USA vs China Beating The HQ-9 With A Carrier Strike Group
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- This OpWar video simulates several hypothetical clashes between an American Carrier Strike Group and Chinese forces defending Chinese-occupied territory in Taiwan following a Chinese invasion in 2027.
Chinese J-10s, J-11s, J-16s fighters and HQ-9, HQ-16 and HQ-17 SAM systems face off against F-35s and F-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighters, B1 bombers and Tomahawk and JASSM-ER cruise missiles.
Will the more numerous Chinese forces hold off the Americans or can American technological superiority win through and set the stage for the liberation of Taiwan?
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
01:48 Scenario Descriptions
02:24 Scenario 1: Tomahawk Strike vs Chinese SAMs
06:46 Scenario 2: Tomahawk Strike vs Chinese SAMs + CAP
09:32 Scenario 3: USN Carrier Strike Group Alpha Strike vs Chinese SAMs + CAP
28:26 Scenario 4: Winnie The Pooh Strikes! Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love EMP!
39:34 Chinese Counter-Attack + Conclusion - Zábava
Cool to see your approach to this type of video. :)
I like some of your cuts and editing choices, especially some of the jump cuts and zooms.
Keep going!
@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.
Hey, well done! Great video, very informative and good at showing it all off.
I do have a few comments as far as the primarily 4th gen strike goes, as I think that while this definitely does have a bit of a narrative it wants to portray, there are ways to lessen the losses of the (mostly) 4th strike and increase how much damage it's doing.
If you can get some kind of jammers in closer with the Tomahawks you can achieve a lot more efficacy. That kind of close-in jamming support really helps degrade the enemy's ability to intercept a strike package.If you throw in a couple MALD-Js with the Tomahawks and others you can really increase the effectiveness of these strikes.
The same with running the F-35s farther ahead primarily in the air to air role. Poking out the AWACS's eyes before the strike package as a whole could get in its range makes a Chinese response more difficult, and then you have flights of F-35s pouncing on all the air threats as they pop up and thus keep the strike aircraft away from danger. You can lessen the threat to the F/A-18s significantly which would decrease the loss rate and also meaning more weapons launched at the target.
Additionally, with those F-35s out farther in front sweeping away that air threat, the timing of the strike gets more coordinated, as the Hornets aren't getting slowed down by going defensivee. Furthermore, this strike plan could also give the strike aircraft a bit of leeway, with them leaving a few minutes earlier and then loitering at or near a designated IP until the time to go in. This would again increase the mass of the strike going in, making it more likely for the defenses to get saturated earlier.
@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.
This is some really good quality stuff, I was amazed to find this was the first video of a brand new channel. Eagerly looking forward to more!
Much appreciated!
My only criticism as far as the video went is that there's a lot of longer segments with a complete lack of audio in between narration. That can be a tad bit empty feeling, so if you add a tiny bit of light background music or other non-disruptive sounds it could likely improve the video. Other than that, fantastic work and keep it up.
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.
Nice work. Insanely interesting.
This is a really high quality first upload, well done! Here are a few points that I've noticed and would like to give some feedback on:
- around 07:30 the silence is a little jarring for me personally, maybe some more sound effects or light background music might help?
- 14:42 there is a sudden jump in the volume of your voiceover, caught me a little off guard. it goes back to normal volume at around 15:27.
- 15:17 I'm not sure if this is realistic or not, but it's a little annoying having the screen flicker like that. I get you're trying to emphasize the jamming, but it's still a little stressful on the eyes.
- 16:42 once again silence, which is a little awkward imo. Also, the simulation is just a little slow (maybe because I've got a short attention span) - maybe add more explanation commentary, or speed up and make it a timelapse of sort?
- 24:40 volume balancing issue again
- 32:00 at this point I realize that the colors don't really represent any specific side and it's reliant on who you're spectating. It's a bit confusing.
besides those few nitpicks, very interesting video. Can't wait to see what comes next!
Greetings from the Hypops discord ;)
@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!
this video is made with the tech that the public knows about........on both sides.......would probably play out dramatically different in 2027 especially with the new ability to rearm TYCOS and Arlieh burks at sea under way in sea state 5 conditions.
what sim software was used here?
Great work!
Thanks
Love the EW effect at 30 mins. Very nice touch.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. It was fun putting the EW effects in.
I really liked your first video!
Very high Level of editing and Storytelling.
I almost instantly subed your channel and if it is still possible would like to be part of your next Video with the Callsign Mustang.
Keep up the good work i think youre on to something big here!
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.
I would like to see s video about radar jamming if you find the time for it.
Excellent!!!! A study of modern warfare!!!
Hey!
The F-35 is not the only 5th generation fighter today!
Where is the J-20 in the battle? It's in production!
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
Cool!
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Here are some of the things I like:
1. No heroic or villainess music playing making the video seem more like propaganda.
2. The focus on the looming conflict between the US and China.
3. The delving into physics. That was really cool to see. I would love a video about jamming and EW.
Things that could be improved:
1. As other commenters pointed out, more research about exactly what types of weapons systems each side has available to it would be beneficial.
2. Potentially a better narration voice. This one is not bad, but it could be improved.
Best of luck to you and your channel. I look forward to seeing the content you make in the future.
Lastly, I would love to see more content regarding EMPs. I do not know what is fact and myth about them.
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.
Like I mentioned on reddit, you're missing the HQ-22. HQ-9 for long range, HQ-22 for medium-long range, HQ-16 for short range. You're missing an entire layer. HQ-22 is the backbone of the Chinese AA network.
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.
any progress update on the next scenario?
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.
You used 6 x AIM-260 loadouts on the F-35? Idk that's at least a couple years out. A bit unfair especially given there's 0 J-20's in this scenario too and CMO doesn't have PL-21's.
BTW, F-35's in CAP loadouts will still run external AIM-9's. They only run slick for ground attack.
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 want to support content like this do you have plans to make a patreon?
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.
J-20?????
I'm guessing that your intended audience doesn't need any explanation of what a Tomahawk is or how burn through works.
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.
Taoyuan International.
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.
This simulation has nothing to do with reality. This is what you wish for
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.