW missiles were created and the doctrinal difference between nations.

[@Coopdaddy70]

I am curious if you were to layer US cruisers with some destroyers and frigates and same with Soviet set up, what would that look like? I agree that the US Navy runs a layered defense with combined ships. I realize it doesn't fit the goal you are trying here though, Thoughts?

[@Raifboi]

Fairly certain that at 14:35 that is a harpoon not a tomahawk. We don't really use Tomahawks for anti-ship warfare due to the way that their mission parameters are set.

[@Raifboi]

I stand corrected at 19:48 that one is a tomahawk, one quick google search later and found this. When I was on the ship it was never part of our doctrine. Had to look it up. Type Cruise missile, Anti-ship missile (Block V & TASM variants), Submarine-launched cruise missile, Land-attack missile, Surface-to-surface missile

[@ThatZenoGuy]

@@Raifboi In the Cold War there was a variant that could be used for anti ship purposes. It was discontinued until recently when another variant can do the same thing.

[@ShahjahanMasood]

​@@RaifboiAll is well man. Missile tech is very dense n the information sense.

[@MrWhiteladder61]

The mk46 is only anti submarine. In fact the fuse will only activate below a certain depth. This is to prevent it homing on and damaging the launching ship.

[@The_Real_Pimpaho]

Great Video as always Cap, To answer your question about blue water. They would typically travel with support vessels i.e. tanker/re-supply ship. You have to always protect your support vessels for if the enemy sinks them, You could be stuck out in sea and easy picking. Thank you for you hard work sir, keep em' coming.

[@TheStefanskoglund1]

The Talos system had a SSM functionality too - though in that case the warhead was changed to a nuke, and final phase target search was abandoned, only mid course guidance (beam riding) to the estimated position of the target.

[@ethanpayne7469]

19:08 the virginia never had aegis, thats the ticos and the burkes

[@Str3loK1911]

I could literally look out my window and see this battle, would be quite a view.

[@grimreapers]

You are lucky.

[@mburland]

A blue water navy is defined by the availability of ports across the globe. Its why the RN is still considered a blue water navy but China's navy isn't (and explains why they are so keen to make deals that secure ports abroad).

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Slava, ‘defensive’ strike cruiser, short range, attack heavy, designed to operate in ‘friendly’ waters with top cover from long range naval aviation, with minimal escort and support. Virginia class, command and control platform able to top up defence and attack capabilities of the force it sails with, not meant to fight on its own. So this was a bit like mugging an officer with an SF trooper in telephone box. 😉 Now give the officer all his pals and make the SF trooper attack them from 3 miles away. The officer might still loose, but odds are against the SF folks now….. and that’s giving the Soviet’s the benefit of the doubt on soooooo many issues.

[@lohrtom]

Battle groups always have resupply ships attached. Fuel isn’t a problem unless you sink the oilers. The SM1 does have a surface mode. Only difference is the warhead changes from proximity fused to point detonation fusing. The CGNs can only deal with 4 targets at a time. The fire control channels are dedicated to a target from launch to intercept. With and intercept range of 25 miles. They would have to acquire the next four, at that point the targets would have already flown past the 25 mile mark and a crack crew could down another 4, after that there would be no time to acquire and down the other targets. With those systems, target acquisition was not near instantaneous like Aegis. There was a lot of button pushing involved to launch. The guns had their own dedicated fire control system. In the CGNs case it was the MK86 FCS.

[@jimmymcgoochie5363]

3:28 there are a lot more escort ships than carriers, they could just swap them out when they need to be refuelled? Or have tankers come along to top them up as they do with aircraft?

[@NemoGraynameA8]

You have it right with the swapping in/out. The carriers are super long range because we only have 11. You can station escorts all over in smaller ports with smaller support facilities, but the giant Nimitz class can only be serviced in US shipyards and other deep water ports. Also you are vulnerable when refueling/resupplying at sea. It's not a big deal (well the sailors on board might disagre) if you lose an escort. If you lose the carrier it's a 12 billion dollar loss. So a nuclear powered carrier is less vulnerable than a conventional powered carrier. Also the engines on escorts are much more fuel efficient than engines the size required for a Nimitz.

[@Dimitris_Datseris]

It’s much more enjoyable watching the final result and then watching how we ended up with the final result.

[@dirtyworm8264]

I served aboard the U.S.S. George Washington CVN-73. I do not believe that escort ships hamstring a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Underway replenishments are the norm for carrier battlegroups. While I would not call them easy, but they are definitely routine. This generally can keep any task force on station indefinitely.

[@nathangridley7349]

US Carriers can refuel their friends, not unlimited, but useful if the fleet out runs or out maneuvers their supply.

[@zaneroskoph7460]

With regard to your point regarding escort endurance, there is a reason that the USN is considered second to none in terms of at-sea replenishment and logistics. And the Virginia-class was built six to ten years before the Slava-class, hence the difference in launch systems.

[@bjturon]

Nuclear Cruisers were cut in the 1990s due to the "End of History" to save money when the USN and Congess never imagined that their be a day when the Chinese Navy was bigger. Four modernized Virginia-class cruisers would really help the USN now in balancing with PLAN.

[@jamison884]

Cap: Although the US is now expanding to offensive anti-ship missiles covering sub-sonic, supersonic, hypersonic, and stealth, I believe the general reason is the US went with smaller missiles versus the large Soviet/Russian ASM models, so they can fit more onto smaller footprints (destroyers rather than cruisers) and quantity vs. quality (at least from a purely speed perspective). In the 1980's though, the higher quantity was due to more ships at sea rather than more missiles per ship.

[@DirtyHairy1]

carriers are not only depending on escorts but also on resupply, eg aircraft fuel. i guess the upside of nuclear power is that its maintenance cycle matches the off-theatre cycle

[@voterfraud4creepyjoe60]

Also this is not in the game currently, but the F14 Tomcat played a key Anti missile role, the AIM-54 missiles were capable of intercepting enemy missiles.

[@FleetDefenderRA5]

Cap: thank you; I know what I am going to ask for for Christmas. Thank you for demoing it. I cannot add anything to what ha already been said EXCEPT, tactics would have made a difference I think.,, but YOU KNOW THAT and said at the beginning this was nothing more than a slugfest. Thank you!

[@NASWOG]

Crazy thing is, IRL, the Slavs class’s sensors / emitters interfere with each other. This means that only 1 system can run at a time in most cases. Wild

[@davemorris9368]

its all about naval doctrine, the soviet ships were built to hunt warships with their weapons while the America ships relied almost exclusively on the carriers aircraft for effectiveness.

[@stevie6265]

Virginia Class: the last of the nuclear powered cruisers. Even with their high maintenance and lack of aegis, their nuclear power made them PERFECT escorts for the carriers. Retired waaay too soon! Literally, not that old.

[@jamison884]

I'm not sure if it's the new Sea Power build or what, but I've watched quite a few Sea Power videos now and this is by far the highest hit-rate for the cannons versus incoming missiles. Just imagine how effective the modern 127mm and 57mm guided proximity fused munitions are (NATO countries have the 127mm Vulcano and the US has 57mm guided munitions) or the US's Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) (advertised as a cheaper alternative to missile defense).

[@voterfraud4creepyjoe60]

Because American naval doctrine focused on carriers and the flexibility that you have with naval air operations gives you greater range to project power out at sea. The soviets emphasized individual surface ship capabilities because they were keenly aware that their fleet was outnumbered by the U.S. and thus had to maximize their offensive capabilities, this lead to a difference in their approach to ship design, supersonic long range missiles were necessary in the Soviets naval doctrine, this also was influenced by the Soviet Union’s large investment into their strategic missile forces as part of their nuclear deterrent, investments in their strategic ballistic missiles also trickled down to their design of hypersonic anti ship missiles to cover the gap in capability between the smaller Soviet fleet and the U.S. navy which had dominance over the air

[@ThubanDraconis]

A nuclear carrier still needs an enormous amount of fuel. Those jets don't run on batteries. And that means a carrier battle group has to have supply ships to provide fuel to both the carrier and the escorts. The idea of making a nuclear cruiser was that it would reduce the amount of fuel needed and lessen the burden on the supply ships. But, nuclear power is expensive and requires highly trained personnel. Not to mention there is a certain radiation danger, especially in combat. So it just made more sense to only use nuclear reactors on the big CVNs and submarines.

[@SonB288]

According to one of the devs on Discord, this version of the Virginia is the late model and should have SM-2MR. So hopefully your favourite cruiser will get some better missiles at some point!

[@MrWadeant]

I think its a difference in offensive concepts: For the Americans the Carrier and its Air Wing are the primary offensive tool, where as Russian Carriers were no where near as powerful in terms of their air wing and thus they have to make up for that lack with their escort ships being much more offensively focused. Just my thinking, happy to be wrong.

[@jimfrazier8104]

There's a reason the USN got rid of all non-Aegis cruisers and destroyers, although the nuclear-powered cruisers didn't help their cause by needing nuclear-qualified operators the Navy simply didn't have.

[@Randomvideos-YouTube]

I am counting this as a tie because before the crash it looked a lot better

[@walkerhartge9177]

The Torpedoes can be used in an Anti-Ship role but it is seriously ineffective. VA class only has 2 because Phalanx has built in targeting radar and is quit heavy

[@ethanpayne7469]

I hope they add the vls ticonderogas later, they're the perfect air defense platforms, with some nice tomahawk capabilities as well.

[@yournamehere9928]

If they decide to extend the game's tech timeframe to beyond 1985, then sure.

[@ethanpayne7469]

@@yournamehere9928 first one with vls launched in 1983

[@davidaustin1276]

The Tomahawk's. were a late add-on replacing the helicopter handling stern lift

[@iplaygames8090]

i think, the difference in armament is simply because the soviets didnt have the shipbuilding capability that the americans had and thus had to make the most out of their hulls.

[@ohiobrian8993]

Cap, the torps primary purpose was ASW, but it 100% could be used in the anti surface mode. They would be effective in this role but they are short range.

[@madogllewellyn]

Hopefully they have the upgraded model of the Virginia class with NTU upgrade and SM-2MR vs SM-1MR

[@donaldmclellan3296]

The reason the United States maintains a large number of aircraft carriers is rooted in its doctrine of "sea control" and global naval presence. For the US Navy, carriers are crucial for projecting power far from American shores, allowing it to control vast swathes of ocean (known as "blue water") and ensure freedom of navigation and influence worldwide. This enables the US to deploy military force, deter conflicts, and respond rapidly to crises anywhere on the globe. In contrast, the Soviet (and now Russian) naval strategy has been shaped by its geography and different strategic needs. Russia's key naval bases are in areas where access to the open ocean can be restricted by other countries' forces-a concept known as "bottling up." To address this, the Soviet Union developed the "bastion" strategy, focusing on defending areas close to its shores, especially in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas, where its nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) could operate more securely. In this strategy, surface ships primarily support submarines, the true "arm of decision" in the Soviet naval forces. Heavily armed warships are deployed to protect these bastion areas and deter NATO forces from penetrating these zones. The submarines, particularly SSBNs and attack submarines, are then free to operate without interference. NATO navies, like those of the UK and France, complement this dynamic as specialists in submarine hunting and coastal defense, while the US Navy serves as the dominant "blue water" force for long-range operations.

[@exAirMover]

The Slava's anti ship missle's are so big they look like telegraph pole's being fired from their Launchers!

[@TheRealAfroRick]

This isn't how the US would generally fight an engagement though. It would be trying to our reach their opponent through air power so that the aggressor would not be able to get within range with their ASMs. The defensive umbrella of the CAG was all about making sure that was for the things that get through - not necessarily being the primary means of defense. You keep them far enough with air power so that this sort of engagement doesn't happen. While many of these ships are of the same class, they aren't designed to be a direct counter to the other in US combined arms doctrine.

[@NASWOG]

Carrier strike groups have RAS events multiple times per week. Because of the accompanying MSC vessels, carrier strike groups as a whole are beyond blue water capable lol

[@nicholasmoore2590]

You define a blue water navy by the availability of ports to that navy. I'm an RN vet and our navy, while now too small, is still a blue water navy as it has ports available globally by using our allies facilities. Also, a carrier whether or not it's a nuke will always need to have tankers available. It will still need to take on diesel and fuel for its aircraft and deck vehicles, generators etc.

[@NemoGraynameA8]

So Cap, idk if you really have time to do it, but with another youtuber (BrotherMonroe) what he would do for testing ships in another game was do 3 rounds. One as Red, one as Blue. If its tied up at 1-1 then he would flip a coin for the final "team" he would play as.

[@michaellucas7882]

Thanks!

[@tobyw9573]

Alaska-class Cruisers: As sexy as reactors are, it seems that they are frightfully expensive to build and to service!- perhaps the way to go is to copy a suitable ship and build a number of them new with modern designs such as hybrid gas turbines (plus some diesels for cruising mileage) replacing the heavy, expensive, high operating cost boilers, steam turbines (nukes require turbines too) . Build the hull with (non-magnetic?) Stainless steel for low maintenance and multi-compartments for strength, toughness, and torpedo resistance. Aegis added of course. Ship will likely need food at the same time as refueling and ammo. Use (submarines for resupply???) Install 8-14" guns in turrets, Less armor required against rockets(?) 2.4-3 rounds per minute, the smaller ones have two piece metal construction instead of bag ammo with good autoloading ammo eqpt. Big cruiser would have room for rockets plus well over 1000 rounds of artillery. A-10s have nifty, anti-armor cluster bombs that could be adapted to the large artillery shells. Over 1000 lb for 14" guns. Big shells have LOTS of room for explosives, range boosters, rocket boosters, simple or complex steering devices.etc. Similar to the v. popular 6-inch shells used in Ukraine. No reason not to carry Helos and or F-35s in a hangar in rear hull. Same general scenario for North Carolina-class battleships. The shorter 16-inch gun barrels should weigh MUCH less than the 16" -50 versions - Adding booster propulsion to shells could easily overcome shorter length barrels.

[@thereddaikon]

The virginia's didn't have Aegis. They considered adding it in a refit but they were decommissioned in the 90's at the end of the cold war instead.

[@forcea1454]

They never considered adding Aegis to the Virginias at the end of the Cold War, it was planned much earlier on in the early design process for Aegis in the 1960s and 70s, back when Aegis was going to consist of a pair of modular Mk 20 Mod 0 Deckhouse weighing 200 tons apiece. That weight was too much, so Aegis Virginia died, to be replaced by DG(N)/DLGN Aegis (this was prior to 1975, when the US had DLGs/DLGNs, also called frigates, which dedicated fast task force AAW escorts that were larger than destroyers, most of them were redesignated as cruisers in 1975, apart from the Farragut/Coontz class, which became destroyers), which got gold-plated and then became the Strike Cruiser. The Strike Cruiser died due to cost, and CGN-42 was planned instead, an enlarged Virginia hull with some features borrowed from the Strike Cruiser (mainly superstructure layout plus a helicopter pad and hangar close to amidships). Contemporary to this they also tried to put Aegis on a very cost-constrained gas turbine DDG called DG Aegis, which failed because the combat system was the majority of ship cost. The modular deckhouses were ditched, and Aegis was repackaged into something that could fit on a gas turbine guided missile destroyer derived from the Spruance class (which margins for an additional 150 tons of topweight). These ships were the Ticonderoga class, were originally meant to be built alongside the Strike Cruiser and later CGN-42, and were redesignated as cruisers whilst under construction.

[@forcea1454]

@FerroEquus-262 Long Beach's proposed Aegis modernisation would have been in the 1970s, contemporary with the Strike Cruiser. Aegis was considered for Virginias, specifically the later ships in the class, but this plan died when it turned out that they couldn't accommodate it, so the later ships were cancelled and the class was truncated to 4 ships.

[@paramounttechnicalconsulti5219]

Slavas weren't built with VLS (the time they would be contemporary with the VIrginia's). VLS was introduced by the second flight of Ticonderogas and nobody else used it until well into the '90's.

[@deepat]

I believe the yanks didn't go supersonic as they would have awareness through awaks and satellites of all threats and would have destroyed anything before it got close enough to do damage. The jets done all the offensive work. The defenders of freedom ;)

[@Train115]

8:44, the term would be "superfiring", when two or more turrets are placed above each other in a line. Staggered would be something else.

[@redgriffindiver7740]

One of the reasons US escorts transitioned to gas turbine engines is that an aircraft carrier can be their tanker because of all the jet fuel onboard for the aircraft. I think the nuke community looked down on the surface ships as a cute play thing. Nuke heads belong underwater. And non-nuke escorts are cheaper to build and probably to maintain. I think it's the right mix for today's US Navy. I'm skeptical about the new Constellation Frigate program. Not sure we need a frigate. Last two were of questionable use in my opinion. If they give it two screws and decent defensive capability then maybe. Frigate hate playing plane guard. I suppose the destroyers hate it too.

[@mikeking7470]

Nuclear carriers carry bunker fuel for their escorts so can fuel all the other ships in the group if there are no tankers.

[@thecasper911]

Wasn't the Mk 26 on the Virginia's armed with SM2-MR instead of SM1-MR?

[@janicmeier1]

A sea skimmer would never fall for chaff

[@ChaoticEnigma-]

Modern carrier atrike group at Jutland, please. Preferably facing agsinst the royal navy's 28 battleships.

[@steelersLife4Life]

Carriers not hamstrung. Underway replinishment is routine for all ships. Nuclear power aside, food and sometimes water is a regular thing. They can also be handed off to ships of another command.

[@glenproctor1999]

Going to be interesting when you game the Argentine fleet rushing in to tackle the task force! Fascinating what-if? Without subs first and then with maybe?

[@ryanpayne7707]

The main problem with nuclear ships is crew training. Nuclear power school is HARD, and there simply isn't enough graduates for the USN to make the entire fleet nuclear powered. Powering carriers via a nuclear reactor is worth the cost. Ditto for subs given the stealth advantage they offer. But for smaller ships, it isn't. So those use gas turbine engines. And besides, the USN is a master of logistics. The carrier's airwing still needs copious amounts of JP-8- which the escorts also burn. Hell, there are ships with legit, branded, Starbucks in the USN.

[@Jesusisking2785]

Carrier strike group has supply ships that sail to ports and get food and fuel for all ships and aircraft in the strike group

[@totalNERD-eo7wx]

(5:56) OK, so the Slava has 64 S-300Fs, and I believe 40 Osas

[@bigk5203]

Most US navy ships typically only have two CIWS

[@AL66WV]

Honestly i think that it's more correct to compare the "Slava" class cruisers to "Ticonderoga" class instead of "Virginia", because both Slava and Ticonderoga have entered the service at the same time, in the late 1980's, while the Virginia class is more from 1970's

[@BestOfSound99]

I'm gonna try to answer your questions, but I might be wrong and I hope someone would correct me in the comments. Still I try to keep it short. 1. Why are carriers nuclear and escorts not? while destroyers and carriers have similar drafts (9m vs 11m) it could still limit the number of ports a carrier could refuel and to navigate a port with such a big vessel is difficult in itself regardless of draft. However the smaller escorts could refuel much easier and also do it at sea. While carriers also refuel (jetfuel and supply) at sea it would increase the times it has to be resupplied and with that also interfere with flight operations (carriers need to go upwind to help their aircraft to lift off and resupply could be difficult because of waves) Also its easier to replace smaller escort ships that are much more numerous when carriers. 2. Why do the soviets have supersonic missiles why the us doesn't? Because of difference of doctrines and the us is activity trying to catch up on it. The US has a blue water navy with worldwide reach, while the soviet navy was build around the defence of their "Arctic bastions". The missles on the Slava, kirov and oscar class ships/subs are there to counter US navy carrier groups. While the US Navy firepower was built around carriers. Its like a game of rock, paper scissors in that regard. Interestingly the akula class submarine can be viewed as a interceptor submarine. the idea behind it was to have a fast submarine with little endurance to go out at sea rush to its mission at 40kn and fight the enemy in the Arctic. I wholeheartedly want to recommend the book "Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines" by Norman Polmar and Kenneth J. Moore if you want to have a deeper look in the topic.

[@IetsgoBrandon]

A small correction (maybe?). It seems only till the ticonderoga cruiser, the warships were developed with the system called aegis. The former ships are not equipped with aegis

[@madrabbit9007]

The Virginia-class were some of the prettiest ships of the nuclear age until the Burks came along.

[@redgriffindiver7740]

Thanks for the video CAP. Keep them coming.

[@zerotonic2659]

I love your videos.

[@jem233]

Why are the Virginia CIWS always firing to the left of the missile and the Slava CIWS are getting intercepts.

[@Maedhros0Bajar]

Honestly, I'm not sure you even have the right models. But when the Second Pacific Squadron engaged fishing trawlers in the North Sea, thinking them to be Japanese torpedoboats for ... reasons. A British Admiral made plans to engage them with a mere 4 British battleships (cause sending more wouldn't be sporting) Could you model that hypothetical engagement?

[@subjectc7505]

Russia/Soviet's focuses on overwhelming firepower While the US is more precision

[@greeber18]

Cap, there was never any system installed on the Virginia Class called Aegis. Aegis specifically refers to systems using the SPY radars such as on the Ticonderoga Class.