Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.

Can A Chinese Type 052C Destroyer Flotilla Beat A US Carrier Group? (Naval 18) | DCS

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 15. 08. 2024
  • 0:00 History
    2:17 Sim Setup
    4:44 Fight!
    Master Sheet: docs.google.co...
    Playlist: • Naval Battles
    SPONSORS
    Winwing: www.wwsimstore...
    Winwing USA: fox2.wwsimstor...
    USEFUL LINKS
    GRIM REAPERS(CZcams): / @grimreapers
    GRIM REAPERS 2(CZcams): / @grimreapers2
    GRIM REAPERS(Odysee): odysee.com/$/i...
    GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim...
    DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
    DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
    DCS OFFICIAL SITE: www.digitalcom...
    ONE TO ONE LESSONS: grimreapers.ne...
    DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
    MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble....
    PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
    PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/...
    SOCIAL MEDIA
    WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
    STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
    STREAMS(Other Members): grimreapers.ne...
    FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
    TWITTER: / grimreapers_
    DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): / discord (16+ age limit)
    DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com... (16+ age limit)
    OTHER
    CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.c...
    CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.c...
    THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
    #GRNavalBattle #DCSNavalBattle #GR #DCSWorld #DCSQuestioned #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military

Komentáře • 709

  • @KennyBuildit
    @KennyBuildit Před 3 lety +172

    “Absolute beefcake of a missile” is a sentence I never knew I needed to hear

  • @christopherfischer6998
    @christopherfischer6998 Před 3 lety +79

    Hey supercap. Idea. A reverse engineered version of this series. Can you defend against a US carrier group attacking? Build up a defense and see if you can survive

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety +33

      Eeek, the possbilities.... let's finish the series first...

    • @NASWOG
      @NASWOG Před 3 lety +5

      This would be awesome!

    • @strambino1
      @strambino1 Před 3 lety +3

      I like this idea... I like it a lot

    • @arpioisme
      @arpioisme Před 2 lety +1

      Plz

  • @Tobascodagama
    @Tobascodagama Před 3 lety +92

    Real shame to see the AI once again wasting the carrier group's strongest asset, its air wing.

    • @theoneneo5024
      @theoneneo5024 Před 2 lety +2

      Not the first time I’ve seen DCS be more than a little tilted toward the Chinese or against the US.

  • @NASWOG
    @NASWOG Před 3 lety +256

    CAP, when transiting the straits the carrier strike group must be in a line formation because of the "football". the football is a 1-2 mile wide pathway through the straits that is technically outside of any territorial waters meaning vessels can "rotate and radiate". When in territorial waters you may not rotate or radiate without permission because it is unlawful to act as a warship in these locations otherwise. I have personally done this on several occasions. during the transit we have heavy airforce coverage from bases in Qatar. No naval aircraft are airborne during the transit besides a few seahawk helicopters. As offered previously, I would be more than happy to help you guys out with this series from an information standpoint. i'm on the discord. As it stands, the videos are fantastic but far from realistic in this scenario.

    • @volushin
      @volushin Před 3 lety +10

      Can you give us some insight in regards to the actual amount of escort ships for a modern carrier battle group? I feel like this video series has too many escorts. It was my understanding that the norm(at least in recent years) was more like 1 Tico cruiser, and 3-4 other Destroyers, and frigates, and a attack sub.

    • @NASWOG
      @NASWOG Před 3 lety +39

      @@volushin yeah, so the RAS (replenishment at sea) ships rotate and are rarely part of the strike group apart from transferring cargo. There is the carrier with 60-88 aircraft including helicopters, 1-2 cruisers, 2-3 destroyers, and generally 1 submarine. It is very rare to find all of those listed ships together at once due to required port visits for maintenance, side missions, and other miscellaneous tasks. A great deal of a carriers protection in the persian gulf is the nearby airforce bases. Often pacific carrier strike groups will be slightly larger due to the frequent absence of airforce assets in the area.
      One must also consider the ground assets available to a strike group in the Persian gulf such as patriot missiles, intelligence, and electronic warfare capabilities.
      It’s a rabbit hole but i would be more than happy to articulate further.

    • @stumccormick3226
      @stumccormick3226 Před 3 lety +8

      @@volushin No frigates anymore but otherwise generally true. But Carrier Strike Group in Persian Gulf in 2019 had 5 Destroyers and 1 Cruiser (+subs and a Spanish Destroyer). It is dependent on context.

    • @kerblingtime
      @kerblingtime Před 3 lety +5

      but considering of an active threat to the fleet, wouldn't the maneuvers be warranted? I would assume they know about the Chinese ships and considering the threatening nature of the situation, I would assume the captain of the ship at the very less arm a few planes?

    • @andrewparrish7309
      @andrewparrish7309 Před 3 lety +12

      This is a wartime scenario. Territorial waters is a peace time term.

  • @pj23nl
    @pj23nl Před 3 lety +174

    but basically all these tests are bogus due to the very shoddy AI

    • @FireStormOOO_
      @FireStormOOO_ Před 3 lety +18

      Sadly that's most games and simulations no matter how good the rest may be. Human level AI just isn't a thing yet.

    • @RN1441
      @RN1441 Před 3 lety +35

      Seeing the AI put 20+ harpoons in to the drink was very sad.

    • @Tobascodagama
      @Tobascodagama Před 3 lety +10

      Yeah, for these "silly" ones they should probably just film the single-player runs.

    • @averylee4302
      @averylee4302 Před 3 lety +9

      Shit like this is why I'm not afraid of skynet.

    • @timehaley
      @timehaley Před 2 lety +2

      Yes, this is a game AI running a standard program with certain parameters, hence all the failures. With people in the equation the flotilla would have been stopped much sooner. I was impressed though how the game AI used the Hornets EMC capabilities to jam the first wave of missiles fired at the harpoons. Getting to close to the flotilla with the Hornets, not so much. lol

  • @evrydayamerican
    @evrydayamerican Před 2 lety +12

    It sorta took the fun outta of it once everything started messing up. I like to really see a outcome cause some of these are really a present danger to us all. Thanks for all the great content.

  • @mattmoo6906
    @mattmoo6906 Před 3 lety +66

    Listening to Cap's commentary gives me a second hand adrenaline high.

  • @johnknapp952
    @johnknapp952 Před 3 lety +4

    A little note: American aircraft don't go below deck to re-arm or re-fuel, they do all that on the flight deck, this isn't WWII. The only time aircraft go to the hanger is usually for maintenance. Also the first missiles heading for the enemy ships would be HARMS.

  • @redgriffindiver7740
    @redgriffindiver7740 Před 2 lety +2

    Carrier AI question? In my experiences 1) Aircraft wouldn't go below deck to rearm. There would be ready loads in the rearm area on the starboard side of the superstructure. 2) Cat 2 is usually a parking area. If you launched a massive strike aircraft parked over Cat 2 would cycle over to Cat 1 to launch. Once the strike package is aloft you can recover and rearm.

  • @Im0utlaw
    @Im0utlaw Před 3 lety +27

    The best part of these videos is Cap's sound effects

  • @jommydavi2197
    @jommydavi2197 Před 2 lety +7

    "I'm gonna leave it to the AI so there's no bias"
    >> Proceeds to have a human fly american plane.

  • @teekay_1
    @teekay_1 Před 3 lety +10

    I think the problem with these simulations is it's one-dimension. It removes the submarine fleet that would be in constant contact with enemy fleet and would be prepared to sink a fleet before it got within missile range of the carrier group.

    • @MostLikelyMortal
      @MostLikelyMortal Před 3 lety +2

      Well, yeah. There has to be a few discrepancies for the war game to show any sort of interesting action. If the problem is resolved before anyone gets in missile range that’s not much fun, is it? Gotta sacrifice a tiny bit of realism for the sake of interest

    • @myopicthunder
      @myopicthunder Před 2 lety

      t

  • @MrPeterhemm
    @MrPeterhemm Před 3 lety +9

    “No one says kamikaze isn’t legal!” 😆

  • @StewNasty
    @StewNasty Před 2 lety +1

    19:11 Cap got so excited that he turned into a peacock.

  • @HebrewHammerArmsCo
    @HebrewHammerArmsCo Před 3 lety +2

    That was better then any Hollywood movie this year

  • @johnrollex680
    @johnrollex680 Před 3 lety +11

    Assuming that these specifications of these weapons are accurate we can basically determine that the Chinese would need three times the numbers and an AWACS in order to even stand a chance in a real engagement. The chinese AI really didn't do anything obviously wrong. But the American slammed almost all of their Air wing's harpoon missiles into the Sea. And this is beyond the fact that in a real scenario pilots would have much more ability to improve their effectiveness through skill and coordination then the destroyers would.

    • @neurofiedyamato8763
      @neurofiedyamato8763 Před 3 lety +2

      The US AI was dumb but actually so was the Chinese. The Chinese ships wasted so many SAM for no reason. Realistically, they would have been more careful on target selection. They wasted all their missiles on two Hornets doing nothing but circling around outside of their effective engagement envelope. All the missiles that were launched, only the last few salvos were within effective range. Most of the earlier shots had their safety fuse detonate well before it reached the Hornets. You can tell the missiles were also slow and lacked maneuvering capability by the time it got there. I mean any weapon''s officer with half a brain knows not to waste valuable missiles on that.

    • @johnrollex680
      @johnrollex680 Před 3 lety +2

      @@neurofiedyamato8763 that's a fair point. However I don't think that the Sam's really matter since the hornets can still fire their Seahawks out of the effective range of the SAMs and whittle down the defenses of the destroyers. There's really nothing they can do about that.
      And because the hornets would be airborne before the Chinese could bypass US defenses to mission kill the carrier, they would still get taken out. and the us could probably take out the Chinese AWACS before the Chinese overwhelm the carrier group defenses. But they do think that with three times the numbers they at least have a chance.
      But remember, this was still a very favorable engagement for the Chinese. Realistically the engagement would have started much farther away in actual War. Meaning that the carrier group would have had a much more decisive advantage.

    • @theoderic_l
      @theoderic_l Před 2 lety +1

      Realistically the Chinese wouldn't send out 8 of their not-the-best destroyers by themselves to attack an American carrier group in the strait of Hormuz.
      And yes, the AI was stupid for both the American and Chinese sides.

    • @ronaldmelia1172
      @ronaldmelia1172 Před 2 lety

      Don't assume anything. this simulation is based on bullshit. There is no way that 2 CAP will make 6 destroyers waste all of their missles on them. I am an ex Royal Navy CIS Chief and this simulaion is, in my humble opinion. CRAP!

  • @jean-yvesfriant1809
    @jean-yvesfriant1809 Před 2 lety +1

    I like your videos, and I am just discovering them now. Even without AWACS, the type 52C have helicopter with a search radar able to scan up to approx 200nm. I guess in this configuration, at least one helo would be scanning for the carrier group...

  • @danimal1306
    @danimal1306 Před 3 lety +16

    set them on weapons hold ROE until waypoint one at 26k feet, and then change ROE to engage everything. Easy fix to the mission parameters.

  • @jake4194
    @jake4194 Před 2 lety +4

    If the scenario is not going right like all of the hornets shooting their anti ship missles into the water, it needs to be done over. It makes the whole exercise pointless IMO.

  • @mobykanderwal3037
    @mobykanderwal3037 Před 3 lety +17

    Errors were made in setting up this simulation. Let's do it again please.

  • @lolasdm6959
    @lolasdm6959 Před 3 lety +33

    destoryers would have helicopters for over the horizon radar targeting.

    • @brianwaffle
      @brianwaffle Před 3 lety +2

      That is very true they would have Helo's up for surface search. But the second that would either radiate or they were picked up the BARCAP or a Burke would shoot to kill or drive them below the horizon.

    • @clivereid
      @clivereid Před 3 lety +2

      @@brianwaffle Not forgetting the CAP flight and that the other Hornets with their AMRAAMs.

    • @Loki1701e
      @Loki1701e Před 3 lety

      The E3s can be used for over the horizon targeting anyways

    • @davenobody407
      @davenobody407 Před 2 lety

      The Chinese also have large VTOL drones that can be launched from the destroyers.

  • @The136th
    @The136th Před rokem +3

    052D and 055 has YJ-21 ASBM which has 1500km range, if they are programed in, the result would be very different.

  • @jyralnadreth4442
    @jyralnadreth4442 Před 3 lety +2

    The US ships typically only carry 8x AGM 84 Harpoons in their own dedicated launchers...Harpoon isn't VLS launched but fired from the Mark 141 Quad launcher. The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class have 2x4 launchers when equipped but not all AB Destroyers have them, when they were in commission the Iowa Class BBs had 4x4 Harpoons and the Oliver Hazard Perry Class had the ability to fire Harpoon from its single arm launcher at a slower rate of fire (22 seconds per missile) than its SM-1s (8 second reload). The Old decommissioned RGM 109B Tomahawk anti Ship missile can be fired from the Mark 41 VLS. RIM 162 ESSM, RIM 156 SM-2 Block 4 and RIM 174 SM-6 Missiles whilst designed as SAMs can also function as Anti ship weapons although as Supersonic diving weapons.
    China uses a similar CIWS to the Goalkeeper 30mm Gatling gun...the Royal Navy used to use it

  • @lukycharms9970
    @lukycharms9970 Před 2 lety +1

    Lmao “use your head little hornet driver”

  • @maxwarrior3324
    @maxwarrior3324 Před 3 lety +7

    I love this kind of new tv serious! Its really fun to watch! Can you do something like black sea conflict from the last news? That would be great to see what might happened if

  • @FatOnAxis
    @FatOnAxis Před 3 lety +9

    Cap I have created another carrier attack mission in dcs where slavas and kirovs try to take on a carrier from a realistic distance 400km+ and programed the hornets to shoot down the anti ship missile. If you want the mission file just reply.
    Btw love the vids.

  • @michaelkaylor6770
    @michaelkaylor6770 Před 3 lety +29

    China ships: “launch 64 ASM”
    Mother: “giggles in AEGIS and 92 cell VLS!”

    • @neurofiedyamato8763
      @neurofiedyamato8763 Před 3 lety +2

      That's why some Russian ships have 16 launchers for AShM which would double the firepower coming from 8 ships. In another video by GR, it would seem that 120 missiles may be sufficient against the carrier group, at least in DCS. Most ships IRL aren't very anti-ship missile heavy though.

    • @dabo5078
      @dabo5078 Před 2 lety +1

      Modern Chinese destroyers such as the type 55 have more VLS than their American counterparts. The type 52c could be considered firmly a last gen design whose main purpose was mostly surface to air cover.

  • @azuresflames2473
    @azuresflames2473 Před 3 lety +2

    The most recent PLAN DD does have 112 VLS. Though the type 55 isn't in the game which isn't surprising considering it only entered service in 2020

    • @Firestorm2900
      @Firestorm2900 Před 3 lety

      Yea, I think it'll be a while until we see some of the more modern ships get in.

  • @allenliu8820
    @allenliu8820 Před 3 lety +4

    the type 052c has anti ship missile launch tubs facing the port and starboard sides which means they have to be broadside to fire them
    the type 052c are treated like mobile aa batteries compared to the other destroyers which are designed to be good enough in all areas

  • @code-dredd
    @code-dredd Před 3 lety +13

    So, this ain't making sense to me: If this is intended to be completely AI-controlled, and it works _correctly_ in single-player, and works _incorrectly_ in multi-player, then _why_ don't you just keep it in single-player?...

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety +2

      Simba wants to fly, so MP it is!

    • @code-dredd
      @code-dredd Před 3 lety +11

      @@grimreapers It's a bit unfortunate, b/c it's clearly impacting the quality of what you intended to portray with the video, but that's fair enough. What should really happen is DCS fixing that problem - you should just yell "Waaaaaagggggneeeerrr" again. Thanks for replying, though :thumbsup:

  • @neilwu9356
    @neilwu9356 Před 3 lety +10

    BTW, the Chinese 052C is now getting replaced( already ) with D type and 055

    • @steamedcream7671
      @steamedcream7671 Před 3 lety +3

      Not really replaced, but their production has ended. I believe around 6x 052C were built and in service. There are already close to 20x 052D in service with probably another 5-10 on the way. As for the 055, there are 3 in service and another 12 or so on the way.

    • @WangGanChang
      @WangGanChang Před 3 lety +1

      they probably more than 20 years of service life left, especially considering both 051B and 054 (not A) got refitted rather than being sold to Pakistan or Thailand. Given the original two 052C are nearing mid-life refit, it's would be interesting to see how it will be rearmed. My guess is GJB5860-2016 VLS will replace H/AJK03 and YJ-12 will replace YJ-83, and a HQ-10 RAMs. It may possibly get a new radars as well. However, it also possible only YJ-83 and electronics will be replaced, with HQ-10 replace one of the CIWS and it will remain a dedicated long range air defense ship.

    • @martinpalmer6203
      @martinpalmer6203 Před 3 lety

      Yes and the type 055 is roughly equivalent to what a modernized Ticonderoga would be . Likely extremely capable.

    • @zoka7108
      @zoka7108 Před 3 lety

      @@steamedcream7671 English wiki is outdated by almost a year. There is already 25 052D's and 8 055's

  • @flighttherapybullisticfpv133

    "Oh I know this one!.... awwwhhh.." pretty much sums up my first year of DCS

  • @bobrusso1814
    @bobrusso1814 Před 3 lety +16

    The fast attack submarines would end this game very quickly and brutally. With little fanfare. Do enjoy your shows.

    • @ChristnThms
      @ChristnThms Před 3 lety +4

      I wondered about that myself. Attack subs are wicked fast, and can do both ASM and torpedoes.

    • @bobrusso1814
      @bobrusso1814 Před 3 lety +5

      @@ChristnThms I believe they are the virtual, literal ‘Trump’ card in a modern naval engagement. HMS Conqueror sunk the old US WWII Cruiser General Belgrano without much fanfare and if there were unrestricted submarine warfare the Argentinian Carrier as well.

    • @michaeljohnson4258
      @michaeljohnson4258 Před 3 lety +1

      Submarines are the most dangerous warship because of their stealth. You will not know it is there until it fires. During war games it was easy to find hostile ships and aircraft but the subs were nearly impossible.

    • @johnknapp952
      @johnknapp952 Před 3 lety +2

      It would be interesting to know if we even every sent subs into the gulf. Not a very friendly place to operate (too shallow). If fact when I went to the Gulf with a LAMPS Det ('91) I pulled as much of the ASW gear off our bird (SH-2F) as I could as there was no perceived sub threat at all. We were just there to do SAR and Forward Observer work.

    • @ChristnThms
      @ChristnThms Před 3 lety +1

      @@johnknapp952 as much as our nuke subs rule the open sea, I wonder if the smaller size of the diesel boats make them a greater threat in such confined spaces? Also, when on battery alone, those things are as silent as a rock sitting on the bottom.

  • @qiyuxuan9437
    @qiyuxuan9437 Před 3 lety +5

    This is the reason why China only built a few 052B and C, the Russian style VLS system take too much space. The 052D which built 20+ already and 055 both used a new square VLS system that can fit much bigger missile than mk41can. 052 has 64, and 055 has 112. Those VLS can also fire YJ18 which has almost double the harpoon range with terminal speed over mach 4.

    • @Firestorm2900
      @Firestorm2900 Před 3 lety +3

      There are also more reasons. The 052B was more built under license from Russia to act as a stopgap until they had a fully Chinese built area defense. Also, the missiles used by the 052C and 052D are different in some ways, such as the homing of the HHQ-16A was closer to how patriot works, meaning some of the AESA panels needed to be dedicated to the X-band for them, and the -16B has active homing and longer range. Also, the 052D has better cooling and range for it's radar system.

    • @WangGanChang
      @WangGanChang Před 3 lety

      ​@@Firestorm2900 052B is the low risk platform which is basically a gas turbine Sovremenny without sunburns, it is developed constructed in the same time frame as 052C in case the 052C fails and China needs to a backup. Which 052C actually didn't meet PLAN expectation, however, China opted not to build any destroyers for almost a decade after the first two 052C rather than building anymore 052B. (efforts went into 052A instead) When 052C production resumes, it is almost immediately replaced by 052D (which was launched before any of the 2nd batch was even commissioned)
      interestingly, when 052Bs when into mid-life refit last year. the new weapon layout is essentially a enlarged 054A... (in fact Chinese Sovremenny mid-life refit are the same way as well)

    • @theoderic_l
      @theoderic_l Před 2 lety

      @@WangGanChang The PLAN sure have some odd naming schemes...

  • @jacobhill3302
    @jacobhill3302 Před 3 lety +13

    An actual full scale modern war would be an absolute catastrophe for everyone involved. The amount of destruction/death in a relatively short period of time would be shocking.

  • @dznuts123
    @dznuts123 Před 2 lety +5

    At this point, it’s obvious that this channel is not about realism. It’s about making us military look good. Lol

    • @mehp6107
      @mehp6107 Před 2 lety +3

      Lol theres alot of videos of the US group getting smacked, ur comment is dumb.

    • @Ender3Me
      @Ender3Me Před 2 lety +1

      Don't cry because Chinese junk loses at war. Haha

    • @mehp6107
      @mehp6107 Před 2 lety

      @@Ender3Me Bruh what? im american im just replying to his dumb comment

  • @Thigas1809
    @Thigas1809 Před 3 lety +7

    I would love to see a soviet cruisers group, with Slava class and Kirov class vs a US carrier group

    • @azuresflames2473
      @azuresflames2473 Před 3 lety

      czcams.com/video/Lc8hPPiyhZk/video.html
      He already did something similiar

    • @shaundavidssd
      @shaundavidssd Před 3 lety +3

      Haven't they done that already

    • @lucasgrand4725
      @lucasgrand4725 Před 3 lety +1

      @@shaundavidssd they have

    • @qiyuxuan9437
      @qiyuxuan9437 Před 3 lety +2

      Dosent work very well, since you cant make the ai to launch all their antiship missile in one slavo, which made them much easier to intercept with.

    • @surefresh8412
      @surefresh8412 Před 3 lety

      czcams.com/video/Zn3rkD3ocpg/video.html
      Here they used 10x Kirovs to simulate 2x Kirovs by making up for the fact that the AI only launches anti-ship missiles in salvos of 4

  • @georgesiew2758
    @georgesiew2758 Před 3 lety +1

    I have a suggestion. Instead of putting arbitrary combat groups together you should be matching the opposing forces by money. There is no point to pit a 5 billion dollar battle group against a 200 bill dollar battle group. An important aspect of these weapons in the end is their cost effectiveness. Taking the us CBG as a given standard you should be maintaining some kind of cost ratio with the chosen challenger. For instance, lets say the destroyers cost 2 bill each, you have 6 so that's 12 bill. A carrier costs like 10 bill, the airwing should cost about as much as the carrier so 20 bill for the whole thing. You can ignore the other boats or subs if they don't make any difference. Add everything together including munitions you probably got about 40 billion worth of weapons for the CBG. These Chinese destroyers are much cheaper because they are smaller, these are older models and Chinese have lower costs overall (both labor and materials). These older destroyers are probably 400-500 mill each. The newer 52D are probably 800mil-1bill each. So in total you have about lets say 5 billion with munitions and all in. A fight between 5 billion dollars with 40 billion dollars. This is a bit too lopsided. You should be aiming for a cost balance of about 10-15 billion for the adversaries. The US does have a big budget but it isn't able to field a dollar advantage of more than 3 or 4 to 1 against Russia or China. Also a costal Chinese or Russian destroyer back is almost always going to contain a large number small frigates and corvettes since that is their states strategy against large American capital ships. A more realistic composition of a Chinese naval battle fleet is a collection of 20-30 Chinese ships with 3-4 type 52s and then 5-10 frigates and 10-20 corvettes. To balance the money you should probably have two of these groups go up against one CBG. Also the CBG should be the one going offensive with the Chinese ships trying to defend a coastline. That is what the realistic naval engagement scenario will be.

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety

      Maybe later George, for now I just want to get the requests cleared. Then we can look at it again with fresh eyes :)

  • @jefftheriault5522
    @jefftheriault5522 Před 3 lety

    Carrier Strike Groups are supported with SSN's. This scenario would start and end with a torpedo ambush. If you find yourself in a fair fight when your nation's future depends on the outcome, you have f'd up on a massive scale. If somehow the SSN's are out of place, and the opponents are PLA DD's, the task group cancels the passage of the straights, backs off and sends in a fully coordinated saturation missle strike. Then the SSN's do clean up on aisle four, and then the Strike Group transits the straits.

  • @wanhapatu
    @wanhapatu Před 3 lety +4

    Those other missiles seem to be "BUK" or SA-N-12 Grizzly from the Type 052B destroyers.

  • @PolarPenguin526
    @PolarPenguin526 Před 3 lety +1

    I didn't know until now but apparently, on the Oliver hazard Perry the bushmasters on the side and the 50's above the bridge actually work. really cool at night. also as a bonus the rounds are red tracers for the 50's. now that would be a cool vid. put a few gunboats in front about a mile, wait until they get close and they should engage.

  • @JorgeRodriguez-ml6rv
    @JorgeRodriguez-ml6rv Před 2 lety +3

    GO SIMBA GO 🦁

  • @oliverf.1511
    @oliverf.1511 Před 3 lety +1

    Tthe 9M317 SAM is a missile fired by the Russian SA 11/17 or BUK missile system used by the 52B Destroyer. Enjoyed this vid a lot just like the others. The "What can beat a carrier group" vids are extremely interesting to watch.

  • @ranki1392
    @ranki1392 Před 3 lety +3

    I 🥰 US Carrier group series

  • @ronaldfinkelstein6335
    @ronaldfinkelstein6335 Před 3 lety +2

    How about two...Iowa Class battkeships... World War 2 configuration...or 1982 configuration, or even the Gulf War version.
    The later models have Tommahawk missiles, and CIWS; the WW2 versions have lots of AA guns(20×5"; 40 ×40mm, 80×20mm...each)

  • @williamescolantejr5871
    @williamescolantejr5871 Před 3 lety +1

    chinese waiting to get closer to use secret missle,the rammin noodle

  • @spetsnaz6739
    @spetsnaz6739 Před 3 lety +1

    I love the wat you say "Booommmm"

  • @mustafehusen8693
    @mustafehusen8693 Před 2 lety +1

    Dcs needs a major update Chinese so far is the biggest navy right now

  • @rocha1001
    @rocha1001 Před 3 lety +9

    Can you do a tutorial how you setup this wargames on DCS? Amazing content, love the channel.

    • @rgloria40
      @rgloria40 Před 3 lety

      I don't use Windows...Linux. I would like to know that too....DCS is more advance in World of Warships in terms of modeling... However, subs uses probably and cut scenes versus real time physics engine and probability also

  • @rre9121
    @rre9121 Před 3 lety +1

    Sublime. Chinese ships are lucky to be sunk by Harpoons, it's more dignified than their real fate will likely be.

  • @dennisstafford1749
    @dennisstafford1749 Před 2 lety +1

    Jeez louise again w the fups

  • @jonlamontagne
    @jonlamontagne Před 3 lety +3

    Is there really a difference between bravery and stupidity?

  • @unarmored9973
    @unarmored9973 Před 3 lety +11

    It's a bit annoying how the "most realistic combat simulator" has AI bugs that have been worked out since the days of Red Alert 2. No hate i love DCS. Just want to see a pilots not drop their quite important payloads into nothing.
    Maybe you could redo all these on SP?

    • @DaveYogs
      @DaveYogs Před 3 lety +2

      Dcs is much more complex mechanics wise, whereas red alert 2 is a top down mainly 2d game. Theres a higher chance of bugs in general in dcs

    • @unarmored9973
      @unarmored9973 Před 3 lety

      ​@@DaveYogs I understand DCS is several magnitudes more sophisticated than RA2 (obviosly haha). I'm using a hyperbolic statement (a rather poor comparison TBH) to express how i believe just a few lines of if statements could prevent pilot AI from dropping payload under altitude. I'm sure DCS AI code is probably more complicated than i'm assuming, but its just a glaring issue when the engine allows AI to make such poor decisions with mission critical payloads. But I'm sure they are working on it.

    • @alcibiades4716
      @alcibiades4716 Před 3 lety

      @@unarmored9973 I think the bug was to do with the ripple. Missiles were released at a high angle, maybe too low and could pick up ships on radar. Worked fine once planes flew straight and level. Leaves me to think AI fired without a target so the could rotate to CV

  • @johnkent9019
    @johnkent9019 Před 3 lety +2

    Would the aircraft really attack one at a time? Wouldn't they send in 4 at once and release a salvo of 16 harpoons at once?

  • @Deathbomb9
    @Deathbomb9 Před 3 lety +1

    If everything was modeled realistically, just the forward Aurley Burke's would've needed to fire anything as the rear was in standby. One swapping position from the rear to the front so the front could rearm from the magazine. And in reality they would probably fire everything in the front pods and then while it reloads just harass the Chinese with what's in the rear. And an EA-18G would go up and start to fry and jam electronics on those ships as well as make every missile they fire go dumb. The serious firepower of just one Burke class destroyer is astounding, let alone 4. Just one did a freedom of passage in the south China sea not to long ago and the Chinese were pissed because they couldn't do a thing about it since they are the only ones who view that water as theirs and that AEGIS system would probably know that they had missiles out before they even left the ground and then the response would be an absolute massacre in naval warfare because no one wants two full carrier groups taking their lunch money. Anything that was military would find itself in a shooting gallery. Going after a carrier is literally kicking a nest of Hornets.

  • @tombeers3489
    @tombeers3489 Před 3 lety +6

    Next up...
    All 2 million girl scouts... in canoes...throwing cookies.
    ...with AWACs support.

    • @amosmoses8656
      @amosmoses8656 Před 3 lety

      🤛🏻

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety

      Seriously, I'll do it...

    • @tombeers3489
      @tombeers3489 Před 3 lety

      @@grimreapers You know, I was just thinking about it. Maybe we should check the Geneva Convention first.

  • @Firestorm2900
    @Firestorm2900 Před 3 lety +6

    Some thoughts, someone mentioned how you use helos for that over the horizon targeting, I think you could do that, relay rough coordinates and let the radars of the missiles to the rest.
    052Bs use the Shitl missile, a modified Buk system for sea use. Also, I can't remember if it's the 052B or 052C, but one uses a missile close to how the Tomahawk ASM was.
    Felt kinda odd how the Chinese DDGs ran out of missiles. I swear the way AI handles fleet action air defense is a bit off as a whole. I'm not entirely sure but when I see either US or Chinese anti-air have 6 missiles to a single ASM, drives me nuts. Then again, not sure how that would work out IRL, so I'm unsure how close that would be IRL.
    Ardleigh Burkes are all steel construction, I dunno about the Chinese 052 series if they are the same way or not. Very interesting question I have not thought of.
    I'm not sure if 4 Harpoons would be enough to take out a DDG or not, could be enough to render it as a mission kill perhaps?
    The thing that scares me the most about this simulation is just how many harpoons took a swim, this could have been ended sooner.

    • @stc2828
      @stc2828 Před 2 lety

      Compare 052b to 052c is like comparing F18 with F18 superhornet. The only thing similar is the name, the capability is not in the same dimension. 052c is an Aegis ship while 052b is not.

  • @oscarzheng9902
    @oscarzheng9902 Před 2 lety +2

    chinese destroyers can use their anti ship guns to try to shoot down harpoons as a last resort defense

  • @wrayday7149
    @wrayday7149 Před rokem

    Depending on when this fight took place you have:
    American bases in: Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait.
    The Chinese fleet would of been tracked from the Pacific and either shadowed by 7th Fleet. 6th Fleet would of been tipped to move over closer to Israel or head to the Red Sea. The USAF could start shuttling aircraft down to Kuwait or Qatar to then arm up.
    End point being, American aircraft/drones would of been going towards the Chinese from every which way imaginable.
    And yes.... there might even be A-10's getting in on the action.

  • @StyxRiverGynoid
    @StyxRiverGynoid Před 2 lety

    *Sees F-18 with wings still folded in flight*
    *Thinks* "So, either AirForceProud95 or Grim Rea... yeah, thought so"

  • @thewakeup5459
    @thewakeup5459 Před 3 lety +6

    Try helicopters sneaking in behind a civilian ship

  • @cyronader
    @cyronader Před 2 lety +1

    I wish you could redo this with awacs for both sides and also NOT have the bugs lob off their harpoons as soon as they are airborne. Have the bugs in formation flight and then ripple fire their harpoons. You have it where it fires in individual flights which does nothing well for a saturated attack.

  • @Davros-vi4qg
    @Davros-vi4qg Před 3 lety +1

    Have just read how much Twitch strips of subs, so have changed to Patreon, only correct to support one of the hardest working folks on YT.

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety +2

      Thanks. I only make $100/m on twitch. No idea why so low.

    • @Davros-vi4qg
      @Davros-vi4qg Před 3 lety +1

      @@grimreapers 60% of the sub goes to Twitch.

  • @shveylien7401
    @shveylien7401 Před 2 lety +1

    Erm, you can test multiplayer versions by running it real time while editing, cooking, being busy and grabbing the track file to see how it went. A few more miles separation and more of those harpoons would have launched correctly.

  • @brutusbuk
    @brutusbuk Před 3 lety +4

    I love your videos, but if MP screws things up, make it realistic by just running single player. You all can play other scenarios in MP without having to post it and just have fun. Missiles just going into the water is not realistic. Thanks for what you provide. I've enjoyed it!

    • @jake4194
      @jake4194 Před 2 lety

      I completely agree, why post a video of jets shooting there missles into the water....

  • @Original50
    @Original50 Před 3 lety +1

    I am binge-watching this series. Random!

  • @quintenmaas326
    @quintenmaas326 Před 3 lety +1

    I love how Cap hasn’t been cutting out his ‘break’ sections lately

  • @tonykriss1594
    @tonykriss1594 Před 3 lety +1

    So there's this thing called radar ducting that let radar sees over the horizon (sometimes even longer than its designed range). Radars that designed to exploit atmosphere duct has been a default for any semi-modern large surface combatant from Russia or China. Apparently this is not modeled in DCS (as its such a complex mechanic and most of time don't affect aircrafts) or those Chinese destroyers would be able to fire at that carrier from beginning of this scenario.

    • @tonykriss1594
      @tonykriss1594 Před 3 lety

      Also AI seems failed us again. Those ships turned side way two times and neither time did they actually fire. Reminds me that time those Slava so stubbornly refusing to fire more than 2 missiles a time.

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety

      Thanks Tony

  • @jeepinbanditrider
    @jeepinbanditrider Před 2 lety +1

    I'm fairly certain that the Harpoon can be programed to execute a turn or dog leg maneuver. Which would explain the turns some of them were doing.

  • @jamathy9953
    @jamathy9953 Před 3 lety +1

    Going to an auction be like 18:34

  • @PrepperStateofMind
    @PrepperStateofMind Před 3 lety +2

    Every night I watch this channel, with a nice glass of whisky. What a brilliant combo. Lol

  • @RogueWraith909
    @RogueWraith909 Před 3 lety +1

    The SSM missiles fired by the Chinese ships are mounted to fire sideways, not forwards... might affect them launching if the AI is flaky enough to fire Harpoon at too low an altitude.

  • @mbukukanyau
    @mbukukanyau Před 2 lety +1

    Let’s face it, in an all out war, the US Navy would bring everything including the kitchen sink, the baby, the bath water, and grandma’s cooking… it would be no … place for the Huns but iron bottom sound..

  • @timblack6422
    @timblack6422 Před 3 lety +1

    Everything you do is “extremely exciting “!

  • @rupturedtortoise.1542
    @rupturedtortoise.1542 Před 3 lety +2

    The Americans actually have in the 90s of amount of missiles on destroyers. On Cruisers its in the hundreds.

    • @steamedcream7671
      @steamedcream7671 Před 3 lety +2

      96 mk41 cells for the Burkes and 122 for the Ticos. Burke Flight 1 and Flight 2 also have 8x Harpoon however the Flight 2a do not. Ticos have 8x Harpoon.

  • @caseymcgrath4258
    @caseymcgrath4258 Před 3 lety +1

    Hi Cap, I hope you continue to be well. China has two carriers, built on the Kuznetsov pattern. The first, Liaoning, was built in Ukraine and had two name changes; 'Riga' then 'Varyag.' the second carrier was built from keel upwards in China, and is called Shandong. Maybe consider adding Kuznetsov to the flotilla and see what the AI makes of it? Also if the Reapers were to choose blue and red sides and fly from Nimitz and Kuznetsov, trying to sink the carriers it would make a good multiplayer vid, I think.

  • @anthonydrake4244
    @anthonydrake4244 Před 3 lety +1

    Flex deck? Sim,ultaneous launch and recovery? C'm,on man!

  • @peterdd4994
    @peterdd4994 Před 3 lety +1

    Advanced chinese electronic counter-measure is why those harpoon missiles failed...

  • @player55redcrafter8
    @player55redcrafter8 Před 2 lety

    I'd love to see more of this, but excluding the aircraft carrier and other land based aircrafts. Just a pure cool fight between surface action groups of DDGs and FFGs.

  • @brianfoster7064
    @brianfoster7064 Před 3 lety +1

    Weapons are loaded on the flight deck. That's the whole purpose of the bomb farm, where I used to stand watch.

  • @miauwgabriel3547
    @miauwgabriel3547 Před rokem

    9m317 missile are the Russian naval Buk M2-E missile system or the NATO designation as SA-17 Grizzly. The 9M317 Buk M2-E was an export variant of Buk M2. This missile system was entered in service with the Russian army in 2008 and has a range of 45 kilometers.

  • @charliecarter6637
    @charliecarter6637 Před 3 lety +2

    Love your work. What about trying it single player, let it run and record it and edit it up for time jumps or let people skip ahead or watch in faster speed or let roll. Thanks again either way.

    • @grimreapers
      @grimreapers  Před 3 lety

      We really like at least one human flying a jet in the sim, it's what GR are all about :)

  • @josephpriest1488
    @josephpriest1488 Před 3 lety +3

    Loving vs us carrier group vids!!!

  • @mainlycarthings3430
    @mainlycarthings3430 Před 3 lety +2

    Really enjoying this series!

  • @gdelan1
    @gdelan1 Před 2 lety +1

    Those anti-ship missises must have been from the lowest bidder. Time to contact supply

  • @ataxpayer723
    @ataxpayer723 Před 2 lety +2

    Harpoon Maximum altitude is 910 metres (2,990 ft). In reality they would have been fired from Over the Horizon and the Hornets would stay out of range of the Chinese Frigates.

    • @stc2828
      @stc2828 Před 2 lety

      The AI is silly, it will literary run F35 into visual range of ships so they would get fired upon.

  • @boyteebah3794
    @boyteebah3794 Před 3 lety +3

    cap, can you do Swiss Navy vs US Carrier group?

  • @demomanchaos
    @demomanchaos Před 3 lety +2

    If the Reds had AWACS it would have just been taken out by Hornets, and if the Hornets had functional Harpoons the Reds wouldn't likely even be able to get missiles towards the Yanks let alone through their defences.
    I would love to see what kind of damage a gun run from an A-10 would do to a ship, maybe even throw a flight of them against a WWII fleet to see if the Thunderbolt II's would outperform the Thunderbolt I's.

    • @pike100
      @pike100 Před rokem

      Are you launching the A-10 Warthog from a carrier? LOL! 😂

  • @williamowens2970
    @williamowens2970 Před 3 lety +1

    That Missile is suppose to be a HHQ-9 surface to air Missile, but it’s not suppose to have the middle stabilizers on the Missile. Just a deferent skin for dcs

  • @ClarenceDoskocil
    @ClarenceDoskocil Před 3 lety +1

    Please recreate the current (29 June 2021) scenario of the NATO/coalition exercise in the Black Sea. Include Russian coastal defenses, TU-22Ms, Su-34s, Bear bombers with rotary cruise missile launchers, Black Jack bombers, F-22s, etc. Let Turkey sit this one out.

  • @arussell508
    @arussell508 Před rokem

    at 43:18 hes flying with his wings folded. haha

  • @kenhelmers2603
    @kenhelmers2603 Před 2 lety

    I get such a kick from Cap's excitement :)

  • @WhiskeyTango84
    @WhiskeyTango84 Před 3 lety +1

    Cap, giving navy adversaries ideas since 2020. :)

  • @richardduerr9983
    @richardduerr9983 Před 3 lety +1

    What's the problem with recovering and launching at the same time? Is that a software issue, because it certainly is not an actual operational issue. I was aboard the last non-nuclear carrier in operation, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from the middle of 1984 to 1988 and we routinely launched and recovered simultaneously. Anyway, I do really love to watch these crazy simulations you propose in DCS, even if they are not necessarily accurate. It's all good fun in seeing how DCS renders it. I am interested in how you think that Chinese missiles would out perform U.S. missiles, when you or anyone else outside the Chinese military or U.S. military has any actual data on the performance of their weapon systems, especially their missiles. BTW, I was an FTM (Fire Control Missiles) rated on the NATO SeaSparrow Surface to Air Missile System (NSSMS) though I will definitely not share anything about those systems, other than the fact that they are very effective anti-missile missile systems, at least in live fire exercises of the late 1980's. Again, that discussion is not to take away from these awesome crazy scenarios that you build for how to defeat a U.S. carrier battle group, they are most entertaining!!!

  • @paulybassman7311
    @paulybassman7311 Před 3 lety +2

    Hey Supercap!
    Why dont you get Millenium 7* to do the profiles on missiles like the Harpoon . He is a proper super brain. And he likes watching GR's.👍😉👌

  • @danishbegmirza
    @danishbegmirza Před 3 lety +1

    Wow, it's a real Turkey shoot!

  • @tammywehner3269
    @tammywehner3269 Před 3 lety +1

    yes, ti-co's short for Ticonderoga class cruisers. pronounced tie- con-der-oh-gazs ( or "tie" fighters from star wars).

  • @kennyj4366
    @kennyj4366 Před 3 lety +2

    Need to give the first four aircraft a higher than “Normal” rating. Normally first off are higher time pilots etc...

  • @rjakiel73
    @rjakiel73 Před 2 lety

    All missile attack. The escort attack subs just chilled. If those were brought into play it would have been a really quick fight.