Video

120+ GBU-32 from 12 Super Hornets? Not on their best day with CFT and the entire USAF tanker force dragging them from the carrier forwards. You say GBU-53 but you show GBU-39. GBU -39, in the D model, has SAL. But it does not have multimode seeker, autonomous target classification or datalink as retargetability. If you can jam an MQ-25 with MADL, flying off your wingtip, you can jam a GBU-53B or BGM-109, reaching out for GPS up targeting updates. In fact a lot of your scenario depends on an entirely passive ADGE which is to say no ground jamming, no displacement tactics to preserve engagement radars and TELs, no decoys or decoy movements. No site missile sharing to allow batteries to go dummy load as threats approach. Krasukha-2/4 and Zhitel jamming has proven highly adept at reducing the effectiveness of GPS enabled systems in Ukraine while effectively denying S and X band targeting to key areas as a function of AWACS look-in on Crimea and CBR targeting of artillery. Most of our fighter radar systems are X-band. You are ignoring the ground truth of INTEGRATED air defense systems. And the need for large scale political as much as tactical victories. The fighters should be mauling launch aircraft, not individual missiles. Whether J-35/J-20 or roadbase launched J-10 which snap up from offset the inbound strike package, you need to kill the shooters and force the U.S. President to acknowledge the inadequacy (very real btw.) of the F/A-18E/F as a slowmobile penetrating asset with limited fueled persistence and very high combat attrition. The aim should be to force the USN CSGs to withdraw or pull back to the shelter of Guam or Australian (USAr) missile defenses to 'await events', as the base-in of more powerful USAF strike assets, coming from Misawa, Iwakuni, North Field, or even Butterworth, Kuching or Cesar ABs. Tomahawks have an orbit facility to adjust TOT, if they have SASM access to GNSS, they can wait on the USN strike package. F/A-18E/F have LRASM integration and so JASSM should be easy. Those should be the units which, using their RFI sensors, are sent in early to look at PLA SAM sites and determine, via ATC, real vs. not, on a minute by minute (displacement ineffective) basis. LRASM will also be critical to killing low value naval systems which might be used to early-attrite the TLAM strikes in particular. Speaking of which, the use of MPAD systems to attrite ALCM/SLCM has proven quite effective in Ukraine. The footprint area of each system is low but so is the per-team cost and, with local LINK, they can be precued based on ground observers or local FAAD type radars. The Chinese are quite good at this and would have multiple overlapping systems rather than 'one and done' approach of Russian systems which are introduced and immediately jammed white or hunted down and killed as with Zoo Park in Ukraine. Due to the toe-out on the pylons, the '550nm' F/A-18E/F failed OPEVAL with a mission radius of 363nm. The Navy bought it anyway... That means everyone is going to be Two Bagging it. Maybe 3 if they want an IRST. If you have BRU-55s supporting the GBU-32, that's 4X 1K JDAMs per jet or 48 total IAMs. If you go with just a single centerline and a LOT of buddy tanking that's still only 8X12 or 96 GBU-32. And you said a secondary number of Supers had GBU-31 which will certainly only be using parent loading to probably the midwing stations. All tanked up, the F/A-18E/F struggles to get out of it's own way and has severe bring-back limits. IMO, you would be better off using AGM-179 JAGM-F as your primary DEAD cleanup system. With three shots per launcher (like Brimstone) and an Increment 2 motor as 25km low/40km high standoff; they will be more useful in a (high speed = Mach 1.4) reactionary mode while dealing with goalkeepered SAM sites residues and particularly in CAS support. People seem to think the GBU-53 is the chips AND the salsa because it's got decent glide range and a trimode seeker+datalink. What they don't seem to realize is that, when those wings fold out, the munition immediately slows to about 300 knots. These are not SPEAR-3 so they have no turbines and their ability to negotiate headwinds/crosswinds/moving target retrograde is highly 'variable', to say the least. At best, they are 5 minute TOF clumsy for kind of extended standoff threat avoidance requirement and all but useless for anything more than overhead CAS. And so, once again, you have to ask yourself: why exactly are you there? The PLAAF are not going to be there. Because they are not going to have done to them what they just did to the ROCAF. They will use IAs and fighter fields to bring in STOL capable Y-20s with lots of whatever. They will conserve their on-island Air Defenses for when they know they can get a bunch aircraft not ordnance kills, from popup SAMbush. And all of their Primary AAW is going to be afloat or in-flight out of deep interior mainland bases, supported by tanking. This is why the Chinese are waiting, even though the Russians cannot keep the Ukraine theater running forever. They need Y-20s for both airlift and AAR. And though they are building them at huge rates for a heavy, they cannot crew-train faster than their schools can graduate a class, of 2-3 times per year. The Chinese do not believe in Lanchestrian attrition but rather Salvo mode. Which means they will take Big Dragon Bites and then watch their opponent go into shock and bleed out. Think about Fleet Problem IX and how it showed, exactly how rapidly carriers offshore could end up very badly, within just a couple operational days, simply because the threat could come from far more airfields on far more axes to much greater range. Carriers can get in 1-2 strikes and then they are backtracked and sunk. Perhaps the ultimate example of this being Midway where Nagumo got several raids on AF and the Yorktown yet, despite having the superior force, still ended up dual-axed and sunk because he couldn't sustain the rate of RELOAD needed to switch out his bombers before they were caught on-deck. He tried to fight a sandpaper war, grinding the grit off the other side. And lost his entire TF for his trouble, to a force which went all-in on ASUW with concentrated salvo-mode strikes that held nothing back. From the moment the land-based attacks went in (ASBM/ASCM in an ICD scenario in this case) his FAD capabilities were degraded, by altitude and by rearm needs, as the first island raiders came back also short of fuel and needing to recover. And he never got that recover-turn-relaunch time increment back. Because he was fighting symmetrically against a similar force whose value and ops cycle matched his own. Had the IJN sub screen gotten on station, either at Pearl or east of Midway, things might have been vastly different. But they didn't and because the Operation MI Carrier Force was tightly grouped and poorly controlled, they all got hammered, together. This is what I frankly also see here. You take a huge risk, based on a single assumption of superiority and don't account for some fairly simplistic counters. I'll close with one other remark. Russia is winning, by bloody inches, in Ukraine because they let NATO know that ANY intervention would lead to a prompt and overwhelming nuclear response. What happens if the Chinese pull the same stunt? 'Our ASBMs will be nuclear tipped with 200KT warheads'. Or 'Come ashore and we will nuke this island and everyone on it, including the TSMC fabs'. It's not like we can argue, having signed on to the 'One China Policy' of undisputed sovreignty. Because the only thing that will stop the loss of our fleets or Taiwan (or both) is a strategic preemption with B-2/B-21/DT Trident attacks on Beijing and the local Chinese theater BMC2. As well as any doomsday SSBNs that just happen to be out there, listening for an EAMs. If we screw up, it will be CONUS that dies next. You have to be decisive in destroying the threat's ability to project ultimate national power into the Taiwanese battlespace, rather than simply ending their ability to defend it from within its shoreline. This is where your entire CONOP is off.

Yes the new generation of weapons recently put into production or due to come online soon integrated with stealth makes for a lethal combination.

​@@OpWar2027 yeah but i have some points You did not include the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter in the simulation, and even if it is less stealthy than the F-35, it will have a great impact on the battle. Also, there are known means of protection from electromagnetic pulses, such as the Faraday cage, and I see nothing preventing the Chinese from using it Also, if the US strikes Chinese satellites, what prevents China from doing the same thing? Wouldn't striking American satellites affect the performance of the American forces in this simulation ?

Well, I was going for a “documentary style” video so wanted a true “announcer type voice”. Stylistic choice, may have been the wrong one?

You can get it to show cities etc if you play around with the settings and download different satellite terrain.

Yes, not every battle must feature J-20s or F-22s etc. there’ll be J-20s in future battles.

It was a stylistic choice. I may have overdone it being the first video of this type.

DCS and CMO. I agree it’d be very different in reality but I like not being in Leavenworth so open source data only is the way to go.

Facts Leavenworth is not a destination I’d want you in. Just makes u wonder how bad of a beat down would happen in real life and what mystery weaponry would be used

Thank you very much!

Great points. I’ll bear that in mind in future. Thanks.

Not every battle in every war features every plane type on either side. If I do future videos in the Taiwan region you can expect to see J-20s.

@@OpWar2027 ok

In future videos. Not every video features every weapons system.

Stay mad 😂😂 china is not numba one 😅

No video can possibly be accurate. You never know what would happen to with the fog of war, and international and political pressure. But I think he did a nice job of showcasing some single battle potential outcomes based off of capabilities, numbers, and chance.

No, it is just how the game played out.

Butthurt China boy? 😂😂😂

Don't worry. Chairman Xi sees your loyalty.

Do you know Jochen Heiden's Discord server? I'm unsure how to post files here but could post it to you there ( or someone else could ) if you join that.

I don’t think it’ll happen. The sheer amount of time needed to get all the clips out without the CMANO devs allowing whole battle tacview replays after the battle ends is just too large. I figure it’d take a minimum of a month of editing to make a single video. Compare that to other videos which can be done in an evening and, really, the return on time just isn’t there. It is very unfortunate and I think I will just play some scenarios and upload the gameplay videos without any dcs shots or other clips.

Thanks for the feedback and compliments. As for the callsign, consider it done. You're going to be an F-22 squadron CO who is gonna be right in the thick of it.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take them on board and can see there's an interest in seeing how various systems work so will address that.

@FreSch_Dude Thanks for the feedback. 1. You're not the first person to comment on the lack of background music. I was more worried everyone would be annoyed by the voiceover and didn't even consider people would find the silence an issue. I'm going to fix that via epidemic sounds next video. 2. I missed the changes in sound volume. I'll try to fix that next time around. I was/am quite unfamiliar with filmora and didn't realise the tools it had for audio levelling. I'll use them next time. 3. That was just a little creative flourish from me. I like it but think I'll tone it down to be significantly less intrusive next video. 4. Yes, that seems to be a limitation within Tacview. I'll see what I can do about it but it may simply be an unavoidable artefact of the bodges I need to do to capture this video without access to CMO Professional Edition.

@@OpWar2027 glad to hear you're aware of the points. Can't wait for your next video!

Thanks for the comment. Yes, I am thinking of a Patreon but want to launch the second video before I do that. The second video will come out at the end of this month/the first weekend of December.

@@OpWar2027 I really look forward to it, this is excellent content.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. It was fun putting the EW effects in.

Correct. My information is that the actual official name is Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. I figured that Taiwan international would be a more accessible, understandable name than the full title for an international audience.

Much appreciated!

Well, the scenario occurs in June 2027 so I think AIM-260s are a quite reasonable loadout at that time for Block IV F-35s. As to the J-20. For the purposes of the scenario these valuable assets weren’t deployed to the foremost field of combat ( a field that could expect to be hit with many planes destroyed on the ground ) but, rather, were kept on the mainland. You’ll see them in action in the next video.

​@@OpWar2027makes sense! But I don't think CMO has 2027 modeled for other nations really other than US. Theoretically J-20 would have the 6xPL-15 and PL-21 on J-16 but they don't have those hypothetical loadouts. Looking forward regardless.

@Gongolongo Yes, there's less modelling of future variants for nations other than the US. With that said You do have J-20s with super-cruise, PL-21s and loadouts with up to 8 radar-guided missiles per plane available and J-16s with 6xPL-15 in the CMO database. You should expect to see super-cruising J-20s in the next video.

>> CMO doesn't have PL-21s Actually it does: i.imgur.com/UqLDx3O.png

A bit strange! Is the J-20 used for special occasions? What kind of occasions? This is a war! Why wouldn't they add J-20s? By 2027 China should have a good number of units!

I'd also double check your WRA. AA should not be firing 3 missiles at a subsonic non stealthy missile. That's probably why the AA was running out of ammo.

The WRA for HQ-9B, HQ-16 and HQ-17 is 1 SAM for subsonic cruise missiles and 2 for supersonic. I think what you are seeing is multiple missiles locking onto the same incoming cruise missile once their original target is destroyed. As to the HQ-22. Well, it was either 3 x HQ-9B Bn without HQ-22 or 2 HQ-9B Bn with HQ-22. Since I wanted to test the HQ-9B more than seeing the HQ-22 in action I skewed it to having more HQ-9B than having any HQ-22. It's all a choice on what you want to explore/demonstrate.

@HypOps hi, delighted to see you here. You're the reason I finally dove into CMO and decided to learn (very basic) editing and make a youtube video. I hope you enjoyed it.

Well, I didn't want to assume and now that it is described in one video I can just reference back to it in any future videos and not waste the time again. But yeah, I would expect most people would pretty much know.

That's interesting. I thought people might dislike talking over everything and was worried that putting in all the engine noises etc might make things hard to hear so purposely left multiple sections without audio. It's good to hear feedback that that was the wrong way to go as I can fix that in my edit of the Chinese counter-attack video. I'll work on adding some suitable music (very faint). I had to learn video editing to do this so this is also my first edited video so I have a LOT to learn about editing etc... so expect the editing to be fairly rough for the first few videos. Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

@EvilTwinn Thanks for the comment. You're right about the jamming. I tried to take the most representative of the replays and in most of them the EA-18Gs ended up falling behind due to having to evade missiles... and the commander didn't load up on MALD-Js etc --- which would have helped, as you say. As for running the F-35s in the air to air role. Yes, that worked out better in play but most of the more representative playthroughs featured the F-35s in air to ground mode with SDBs so that's what I went for in terms of representing the average playthrough. Your points about planning the strike better are well taken. I think that would have helped too but in the turmoil of combat some of those sorts of plans went by the wayside when everything had to be improvised due to changing situations.

Thanks

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.