Time to do the top gun canyon run with the steep climb you have 2 mins 15 second to target, there is a run in Nevada test site up to the Hoover dam put your target on the water and. Booom

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/d6dhz8mrXb3acbA.html

@silversurfer66_

Жыл бұрын

I'll give that a go

Based on what has been published on the stealth coating pealing issue, this has only happened on a few occasions in test flights at the very edge of the envelope, which is not combat representative. Also, former F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn has elaborated on this on his blog. And, on april 7 2022 Flynn, in an interview on Theaviationist explained that he was regularly flying the F-35B/C at the max advertised *combat configured* speed of Mach 1.6: "The high-end speed of aircraft when they are clean, slicked off, is interesting. I was at 1.9 Mach when I was a Eurofighter Typhoon test pilot in Germany 20 years ago. I’ve been Mach 2.05 in the F-16 many times. For the F-35, its endpoint is 1.6 Mach. The two previous cases - the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-16 - they cannot go to their maximum Mach number with their weapons and fuel loaded out. With their electro-optical Litening pods, Sniper pods, and equivalents - they can’t do their max Mach. The max speed of an F-15 - Mach 2+ - will never be achieved with a weapons loadout on the airplane because the drag on the outside will always prevent the jet from getting there. An F-35 will fly 1.6 Mach, with a weapons bay full of missiles and wingtip missiles, and I, as a test pilot have demonstrated that repeatedly. During the envelope expansion program, in my case flying the F-35B, and F-35C models I regularly at 1.6 Mach, with bombs and missiles in the weapons bay, and IR missiles on the outboard stations."

Found you guys a few months ago, can't get enough of these simulations. So cool, keep it up.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Welcome Blake

@carlosgarcia9497

Жыл бұрын

Same.

The US carrier should be able to launch and recover simultaneously, at least with the front 2 catapults. Dunno if that's modeled in game though. Overall good fight, the F-35s being in full stealth mode was the right call and the difference in the fight. With the entire Chinese air wing dead, the Americans could have launched as many strikes as they wanted with anti-ship missiles until all the Chinese ships were dead, and there's nothing the Chinese could have done to stop it. Stealth aircraft are a game changer. They would have sent up another E-2D though. The Ford class will carry 4 to 6 of them per air wing. I suppose the Chinese would have sent up another AWACs too though. F-35s could also work as a mini-AWACs.

In the battles you enact, any 5th Gen aircraft would be in “day 1” config, so you’ve got it right by equipping them with internal stores only 👍

@Mobius118

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, I'm glad it was set up like that. Makes sense as well considering the Super Hornets have got the missile truck thing covered. The stealths are best used as they were today... shoot enemies without being seen

@anthonykearney608

Жыл бұрын

@@Mobius118 i agree. play to their strengths. which is stealth

I love these fleet vs fleet battles, by far the best videos you have on your channel and that's saying alot with the quality you guys put out.

@Istandby666

Жыл бұрын

I like the fleet and the dogfighting

@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@christopherfox7650

Жыл бұрын

Same

The whole reason for the angled landing deck is to allow simultaneous launch from the forward catapults while recovering returning jets. It slows the launch rate, but they won't stop all launches or allow jets to be wasted.

@nuba16can

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@internetposta7389

Жыл бұрын

The whole reason is the Russians couldn't figure out what the Americans were doing and so they had to use a ramp as a fallback plan.

@brimfire

Жыл бұрын

@@internetposta7389 No it isn't, the Russians couldn't figure out how to propel a fully-loaded aircraft to speed while also making room for the vertical launch tubes, cannons, and ammunition stores they proposed to fit onto their carriers because they had an entirely different doctrine to what surface combat ships were meant to do. In Russia, it wasn't power projection, it was essentially coastal defense at range. Thus the need to have both aircraft launch combined with missile intercept combined with long-range bombardment capability, all of which takes of the weight that Americans put into a steam-launch catapult system. Maybe there was ignorance in the concept, but it was also a trade-off on the Russo side of the equation. Mind you, a really, REALLY dumb one.

@internetposta7389

Жыл бұрын

@@brimfire "the Russians couldn't figure out how to propel a fully-loaded aircraft to speed " - That's you disputing your own argument. The Americans figured this out, other countries haven't that's why they use the ramp.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Yes fair point.

F-35 has data link and can act as a sensor. Losing AWACS isn't a huge deal here. Probably not modeled well though. Carriers have several hawkeyes and there'd be one up quickly.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Agree but in game F-35 can not act as a group sensor.

If you guys can mod the AIM-120D to mimic the new AIM-260, then this would be much more realistic. It’s supposed to outrange the latest PL-12s and Pl-15s and enters IOC this year or early next year. It’ll be fitted to F-18s and F-22s at first, and then F-35s. By 2025, it’ll be realistic that all US carrier fighters will be able to use AIM-260 missiles.

@guzilayerken5013

Жыл бұрын

The Chinese Army's PL21 will soon be equipped as well, and the competition is unlikely to stop.

TBH type 055 is leaps ahead of type 052C, it will make a big diiference.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

agree

Conventional F-35A versions have an internal gun. All other versions can be equipped with a stealthy external gun pod, thats what is on the centreline hard point on some of the F-35s modelled in game but doesn't have the gun in it modelled.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

thx

Pretty new to the channel, really enjoyed the missions I've watched so far. I also do 3d modelling, if you want I can can model that AGM LRASM. Not sure the best way to get in contact but if you let me know a target polycount, kind a size of texture maps used, as well as if it should be rigged and animated (if the wings should be folded in static with an animation to unfold) or if you just want a model with the wings outs (if it spawns when launched). It's a pretty simple model and there are blueprints/ reference images readily available.

@nuba16can

Жыл бұрын

This comment!

@simba1113

Жыл бұрын

you can find me on discord we might can do something

@GeorgeBTV09

Жыл бұрын

Legend

@Patrician9000

Жыл бұрын

Do it! Do it! Do it!

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Please contact me or Simba in the GR Discord.(links in vid description) thx

The aim 260 will be in service by 2024. and while I think you’ve mentioned possible issues with the game, many US missile systems are noticeably absent which have been in service for many years.

@92HazelMocha

Жыл бұрын

Same for China; there are very few Chinese assets in DCS. Take it at face value and enjoy it for the entertainment.

@treycotter

Жыл бұрын

@@92HazelMocha Yeah I get it, that’s why I said how he mentioned that not every thing will be realistic or up to date. But with all else that they have added for these simulations, and given the title saying 2025 modern fleet, you would think both sides would have the main focuses for their fleets in 2025.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Agreed Trey, some stuff I just can't figure out how to get into game. Any help will be appreciated.

@treycotter

Жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers Fair enough. Love the improvements that have already been shown, these are awesome and interesting videos to watch.

the stealth coating doesn't burn off the F35, it's baked into the ceramic

it's going to be a great day, when it starts with a great video! thank you again GR!!

@alphapapapapa6341

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

Lots of fun. You guys are pretty much the only hour long videos I watch. Excellent work, as always.

I love the fleet versus Fleet Battle cap! It’s crazy how far these of come since the first ones that I watched That ended with large CIWS battles. Great job to all the reapers!

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Yeh slowly getting closer to real life.

@anthonykearney608

Жыл бұрын

i agree. the amount of research and work they do for these is definately appreciated

Love the fact you are still getting more and more accurate. Can't wait for more fleet battles, even my 2v2 past and future battle scenario I recommend a couple weeks back.

It would be interesting to see how effective the LRASM would be in the attacking the Type 003 in port scenario. They could also be launched by B-1s coming from Japan instead of F-18s. The bombers can carry 24 while an F-18 can only carry 4.

@papayne

Жыл бұрын

As I recall with the Harpoons, target bearings and ranges could be entered into the SWG-1a in an attempt to pinpoint targets. Otherwise, it was a BOL shot along a bearing hoping to acquire any target. But no matter how it was fired, if there was a landmass involved in the equation, a harpoon shot would be a desperate one. Would LRASM have the same issue?

While I’m doubtful of a server supporting this, it would be interesting to see a match with a *complete* human control - all planes and ships controlled.

The F-35 will top out at around Mach 1.6 , even at that speed the “stealth coating” won’t burn off (not with the current block A models).

@dexlab7539

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the info Shane!

@byloyuripka9624

Жыл бұрын

@@dexlab7539 shane: a 12-year-old with an internet connection who "knows everything" dex: a naive but honest adult man who believes others are like him and wouldnt post something on the internet if they didnt know

Wouldn’t the F35s network system paint a huge picture of the battle space and ship locations even without the Awac’s.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

In real life YES, in game I'm pretty sure only AWACS and Ships are adding to the datalinks.

Absolutely loving these simulations. Thanks so much for keeping up with the quality content. Cheers.

I've always heard what you call "murder spec" called "beast mode". In most real combat, I think you'd avoid this configuration, as it gives up a large part of the F-35's benefit

I would like to see a fictional country wargame. Where each human has a budget and can pick their own Aircraft, Navy and ig Army (idk if y'all would do combined arms) and fight against another fictional country.

@92HazelMocha

Жыл бұрын

That would be so cool! I second this idea!

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Ok that is quite cool. VV get to choose which countries get which equipment?

@subjectc7505

Жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers Whoever wants to go against each other. Let's say Grump and Simba want their functional countries to fight. Grump can have his Mig-29, Typhoon and Mig-25 mix and Simba can have his Gripen, Tomcats and F-16 mix. But Idk if it's possible in DCS, but it's a wargame called Command Modern Operations where it's possible. Because China used it to beat the US and it's a bit more realistic.

Thanks to you and all the boys/girls in GR for the effort and joy you all put in to your content! You are all awesome!!

I couldn't stop laughing at the F-35s. The crazy AI who charged into the enemy was the funniest.

the missile truck concept isn't modeled in game so it makes sense for this sim, but I think (as a layman) that the Americans would be launching F-35s off 3 cats and missile truck Super Hornets off the 4th so the Winchester F35s could sneak around and tag targets. Also I saw on videos from USAF pilots that there is a "stealth" version of the AIM -9X that allows the F35 to have Sidewinders and maintain stealth but obviously that isn't in game, just something to keep in mind. Great vid as always, Cap!

@Clarkem1

Жыл бұрын

Another thing to note, in this situation (Navy) we would be most likely running a shotgun formation ( known forward threat ) meaning a Destroyer would be quite a distance ahead, gathering intel and sending it back to fleet, they call it shotgun because it's assumed your ship is the first to hit and be hit at the expense of protecting the Carrier which is always top priority.

@gabrielmalaguti5512

Жыл бұрын

@@Clarkem1 I would hate to be the poor bastards on that lead ship.

My favorite GR video to date!

Awesome - thank you.

I love the fleet v fleet fights One suggestion I might make that could be theoretically done is IRL the SM-6 is a dual purpose missile in the sense that it can be used to target ships, also the newest block V Tomahawks will incorporate an ability to target surface ships Both of these along with the LRASM which you mentioned would be in service by 2025

@Snowwie88

Жыл бұрын

DCS has no SM3 or SM6, that's why they are working with SM2's.

@totalnerd5674

Жыл бұрын

@@Snowwie88 It is possible to change the VLS loadout on the destroyers and cruisers, so it may be possible for someone to mod them in to the Arleigh Burkes.

Love these videos as well as the campaigns and revenge missions.

The anti-ship performance of the U.S. will be dramatically improved when the LRASM is integrated into the game.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

agree

@XrandomnessX

Жыл бұрын

I hope that's soon. Been excited to see those for a while

This is suppose to be in 2025 but the Americans don’t even have early 2000’s standard missiles. Missing SM-6’s, ESSM, and SM-2MR’s(and other SM-2 models), with just more modern SM-2’s you end up increasing your air defense range from about 30 miles to 90 miles. But, thank you for making the F-35’s in stealth mode, though the sidekick modification for the A & C model F-35’s would’ve been in service by 2023. Any way you could get the Super bugs with dual AIM-120 mounts to give them a pair of bags?

@BenDover-xo1od

Жыл бұрын

The game doesn’t have those missiles

@lightbenderga2017

Жыл бұрын

@@BenDover-xo1od The base game also doesn’t have AIM-120D’s, super hornets, F-35’s, or LRASM’s, and yet we both just watched a video with them or with them being mentioned, so, yeah.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Sadly I can;t figure out how to add the new missiles to the base game ships. Any help welcome.

Nice video! I hope there will be more accuracy in the future! For example, the Type-052C is not that recent for 2025 compared to the Type-052D and Type-052DL, then the Type-055A is missing. While for the USA it is better to put the Arleigh Burke versions such as the A. Burke Flight III, not only the Flight IIA.

LRASM will also be capable of being launched from the VLS of surface ships which will make things even more problematic for an opposing surface fleet. Even with the Hawkeye down, the F-35s would carry on as mini AWACS's and feed data to the Hornets. You can't argue with that sweet information dominance.

@WyvernFalken

Жыл бұрын

Yeah tbh we still had the air picture. We just didn't have somebody to give us out 80+ BRAA calls we weren't asking for. lol

@hughmungus2760

Жыл бұрын

I heard those physically don't fit inside existing VLS and would require a total redesign to work.

@Stinger522

Жыл бұрын

@@hughmungus2760 True for now. But surface ships will get it eventually.

@Stinger522

Жыл бұрын

@@WyvernFalken With the exception of having a radar disk with a longer range, the F-35 makes an AWACS look like a third wheel.

@hughmungus2760

Жыл бұрын

@@Stinger522 Yeah when they build a whole new class of destroyers to replace the aging burkes.

Man, this channel is good.

As always Cap great setup and battle - loved it 😃

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

thx

Having 2 type 55 destroyer instead of the 2 type 54 frigates would make a Huge difference. Its like comparing Perry frigates with Tinconderoga cruisers

@DK-ig8zi

Жыл бұрын

@@duanemckinley9353 it would change everything about the CSG defensive capabilities. It has better everything than type 54 and it has much more vertical lunch cells : 32 (type 54) vs 112 (type 55) Such firepower difference can be difference between survival and destruction of the Ships.

@DK-ig8zi

Жыл бұрын

@@duanemckinley9353 we dont know that. You assume that the US has the capability to lunch as many missiles as it wants which is false. The destruction of the planes does not mean the destruction of the ships.

@zhe8586

9 ай бұрын

@@duanemckinley9353type 055 would change the whole game. Because realistically, it can strike the US carrier group 1500km away with its YJ-21’s, which is the core of the Chinese ‘anti-access aerial denial’ strategy, not the air wings. This means the US carrier group needs to survive the waves of YJ-21’s, before it can put itself in the combat range of first wave of F-18/F-35 with external fuel tanks (meaning way less armament). Then while you are launching your second wave of air wings without external tanks, in the 500km~600km range, the US carrier group will meet the waves of YJ-18’s. Then the air wings of the two sides will respectively launch their BVR weapons (AA and AS) and perhaps will meet in dog fights. Will the F-18/F-35 still have a carrier to return to, even if the ships survived the hypersonic/terminal maneuvering YJ-21’s, which is questionable?

@zhe8586

9 ай бұрын

@@duanemckinley9353You touched on a very interesting point: targeting. There is very little information in English how the YJ-21 is guided, but there are pieces of info here and there in the Chinese language, suggesting there has been great advancements in targeting satellite and data link technologies that are crucial part of the YJ-21 project, as well as a few other projects. Due to the secrecy nature of all Chinese military projects, there won't be any official info in the next decade or two. But typically, when the PLA announces that a weapon is deployed, it has definitely completed all development phases way in advance, again thanks to the secrecy nature of all Chinese military developments. So the fact that the PLA officially disclosed that the YJ-21 is in service, it's a strong indication that the targeting technology is also ready. This being said, there is truly very little info to be found. There is no air defense system at the moment that can intercept hypersonic weapons like YJ-21, I believe this came from some high ranking US officials.

Well iam sure excited bro! 👍

One thing to note is that the US Military is upgrading the weapon bays on their F35's so they can carry 6 AMRAAMS. You can look it up its true. So hopefully in the future you can adjust the F-35 in game to be able to carry the 6 instead of 4.

@kiwibob223

Жыл бұрын

If you know about it it would already be done yes ?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

You can set AI aircraft to RTB when out of a certain kind of weapon, such as Medium Range A-A missiles. It might not work with the mod AIM-120D, but it is worth a look if you haven't already. In the mission editor, set it to be activated when the jet passes a waypoint (such as waypoint 0) or it can be set as a triggered action.

I love seeing the iterative improvements

Valid viewer request: would you like to fly Harrier and do a Missing-Man formation for the Queen as of real life ceremonial takes place and honer the Majesty? Maybe you can make it symbolic by letting the queen of the skies fly ahead of you too

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

diong it today.

Nice video 🥰

Best battle simulation on KZread!

I used to love playing Harpoon back in the early 1990s. My old MacPlus and its 4 MHz struggled to run some of the simulations in real time. This video remind me so much of those simulations, but it was in the North Atlantic and generally involved destroying Reykjavík, or defending from there.

The S3 tanker works if it's set to Passive defense in the Reaction to threat rubric in the unit Manu. If you add a Refueling task for the fighters in the waypint sequence the will go to the Tanker like intended.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Will try this.

@IRONIC1688

Жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers no faster then 225 knots on the race track orbit, supposedly it damages the boom system.

Nifty!

Woo Hoo! New one!

The way that refuelers would actually help in this scenario would be to help returning aircraft stay in the air. This would allow the carrier to focus on getting all the planes in the air and start preparing for refueling and re-arming. That would take planning and support though and might not be there if something pops off all of a sudden.

I know it doesn't really matter because this video was already made and a great one at that! But just for common knowledge since its not modeled in DCS and I don't really expect it to be but thought you'd like to know! The US actually did develop a missile to overcome the naval targeting issues. Its meant for land targets or sea. Will guide itself but however can be corrected at any time incase a target is destroyed so you don't waste missiles in over saturation of a target. AGM-84 SLAM-ER, I think you have actually even used them before but if you do a quick read they can be redirected to a new target while on route! Thought that was pretty cool so thought I would share! Loved the video as always and thank you for the steady stream of excellent and creative content:)

here's an idea: Can Sweden defend its borders using JAS 39s with RBS 15s defend their coast against a Russian attack and naval landing fleet?

@nichtpeter9589

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that might be really interesting. There are some fears that Russia might take the island of Gotland one day in order to basically control the Baltic Sea - but could the forces Russia has available in Kaliningrad actually pull off such an attack? On one hand, the Russian Baltic Fleet is surprisingly large, they have several squadrons of modernized Flankers available and bombers firing long-range cruise missiles might also join the battle. On the other hand, the Gripens with Meteors + RBS15 should be a real beast; also, Sweden has recently received the Patriot and the IRIS-T SAM systems. This might make for a really exciting scenario!

@tituslaronius

Жыл бұрын

@@nichtpeter9589 if they do that, they need a stand in for the 39E. Given, Sweden doesn't have that many operational E currently, but if it's like 2025, like in this video, then a lot of legacy C version will have been replaced. The E also has IRST and upgraded avionics and AESA radar. Sweden has also purchased the Luftvärnssystem 103, which is basically a Patriot.

@Rover200Power

Жыл бұрын

Yes they can.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

thx

Cap, love the work you and the Grim Reapers do. I am curious about some of the weapons loadouts you use, in particular for the Bugs and Big Bugs. Typically the Bugs/Big Bugs will have two drop tanks when operating over water. Goofy Gas/Double Ugly for example, is very common.

46:45 the kamikaze run was sick, especially with the loop into the runway.

Nice video Cap! I'm going to type some stuff on two topics. Cap, please see the estimated range on the air-launched Harpoon missiles below (~ 270 km). I believe in the videos the Hornets were set to launch at 130 km/70 nm, but Google is returning air-launched ranges of ~ 250 to 300 km. Could this be due to the DCS Harpoons being an older variant or perhaps programmed a bit odd due to also being launched from missile canisters on the ship decks? The range in the video matches up well with the estimated ship-to-ship range. The modern variant plus added range from launching them high and fast theoretically provides them with that significant boost I'm seeing quoted everywhere. I'm not sure if you want to modify them like other munitions, but it would be a pretty safe tweak in my opinion (those Harpoons are some big boys, US rockets are of good quality, and the range is based on a relatively new Block II variant while the DCS variant is probably older). USN Anti-ship Missiles: Since you're thankfully making an effort to get the LRASM into DCS (yay), I think it would be awesome to try and get the Naval Strike Missile too! The NSM would be nearly identical to the YJ-82 as far as an analog, as they are currently on the USN LCS classes via deck launch canisters, and there will be the same canister-type launchers for each new USN Constellation-class (FFG-62) frigate to be armed with 16x NSM. I mention the NSM, as I honestly don't know what the USN and USAF would use for an anti-ship weapon if they were to launch an air-to-ship or ship-to-ship attack at present. I know they're working on the capability for the Mk 41 VLS to fire the NSM, and the LRASM may already be able to be fired from VLS. Both are capable (or will be very soon) of being launched from FA-18s or externally on the F-35C, but then there are also the VLS Tomahawks, thousands of legacy Harpoons still onboard deployed ships, and the SLAM-ERs. Such a difficult problem that only USN leadership likely knows for sure. Air-to-Ship Options (launched high and fast) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Harpoon: ~ 270 km - LRASM: ~ 575 km - Joint Strike Missile (aka NSM; multi-national sales): ~ 285 km - SLAM-ER: ~ 275 km - JASSM (I know it's the parent of LRASM, but they have longer ranges & can launch en masse via USAF): JASM ~ 375 km / JASSM-ER ~ 930 km / JASSM-XR ~ 1,975 km Ship-to-Ship Attack Options (VLS & Canister Launchers) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Harpoon: ~ 135 km - LRASM: ~ 335 km - Joint Strike Missile (via VLS or canister; will also be implemented in F-35 internal bays): ~ 150 km - Tomahawk (especially the variant available 2023): Block IV ~ 1,600 km / Block Vb ~ 1,675 km / RGM-109B ~ 460 km - SM-2 MR/2ER: ~ 175 km - SM-6: ~ 250 km Type 003 Aircraft Carrier & The Analog: Unfortunately for China, the Nimitz class analog is superior to the real Type 003 even with the steam vs. electromagnetic catapult disparity (speaking of real-world and not the war game), as everything I've seen/read indicates the 003 will have two elevators between the hangar and the deck (versus three for the Nimitz/Ford classes), along with three catapults (versus four for the Nimitz/Ford). As a result, their launch rates would be notably slower than their US counterpart in any hypothetical battle. The elevator and catapult deficiency would be a compounding effect as it impacts a few aspects of performance efficiency, so operational speed would be reduced by more than a linear reduction. Versus the Ford/Nimitz, there's the reduced elevator footprint/capability to get the jets from the hangar to the deck by 33%, then there is a reduced capacity to transport munitions from the ship's magazine to the hangar/deck for arming by 33%, and finally, they will launch 25% less aircraft per batch (three versus four). Also, all international naval air operations I'm aware of either fly in two-ship or four-ship formations as their base-pairing (not three). This leaves the first three jets launched hanging around for a while to get their fourth buddy formed up. To summarize, it would take the Type 003 longer to arm each aircraft, get them to the deck, launch them via catapult, and form up in pairs (and if returning, it would also take longer to turn them around). The key takeaway being they lost the initiative of the battle at the beginning by letting their adversary amass, form-up, and gain superior strength much quicker. Finally, to potentially impact operations further, I know the new Ford class took quite a lot of time, money, and effort to work on the ambitious improvements specifically targeting the movement of munitions from a "safe" ship magazine storage area and then to the hangar and deck to arm the aircraft. Apparently, US ships (not just carriers) pay special attention to the dangers of damage during battle and from fire in particular. As a result, their ship designs call for the ship's magazine to be placed below the water line. If there is an explosion or a fire reaching the munitions, it will either naturally flood due to physical breach of the water-tight compartment (and provide a chance to extinguish the threat with sea water), or the crew can flood the compartment as a last-ditch measure to prevent a catastrophic secondary explosion. It was reported the Moskva didn't have such a design consideration, so some prominent naval analysis sites out there have indicated this could have been one of the primary reasons for that sinking.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks J: Air-to-Ship Options (launched high and fast) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Harpoon: ~ 270 km (for some reason restricted to 70 miles in game) - LRASM: ~ 575 km (not in game) - Joint Strike Missile (aka NSM; multi-national sales): ~ 285 km (not in game) - SLAM-ER: ~ 275 km (in game but can only be used again NON-moving ships. Not sure why??) - JASSM (I know it's the parent of LRASM, but they have longer ranges & can launch en masse via USAF): JASM ~ 375 km / JASSM-ER ~ 930 km / JASSM-XR ~ 1,975 km (not in game) Ship-to-Ship Attack Options (VLS & Canister Launchers) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Harpoon: ~ 135 km (50 miles in game) - LRASM: ~ 335 km (not in game) - Joint Strike Missile (via VLS or canister; will also be implemented in F-35 internal bays): ~ 150 km (not in game) - Tomahawk (especially the variant available 2023): Block IV ~ 1,600 km / Block Vb ~ 1,675 km / RGM-109B ~ 460 km (in game but no anti-ship option) - SM-2 MR/2ER: ~ 175 km (in game but no anti-ship option) - SM-6: ~ 250 km (not in game)

@itsrocketscience9795

Жыл бұрын

some corrections: 1.Most probably the 270km range of harpoon is the non sea skimming range.Also harpoons are no longer deployed on ships. Its being removed/phased out Missiles have much lower ranges when in sea skimming profile , so 130km is actually realistic. 2. Using SM2 and SM6 in the current form will only function like precise artillery. Quite easy to intercept and have smaller warheads than the normal ashms. Also i dont think so USN have enough SM6s to be used against ships. might change in a decade or so 3.LRASM from VLS is no longer a thing. Abandoned plan by USN ,its strictly a air launched weapon . 4. Type003 also have EM catapult , not steam 5. Its unfair to diss moskva for its over the deck ashm canisters there is absolutely nothing they can do abt that soviet doctrine revolves around the idea of using big,i mean really big and fast antiship missiles so the huge P1000vulcans need to be placed like that . Also USN navy is no strangers to fire problems USS Bonhomme Richard is an example of that.

@jamison884

Жыл бұрын

​@@itsrocketscience9795 My replies: 1. Fair enough, but I still believe the Harpoons would have a longer range based on a High-High flight profile and being launched at altitude and speed off of the wing. 2. I'm aware the SM-2/6 have small warheads, but they are very fast missiles with good range. Depending on their effectiveness and targeting algorithms, firing a few at the potential enemy carrier as ToT with any anti-ship missiles would be worth it in my opinion. I agree that the SM-6 is likely too expensive and rare for this use, but I mentioned it purely because it is capable of anti-ship fire. When large subsonic missiles like the Neptune hit the Moskva for a reported 2 out of 2, a smaller and much faster SM-2 has a decent chance of making it through the defensive screen, especially with other missiles incoming at the time. 3. I didn't read any news/report stating the LRASM is dead for VLS. I simply found video and pictures of the VLS test launches. If it's no longer a thing, it's understandable, as I believe the NSM, Tomahawk, and future hypersonic missiles will all be on VLS anti-ship duty. 4. I'm aware the Type 3 has an EM catapult. My overriding point was that it has 3 catapults and not 4 like US supercarriers. My point about the war game itself was separate, stating that the 4 steam catapults are giving China a boost in launch rate versus 3 EM. 5. I only mentioned the Moskva due to the reported cause of sinking being specific to munitions exploding. Putting huge amounts of fuel and warheads literally all around your bridge and technical equipment/sensors aren't the most brilliant design choices in the world. There's a reason MOST ships place their ASM canisters at mid-ship and at to the stern. The USS Bonhomme Richard was a case of arson on an undermanned ship while undergoing maintenance in a friendly port and with the fire suppression system temporarily disabled. That's a different animal compared to a ship in a war zone with all crew being called to station the instant it was hit and all defensive systems active. Finally, my point on Soviet/Russian ships and their magazine placement wasn't to really rub it in the face of the Moskva, it was to note the US has made a specific engineering effort to place munitions below the water line. Having large ASM on deck is one thing, but Russian ships reportedly ignore this altogether. In other words, there's no concerted effort (per the expert author) in the design of their ships to store smaller missiles, shells, torpedos, autocannon rounds, and all other explosive materials within floodable compartments.

Only discovered you guys about a month ago. Now obsessed dammit

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

lol sorry

the fleet v fleet battles are awesome GR great viewing. Mr Cap would it be possible to do a US vs UK battle were the groups are equivalent in capabilities? I realise this would probably mean that you would have to create a couple extra RN Destroyers and use both the QE class carriers against a single US carrier. Fingers crossed you see this and GR agree 🤞

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Uk is next week :)

It's simply not true that no one has any idea how big the Type-3 Fujian is. There are satellite photos of it, so the US military knows *exactly* how big it is. The size then dictates how many airplanes it carries, plus or minus a few. Based on the size, they also know approximately how fast it can go, because hull length is a major determinant in ship speed. Perhaps those numbers aren't available on the public internet, but analysts can relatively easily figure them out.

Consider adding a line to ground to visualize altitude.

it would be pretty cool to have a audio only play by play on a podcast or something

Cool. Possible to do this again, but include IRBMs and H6 bombers?

keep making more fleet battles 😀

love these naval battles however i doubt there will be many carrier on carrier battles, as soon as hostilities break out the carriers will be sunk by Subs, whenever a possible adversary carrier group put to sea they are shadowed by US subs, so should war breakout they will be quickly neutralized.

@SpamSucker

Жыл бұрын

The People’s Liberation Army Navy thanks you for your continued overconfidence.

@kellywalker9268

Жыл бұрын

@@SpamSucker he's not wrong. Ask the Soviets about how annoying our Los Angeles attack subs were shadowing every fleet ship around.

@92HazelMocha

Жыл бұрын

@@kellywalker9268 I mean the USSR and China also have/had submarine fleets which apparently would just sit around doing nothing. Also anti-submarine patrol aircraft a thing. The US has no "ace in the hole" in a fight agaisnt China, and thats important because it means a pitched fight even if the US comes out on top. In war there is *nothing* more deadly than underestimating an opponent.

@nuba16can

Жыл бұрын

@@92HazelMocha I mean the US has significantly more advance attack subs than Russia & China. And unlike those two countries who have to cross a narrow choke point(s) to reach the open ocean. Which will require their ships have to cross places that a loitering sub can sit almost undetected, while most US ships will sail off from unmolested ports. I don't know about China's asw capabilities outside of their own statements on the matter but I don't think what you said mooted any point above.

@92HazelMocha

Жыл бұрын

@@nuba16can And what's your source regarding the capabilities of the Chinese submarine fleet? That's about as secret as it gets so it's bold to make a claim that you somehow *know* they're not as capable. Given that recently a cheaply made Swedish sub was able to sneak past our defenses and sink a US aircraft carrier in war games such assumptions are quite litterally playing into Chinese hands.

Amazing work GR! Any luck on the SM6?

@patricktho6546

Жыл бұрын

defenitely. Seems like GR iis becoming a new modding entity

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

I'm trying to find a way of adding them but so far no progress.

Yeee rim greapers

Off topic: people seem to love terrain hugging DCS missions. You should try more of those

The Chinese airforce/navy are about as overhyped as their Russian colleagues were before the Ukraine war. The Fujian will not have a working electromagnetic catapult any time soon. It's also probably not intended as an operational carrier but still a floating training exercise... At least because of the lack of appropriate fighters and escorts.

I love the new naval battles. I just wish we got to see to the very end all the harpoons land. I think it's safe to way we all like to see that "boom boom"

Were you at Duxford Battle of Britain show today?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

neg :(

Really nice vid, fleet vs fleet battles are the best! The better American air wing made the differnce, 5th gen fighters really give you the edge. I would like to note that a Type 055 dd would make a huge difference from a type 054A ffg or even a 052C dd. Much better AESA radar + much more VLS cells ( 112 vs 64 for 052C and 32 for 054A ) and also quad-packed ones for SAMs. Also YJ-18 ASM's which are really potent. LRSAM also would be much better for the Americans than the Harpoons but the YG-83's are also replaced by YJ-12s so i guess it all equals out.

@hughmungus2760

Жыл бұрын

as far as im aware YJ12s can't be airlaunched from anything other than H6s

@marinuslubbe3993

Жыл бұрын

@@hughmungus2760 Yep, I think you' re right on this. My mistake.

A question about the Hawkeye radar detection range. Does the circle give the maximum range they can detect? And if so can radar snoopers not detect them much earlier? It would be interesting to run this scenario and incorporate the tactics from the book "Red Storm Rising".

You could give some of the f-35s sidewinders with the internal payload of amraams, at the cost of an rcs increase

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

real life YES in game NO

You guys need the stealth A-10 warthog with pods that can act as decoy fighters on the radar

Let's go!! More fleet battle scenarios! I bet on the US for this match.

You're one of the few channels that makes me click off the video I was watching and watch yours when I see them pop up. Keep up the great stuff, man.

I keep thinking that you could start you humans closer to the carriers to represent an already launched CAP.

It would be nice to see one catapult used for a specific type of unit. I know that would be hard to model but if you could toss out say, an f35 and a murderbug at the same time to get the different strengths on the field at the same time would be nice. Not sure if the human admirals can do that part, but I've seen a lot of getting one specific unit out at a time in these videos so I felt compelled to share my input as a valued viewer. Some things cannot be directly fixed though so consider it a small complaint. The game will play out either way. Thanks guys.

It would be awesome if you could make a video on how you mess around with the files to change weaponry (so the FA-18 can fire AIM-120D etc) and how you guys get an AESA analogue working in the sim.

‘SIMBA IS ON A (boat) TRIP’ 🛟

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

agree

I thought that I read some where that the Type 003 was to have 2 catapults instead of the 4 for the GF lowering the launch rates. Could be because of being non nuclear it does not have the electricity for it.

I think that the navy retired the S-3, idk if its possible in DCS but F/A-18F can be equipped with a buddy refueler pod to act as a tanker

6:30 to bad you can't simulate Growlers as it seems likely the US at least would be using a few of those.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

rgr

Love your channel man. You don’t think mighty dragons would be on the 003? They have them made now, unless they just weren’t designed to work on ships, that I wouldn’t know. Also, why don’t you ever show subs? I know at least 2 roll around with our carrier groups at all times. Is it a feature that’s not in game yet?

I kinda wanted to see the US destroy the ships as well. /simulations that end too soon.

Hi great video! Can you help me, can you tell me: with my left eye I see as if through a huge fog, I don’t have a lens (trauma) ... maybe I have about 20% residual vision, and in my right eye 3 diopters. In this regard, is there any point in a helmet? ... I'm thinking about HP Reverb G2 version 2? …or something better? ...or wait for new products? If it makes sense with my eyes? or is it better to invest in Tobii eyes 5 now on sale = 200€? computer is a laptop Gaming Lenovo Legion 7 16IYHg6, Intel® Core™ i7-11800 H, 16", WQXGA, RAM 32GB, 1TB SSD, NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX™ 3080 16GB 500nit 2560*1600 and monitor….can you recommend me a good monitor for this laptop?

Hey GR, Do you know if the AIM-260 JATM is modeled in game yet? From the research I've done, it would be in wide spread usage (mostly with USAF tho, I think) by 2025. The JATM is supposed to be the American equivalent to the PL-15

31:06 I said half in stealth configuration and half in murder configuration lol thought that'd make everyone happy ;) F-35C has external gun! 35:07 lmfao😂🤣

@Anarchy_420

Жыл бұрын

PLEASE finish the battle and not cut out like this... :(

except Type 003 carrier, This round of game was simulating Chinese fleet 2015 VS US fleet 2025

I'd expect in real life, there'd be a couple attack subs in the area too.

Hey Cap, and all the British Reapers, my condolences for the loss of your sovereign. As always, thank you for the content. Y’all take it easy, from Austin Texas. Yes Bama just won 20-19 , Horns were robbed

@EvolvedTactical

Жыл бұрын

Robbed my Rebel ass. Texas played a great game. Bama played like garbage, and still won. That tells you all you need to know about the quality of Texas' team. And your QB is finding an excuse to welch on his bet and won't be cutting that hideous mullet of his. Roll Tide.

@ForestBlue7

Жыл бұрын

@@EvolvedTactical no we were fuckin robbed. That safety was legit. Bama did play like shit, no doubt about that. You take it easy. Hook’em Horns 🤘🏼

@EvolvedTactical

Жыл бұрын

@@ForestBlue7 if the safety had been legit, you would have lost by at least 2, instead of 1. Safety is worth 2 points, Texas got 3 from a field goal on that drive. Keep mainlining that copies, and be sure to call out your QB for not cutting his hair, just because he got an ouchie.

@ForestBlue7

Жыл бұрын

@@EvolvedTactical the fuck you talking bout you uncle daddy shit talkin chump. Add the 2 atop the 3. We would’ve won by 1. Explain to me how they waved off both penalties on that play, yet didn’t give them the 2 points. Instead it’s 4th down. Wtf was the result of 3rd down then? As I said, ROBBED. Btw, what’re y’all ranked now? 🤣

I hope you will do more submarine simulations

51:00 Cap you missed a pair of 35s tanking up at the other Viking

Also: when will you be able to model Growlers and their jamming capability?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

I do not expect this to ever be added as still 100% classified.

The issue the setup, is the E-hawk will not be solo ever, they work both and have redundances.

Right, for the last three weeks ive been balls deep in Steel Division 2 BUT, i think this video has tipped me over the edge to dust off my Track IR, Move my HOTAS 12" back into position and kick the cat off the rudder pedals.

@eddiebruv

Жыл бұрын

*kick?

@superflyguy4488

Жыл бұрын

@@eddiebruv 😁 edited, and I don't even have a cat.

Based GR saying S3s will come back, my actual dream

As a broad rule of thumb 1 airplane for every 1000 tonnes of displacement.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

thx

Naval battles are by far the most exciting battles GR do. I could watch all day. Maybe GR should do a 24 hour marathon. Get sponsorship. Help charidee? Multi mission style?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

oof not sure we'll get that past the wife Mark.

@markstott6689

Жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers Do it as a relay?

I wonder if he's using the new ship sinker missiles the usaf designed.