America's New AIM-120D3 Missile vs China's PL-15 (Naval Battle 94) | DCS
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- We have a first look at America's latest air to air missile, the AIM-120D3. How does it stack up against the Chinese PL-15?
PATREON: / grimreapers
RUMBLE: rumble.com/c/c-2381990
ODYSEE: odysee.com/@grimreapers:e
0:00 Overview
2:15 Scenario Details
7:30 Battle
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS (CZcams): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2 (CZcams): / @grimreapers2
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grme...
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDona...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD: / discord
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#GRNavalBattle #DCSNavalBattle #AIM120D #PL15 #AircraftCarrier #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military - Hry
I've read through the comments, and you guys are not happy with the way I set this test up. I'll redo it in a non-naval setting with a better overall set up.
Sorry to be those whining kids yo, would it be simpler(oh I love that word not) to have the airframes spawn in as a group of 4 ships at the same moment 220 nm away from each other?
Yup will do!
Thank you for that, and for that I better get back to coding my favorite 60s failure to 70s, 80s, and 90s tank busting "fighter" bomber....
I may have been one who provided a little constructive criticism. That said, I just want to thank you for making this content in the first place. I (and I’m sure many other valued viewers) appreciate time and effort you put into creating this content. It’s top notch and truly endless entertainment!
@@coreysuh6502 then to you too, thank you.
The formation gives the escort vessels more time to intercept and detect incoming threats to the carrier than the GR formations. If a significant threat is detected, I imagine the strike group would change course or wait for additional strike groups and overwhelming firepower, if there's going to be a battle.
And they would also adjust the formation on the fly in response to the direction and type of threat.
yeah, it gives more time to turn around the carrier and flee
And also it stops ships from wasting missiles when all ships fire on one missile. Being spread out means the front ships will fire first and the ships in back can't fire until the enemy missiles have passed entirely over the front ships.
As someone who was aboard a super carrier and stood lookout at all hours of the day and night, you will pretty much always have one escort within sight, 10-12nm, the rest wont be seen unless you're crossing a straight or some other show of force.
@Nero - yep and the plane guard always follows behind the carrier as well.
@@Jeffrey.1978 Never say "always" with regards to USN ship formations. Early '80s; 2 deployments CVN64/BG-F; up to 3 CVBG ops; exercises with >50 ships and it was very RARE to have a "plane guard" vessel anywhere near Big-E.... EXTREMELY RARE ! "Defense-in-Depth" requires you spread out your assets with overlapping coverage of both sensors and weapons. These DCS games are fun, but they are "just games." Very little actual TACTICS employed. JMHO.
@@andymillon7964 - I agree with you, but I am speaking from my experience of being on DDG's. I just retired from the Navy (25 years) in July of 2022. I've been stuck in that plane guard position many of times doing race track patterns chasing the carrier. lol Speaking of the big E, I saw her on her final deployment to the Persian Gulf in 2012.
I'm so glad that someone such as yourself with actual service experience has confirmed what you did. I spent my career as a first responder and because unfortunately the military wouldn't take me but I am devoted pretty much all my free time since my early twenties to Military and especially Naval History. And that is always been one of my pet peeves with their Naval reenactments was they had the surface groups way too close together. I mean if you're talkin 1940s WWII technology yeah they kept things close because they had the case being gun range of each other to overlap fields of fire. But with the missile age especially these days those tight formations make no sense at all. So again thank you for your confirmation
Hmmm seems like the super hornets are glitching just after they fire their first missiles, going subsonic but flying straight and level, as you mention a human pilot would never do that in such an engagement
Sadly we do not have any control of the AI planes once they engage in combat, they make their own decisions after that. I wish I got to see the background code that controls them.
With the sheer complexity of DCS there is inevitably going to be buggy AI.
I was stationed on a US aircraft carrier and throughout a deployment in the Middle East, saw other ships 2 or 3 times, and that includes our replenishment. It was exceedingly rare. 10+ miles seems completely reasonable.
Which carrier? I was on the Enterprise and saw a lot of the Gulf of Oman
Got go on a supply mission via helicopter to an island. Gave us beers since we were off ship. A few beers, no one got hammered or anything.
@@jdickson1234 Eisenhower. Went thru Hormuz in early 2000's. Was hoping to see another ship then, but no such luck. That was back when we were doing no fly zones over Iraq.
@@gamger5583 We used give the finger to soviet helicopters coming close to our ship lol. They would get pretty close. Watched their ships try to pickup our trash like we're dumb enough to put classified info in the bags. Went through Suez Canal on the Enterprise. That was also crazy. Stationed Marines had sandbagged positions on flight deck. No flight ops that day. Any building you saw on the banks of the Suez were riddled with bullet holes.
@@jdickson1234 I hope someone threw in some fake alien tech schematics into the trash.
Kinda odd that 90% of the F-18s just didnt defend at all. And the ones that did defend did defeat the missile. Yet all the Chinese aircraft defended properly.
Must be the mod then - remember, the J-15B is actually core game, although I don't know if GR changed the AI at all. I imagine that the modded AI has not recieved the AI update that ED released a few moons ago.
@@totalnerd5674 maybe
@@totalnerd5674 J15B is *not* core game.
@@92HazelMocha No, but it is a modified version of the J-15 which itself is just a reskin of the core game Su-33
Sorry if I wasn't clear
Well spotted, will investigate.
If the intent is to test missile performance, why include the CSGs at all? Wouldn’t it make sense to eliminate as many independent variables as possible? Ideally, you would want all the aircraft starting in the air, and potentially having all airframes be the same. That way you can isolate the results to mainly missile performance instead of aircraft performance and carrier launch rate.
In hinesight I would have done a simpler battle without naval.
I wouldn't say the navy effected much in this fight, just a neat setting for the air combat.
@@Vsor You need the airframes on both sides to inform the missile effectiveness surely.
Luv and Peace.
If you wanted to test missiles, it seems to me that it would be best to have a naval fight at sea. Not on land, especially when you have a mountain range closer to one team than the other allowing that team to hide behind the mountains unnoticed and then pop up and fire.
Grim Reaper, can you program the game so that missiles from four or more different ships won't fire at the same time. For example, limit the firing of a missile in the group to occur every 10 or 15 seconds or more, that way reducing the same target being hit too many times?
I love these. Don't care who wins. Very interested on seeing older formations versus this new one. Probably only effective in 5th gen formations but it might be fun to see it done.
Same here! I enjoy watching these no matter the outcome; it’s quite interesting to observe the dynamics between the sides based on what tactics, weapons and weapons platforms are used.
Hey I just want to say I love the war games on you’re Chanel and appreciate the effort you and you’re pears put in to them keep up the good work
I can tell you from being on the Theodore Roosevelt that I could never hardly see the other ships in the BG around us. Usually one destroyer close in and nothing else. If I got some binoc's I could see some other ships on the horizon, so that combat spread seems pretty accurate. My whole career I never saw a Tico cruiser in our formation. Only when we got into restricted waters would we shrink it up.
Brill thanks.
FFG-9 USS Wadsworth Oil King here. The only time we went close to the flattop was during unrep's. Prob 20 NM+ out on screen. Nothing gets your blood up more then doing unrep off the starboard side of the Oiler with a CVN doing unrep off to port. And still doing flight ops! GO NAVY!!!!!
He formation of the ships seems right to me, you want the engagement envelope out as far as possible!
Our formations were spread out to almost over the horizon at times when i was deployed. and dont forget the subs that accompany the carriers. They're there for ASW work.
I think for the new formation there are human admirals required, since formations go together with the tactics. So "stupidly" going head-on will probably make that formation worse
the reason for the long distance is, 1: to give a timed delay/in-depth defense against the missile threat and 2: to prevent the destruction of all the ships in case of a nuclear attack against a vessel in which the missile is not countered.
thx
Love these videos. New to watching but been going through them.
Welcome!
You’ll love GR - loads of fun …and learning too 😃
Using carrier groups seems like a lot of complication and extra variables. China doesn't have any naval AWACS yet, and few land-based ones. I would have planes at air bases 200 miles apart, all lined up on the runway. If you can manage it, I'd give each side the same kind of plane so the only variable is the missile. It might be good to run it again with no AWACS.
Yeh in hinesight making it a naval battle was a stupid idea.
KJ-600 - isn’t that the Chinese naval AWACS?
@@dexlab7539: It will eventually be. The prototype is in flight testing now.
Thanks!
Thanks
My idea on the reason the AIM-160D3 performing worse than the PL-15: as you mentioned, the range extension of the D3 is mainly based on improving the flight path.
But the PL-15 just has the brute force to get to the range of more than 100Km, is does not nedd the "trickery" in the flight path optimization.
This basically shows, that the PL-15 is still the superior BVRAAM when compared to the AIM-160D, no matter what version.
This applies to the DCS version only of course, I bet there are vast differences in capabilities of sensors, jamming equipment etc.
These are all mods (everything newer than the Aim120C5 in dcs) so take it with a pinch of salt. The ECCM on the C5 is modeled in the sim, but obviously the player made mods have nothing of the sort, so the 120D's, PL15's, aim260, meteor, etc are largely just guesswork by non-sme's.
Agree. The range of the D3 seems to be best case. As soon as you have a suboptimal situation, it goes back to pretty much a D1 which makes sense. It sucks but the Chinese just have a better missile until the next US tech comes out.
As a pure rocket PL-15 is probably better, but on-board computing and sensors will be much better on AMRAAM.
@@LondonSteveLee I would not even be certain, if the US missiles are better by default. But I´m positive, that there are major differences in the way they are built, the way the programmers think and, recently, the availability of state of the art (or to be precise: the lack of it) will play a major role.
@@RageDavis Exactly which is why I used the word "mechanically" Soviet (and therefore Chinese) rocketry is first class and don't forget Clinton gave China enormous amounts of technological assistance in that area too. Western microprocessor tech is at least three generations ahead of the Chinese - it's now a race against time to pull it out of Taiwan and repatriate it before we are forced to bomb it to dust. Because if we lose access to that tech an(effectively hit the reset button) the Chine will out-manufacture us at everything else. There's the true nub - if western consumers would simply stop buying Chinese goods all of these problems would go away - but they're addicted to cheap at any cost - and boy will that be a price to pay in the future.
28:26: Behold the military application of superposition at the macro scale.
It’s cool when you model this stuff. You and many of your regular guests know details about the military hardware which I do not encounter anywhere else. I absolutely love the specs. If I can submit these two opinions to you:
1. Perhaps more information from cited sources such ISW(Institute of the Study of War)
2. Be more objective. I’m an American and I love it when the good guys win, but I don’t want to engage in self-deception.
3. Games got some major and frequent bugs.
4. Love the show. Loads for fun. Cappys got style.
-Viewington
sadly dude I can tell the 2nd point gonna be hard,
just days later he literally avoid use ztz99a for a tank competition (which is the backbone of PLA irl) and choose a 2nd generation tank for china against NATO 3rd generation, see plenty ppl raise eyebrow for that
the PL15 looks like the Chinese might have 'borrowed' some ideas from the Americans.
Everyone ‘borrows’ from everyone else - every heard of Apollo (Werner van Braun)?
Although it "averages out", it feels like the four J15's insta-spawning ready to launch at the start gives them a huge advantage. They quickly get a front of three planes that fly toward the bull almost together. Meanwhile the F-18s are in a single file. Those first three J15s all arriving at a firing distance at nearly the same time and unleashing their big load of missiles immediately puts the single file line of F-18s on the defensive (while pretty much only the front f-18 is able to start firing). The F-18s were just never able to overcome that initial mismatch in numbers.
Noted.
I'd actually be interested to see a War Game to test that fleet formation's effectiveness (at least it's effectiveness within game). I'd recommend a straight ship-to-ship, with the exact same fleet composition on both sides; the standard GR modern CSG vs an identical GR modern CSG in the new formation; no planes (unless they are only flying in anti-ship because it helps eliminate variables).
Wish we'd just mass produce CL-20 high explosive to use as an oxidizer in solid rocket motors propellant. We've done HMX boosted ones in the past to get needed performance on certain heavy lift ballistic missiles and already developed an insensitive munitions rated cl-20 propellent and its performance is even better. You get an extra 40-60 seconds of ISP over the standard solid rocket propellant with no other change which would give an even a 120d quite the range boost and an even bigger one for the 260.
Problem is the pressures involved. If you switch to a more energy dense propellant, it'll produce higher internal pressures, which means the whole system has to be redesigned to prevent catastrophic failure. The redesign will likely be slightly larger and heavier, and ultimately you're talking about what is essentially a completely different missile.
Would F-15s do any better than F/A-18s? (with the new AIM-120D-3)
Agree, I should have done that.
Range of missiles and speed of planes is a big plus. They can launch at a better distance and turn away and make the missiles lose battery or fuel
I've noticed it seems that the Hornets are all getting shot down with 90% of their missiles still on the pylons while the OPFOR are spamming out the PL-15s. Is this a game issue or a programing thing?
Well spotted, no idea TBH but will investigate.
So, I was wondering about the whole 'improvement by software' -thing. Cuz I used to be a hardware/software engineering guy (now a dentist). Anyway, Raytheon sez the upgrade-to-D3 effort included the upgrading of 15 existing 'circuit cards' (PCBS that fit in whatever-bus they are using these days) via a "Form Fit Function Refit (F3R)" effort. AND the F3R included some things that (according to the DOD FY23 Missile Procurement Estimates Justification Book vol 1of 1) had a 13 month slip in "hardware integration" and it may have revolved around this M-Sim system that allowed those Software Engineers to TEST OUT their fancypants code even tho the ACTUAL hardware wasn't ready yet.... so basically they had a "emulation simulation" environment in which to test things out and, because things happen fast when you are flying missiles, they have to test the code not only for functionality but also that it executes fast enough to give a valid "solution" in time for the missile to make mid-flight corrections.
HMmmmm
So, basically they had a hardware blackbox that could act like the new zoom-go-fast processors/systems on those 15 new PCB assemblies even tho those assemblies may not exist yet.
Kinda like, may they had a big-arse state-machine in there running some stupid-fast logic family and it's executing the test-code from the software jockeys, but it's not the condensed, size-compressed
BITD, one of the things I helped create was like a reverse-of this (above)
Our customers used our company's system simulator but in the pre-VHDL days, there were not reliable software models for arbitrarily complex IC's like an Intel 80286 processor... and the models they did have ran incredibly slow due to the hardware of the day (early 80's engineering workstations)
So, we (the fledgling, tiny, 6 person Hardware Design Group) created a Hardware Modeling Library (HML) which accepted devices with up to 256 active pins in virtually any pinout that could be socketed into our Device-Under-Test areas (upto 32 DUTs simultaneously if they were 64 pins in DIP format, or less). Anyway, In that system were took the vectors produced by a software simulation of the REST of the schematic and presented them to the DUT, then read it's response. over and over and over, to create a system level simulation that used the real hardware. It is WAY more complicated than that, especially since we had the ability to report the actual chip's timing data down to a few nanoseconds... done with smoke, mirrors, precision drivers in semicustom driver/sensor chips and system clocks that could be altered/phased by a few nano-seconds using MECL master clocks and the voodoo of knowing the exact PCB layer impedance data AND the trace lengths to/from each device pin. I did the last bit (PCB Voodoo) as well as came up with a system to accept a very wide variety of packaging styles (DIP, SOIC, quadpacks, PLCCs blahblahblah)
Because no one ever believes me, I have a pic of "my" PCB that accommodated devices with up to 128 active pins (bitd, they'd usually be in PGAs, bump-arrays, or big hybrid modules.). If you want to look at it, a pic of the board is over at i.imgur.com/3EgOAcP.jpg
The pic is just of the PCB (about 15x15 inches)... in the background you can see an amp or two, plus an Ovation Viper guitar.
SORRY CAP, no drum sets... I am not that coordinated.
Anyway, I would have LOVEd to have been a fly on the wall back when Raytheon was explaining the problems of making their M-Sim, which sounds a little like the HML, except the hardware does not change (the emulated hardware does not change, but the software (sim-vectors for me) does).
We got our general purpose device up and running in 30 months.
I wonder how long it took Raytheon?
Oh, wait... this channel is about things-with-wings ... my bad.
Carry on.
Most of that is above my IQ, but I enjoyed reading it!
Congratulations on the new addition to the squadron, Cap! :)
thx
It spreads out the field and might make deconfliction more difficult, it also might put the escort ships on the front line, so first sight and potentially the first missile strike would target escorts as opposed to the carrier itself.
I can think of two things this formation does: 1. It increases sensor coverage/reaction time as not all ship sensors are bunched together but more spread out. 2. It allows the sensors/radar to track and target from multiple angles. We have seen that "blobs" of vampires/drones are hard to track and make intercept more difficult. GR formation tracks a blob from pretty much the same angle as all ships are near each other but this formation would allow the blob to be tracked from multiple angles, not just head on but from each side as well. This improves tracking/targeting? That would be my guess.
Additional thought: How likely is friendly fire from ships that are close to each other trying to shoot down multiple vampires that come in close to the fleet? Having the ships close together does provide better weapons coverage but I imagine there is the possibility of 20mm CIWS hitting friendly ships or even SAMs attempting to intercept low flying anti-ship missiles that are amongst the fleet hitting a friendly ship. And if you don't allow those weapons to fire in certain directions because their are friendly ships there then you create arcs or gaps in coverage for those defensive weapons.
The AIM-120 always seems to lose lock when in a dive and does the strange nose wiggle whereas the PL-15 will chase forever, it might be some baked in code from the base game to favour certain countries or its some bizarre bug based on the sensor but the AIM-120 definitely looks like it has a lower PK across all the scenarios.
Wow! Even AI can see the differences in policy focus between China and America.
China: realistic/logical/win
America: ABC people/racism/woke
Battle group spacing is accurate taking in consideration of link/CEC.
Gonzalez The Great did a thing. Good to see you back CAP. At least while mini cap sleeps👍
There exists so called N square law, meaning any numerical dvantage tends to propagate. For example, if you have 100 to 80 advantage at the beginning and "10% kill per round", it will go 92-70, 85-61, 79-52, 74-44, 69-37, 65-30, ...
In this case, if the Chinease are quicker at the beginning, they may get more aircrafts it the first wave, get an advantage there, and the following wave is already going into uneven battle... and the initial advantage propagates.
Even if they just have more time to get up and accelerate, any initial advantage will propagate massively in such a "meatgrinder" scenario like here.
Yes 12kn missile range advantage and the initial mass over time becomes a larger and larger advantage and that initial massive wave of ASM's may have provided some initial sensor saturation as well. Would really have to look at the Tacview and take some sampling of launch altitude and speed, missile performance, etc.. to see what the planes were really doing.
Stay strong, Daddy. I’m a grandpa of two at 53. 🇨🇦 Veteran
Question: How are Warhead weights modelled in DCS? Is there a fusing distance parameter (Do the smaller american warheads have to get closer?). Or is it simply for damage calculation i.e. whatever is touched by the blast radius takes weight damage no matter how far it is from the centre of the blast?
Fuze range and type is modelled. There is a blast/frag pattern(based on warhead size), and any plane parts in that frag pattern sustain X amount of hit point damage. That's all I know.
@Grim Reapers - Congratulations with "Mini-Cap"! :) Are you going to start him off at a young age and make DCS his first game?? lol
You bet, before he can walk.
When its this even, the advantage always goes to whomever fires first.
@Grim Reapers reacquisition is the word you are looking for my good sirs.
i see in the video that their is a wake behind the aircraft carriers and other ships. for me the wake of the boats don't show up but how do you make them show up? all of my settings are set to high and it doesn't show the wakes
I've never seen them without wake so no idea TBH.
greater separation of the ships will mean they can engage enemy aircraft further away from the carrier and thereby maximise the chance of interception before the carrier can be directly targeted. with the sm6 and that formation interception is possible 170 miles from the carrier compared to 130 miles if they were directly next to the carrier. it's basically trying to get them as far out as possible without getting a gap in their close in missile coverage.
Makes sense for capabilities of modern vessels to intercept as needed, coke across to screen carrier extend Sam net with modern range and capabilities of tracking like 70-100 air objects at a time and engaging x of them but you have one for carrier cover makes sense plus side launch ordinance, low trajectory sams and sea wiz don’t slam supporting vessels
plus they would tighten up as needed
so a compromise might be pulling the front closer to carrier and tighter together by 5nm for ai but leave the real spread for admiral gr battles?
Side note. Multiple Powerful Radar systems require a minimum distance between themselves to prevent interference. Also spacing covers gaps while extending range
The spread of US Carrier group ships is from nuclear war fighting doctrine. The ships are kept separate to engage nuclear tipped missiles and allow some to survive such a strike. As typical yields are generally under 25,000 kilotons and have destructive radii which allow a warship handle the blast
When you realize the U.S Navy F/A-18s are actually RAAF Super Hornets
My assumption is that the spread out formation of ships in the CSG is for layered air defense in depth and ASW purposes.
Is it not available in the game or do you choose not to take ECM into account i:e Growlers?
Game only models 70's style flares and chaff and 80's level defensive jammers not 2000's area jamming, 2010's towed radar decoys, active jammer chaff cannisters like Britecloud etc...
Would love to see this video revisited to see how different planes (F-15, F-16, F-35) with the AIM-120D3 perform against Chinese fighters with PL-15s
Probably won’t see much difference if the planes on each side are properly matched, imo
Will do a land version.
Just a thought, could that mountain range closest to the Chinese positions influenced the battle as it would provide cover for retreating aircraft to hide from radar with.....note how the US fleet had no such cover
Small problem for the Chinese though. 30kms closer than the f18 is a squad of f35s that already killed you.
You can see the model of the missile is already flawed having the same top speed, D3 simply controls the burn more precisely extending the range but at the cost of peak speed.
The Technology Refresh 3 makes the F35 about 50 percent more lethal. The plane is heavily geared towards defense from radars and SAMs. They are also taking steps to increasing stealth. Its different than the Block 4. The TRP will put even more powerful computers and radar.
Refresh? Total rebuild! F-35 is obsolete under the skin - it's what happens when a project massively overruns though a giant leap in computing and gets left behind - F-22 is in an even worse position.
2 wks to get the baby settled down 😂 it's going to be at least 18yrs . Not to worry, you will love your new normal. Congratulations
25 in this economy
Damn right!
Can you do the US Navy with all 12 of its carriers and escorts against all of Europe with 6 of our carriers and escorts? I just want to see how much damage we can do.
Wouldn’t telling you the formation that the United States Navy uses break the terms of the contract that you have to sign when leaving the US military out not talking about tactics
I'm so confused... The warhead on the 260 is 29lbs more, but total weight is only 31lbs more? what extra 2lbs gives it 0.5 more mach and 25 more miles range?...
Same with the 77-1/77M and the 120C7/D/D3. Same everything yet they gain more range? and the 77M gains 0.5 mach? What are they doing that makes them go farther without adding anything extra?
As far as I know, there hasn't been any significant delay in delivery of AIM-260. Increased production of AIM-120, as well as a new variant, is due to the fact that demand for AMRAAMS has increased massively due to the Ukraine war, in particular for the NASAMS batteries.
I mean it was supposed to have already achieved IOC which it hasn't. So by definition it is behind schedule.
Good afternoon valued viewers.
Hi
I would bet it's the J-15 AI maneuverability / flight model
Line of sight at sea is 2.8 miles. How much more difficult does not being within eyesight make it to operate. Thats got to add in all kinds of logistic headaches. Unless ships in a fleet dont interact much.
With the datalink and computer integration it makes little difference also gps radar etc eyesight is all but irrelevant
J-15 flying shark sounds way cooler than”Bravo”
And btw cap when are we getting the 003 FuJian model?
I noticed that none of these extremely long range missiles LOFT as they should. Also their drag co-efficient seems to be very low, as they don't seem to be losing much speed at the lower altitudes , so they might perform much better than they should down low. Great video nonetheless, hope the see more!
Well spotted. Yes none of the GR missiles loft, it is a game restriction we have, we've had to lower the drag coE to simulate the loft. Best we can do.
To be honest, yes ofc longer range missiles will win out but the D3s did seem a little inaccurate in comparison. Also your telling me that if you neuter the USA with a lack of stealth airframes they will loose XD. Great video chaps, I need to get the dlc to be able to fly planes on dcs I would happily take a seat on any really odd times videos if you'd need after some learning and practise.
Great PL-15 video Cap! 😂😂
oof
"YJ-62 wouldn't trouble even a 1990s carrier group" - Why wouldn't it? Wasn't USS Stark "troubled" by two Exocets which are a generation behind YJ-62? The west does not have a great reputation for stopping even early generation ASMs in actual combat.
Modern vs modern planes going at it.
It does get better. My nine year old occasionally lets me nap.
Looked like the J-15s were actually flying defensively against missiles while the F-18s were staying high and straight. It might be better to do this on a smaller scale when you have enough humans
I want to point out the Block 3 Super Hornet is a totally different plane. It's RCS is 50 percent better, it's loaded with coms close to an F35 and its new engines increase its range by 25 percent. They can use ISR to get a weapons lock by using 2 F18s lasing the target.
We are using first gen Super Hornet ATM.
Also keep in mind they also usually have a sub or 2 traveling with them and honestly this guys info seems to be old they travel in a much larger group currently
cap try giving the superbugs 8 AMRAAMS instead of 12 and add in 2 extra fuel tanks that can be jettisoned so the super hornets can get their maneuverability back
Roger, I think we'll re-try with F-15, see what result we get.
whether we win or lose, we fight till the last man. 🤘😎
Cap, this is what I've been saying in my comments for a while now. Except for the plane guard, this is the most common formation -- escort ships are typically on or over the horizon in respect to the carrier. With the great range of their defensive layers, it doesn't make much sense to pack them all together. It makes most sense to spread them out and increase the defensive perimeter. Note, though, that in a hostile situation, the formation would adjust in respect to the direction the carrier is moving AND the direction the threat is most likely to come from. An example: If in the South China Sea in defense of Taiwan, the winds may be Westerly so the carrier would be moving East into the wind but its threat would be behind it. So in that case, your single destroyer would be in FRONT of the CSG and the cruisers and destroyer would be behind it closer to the threat.
The Chinese still cannot carry a full bomb load on the J15 to launch off a carrier due to underpowered engines. They can carry 2 missles currently.
I wouldn't talk about weak engines too loudly right now (cough - F-35) - but you're right, the Chinese still can't make a decent jet engine.
It’s too bad that your proceeds depends on “everyone plays hard, but blue always wins.” Watching these inspired me to resurrect an old computer, playing a battle simulator from the 1990s (Harpoon).
If I tracked the money correctly, the F-18's only fired around 100 AIM-120-D3's. If that's the right number, their kill ratio is better than the PL-15, but the PL-15's extra bit of range must make a big difference in the end.
Note that under the water in each case are submarines guarding their momma the carriers.
In these wargames, we'll just pretend that the subs all mutually killed each other
As far as Im aware they have no AA missiles so wouldnt do much in an air engagement, still would be cool to model though as anyone whos played cold waters will tell you ships quickly change formations and scramble when subs are in the vincinity, when the AI works that is.
witch are beaten by european attak submarines in IRL War Games^^
@Sueco Bandito - ...if only DCS had submarines; it would be awesome if it did. lol
The FA-18s just took them in the face, there was barley any dodging ...
Well spotted, will investigate.
A fair and square allows American carriers to launch all aircraft possible. That would allow a near 2-1 numerical superiority.
Have you fought a RN QE and MN CdeG against a single US CVN? The European two combined would just about have a similar number of cabs as a US CAG.
CAP finding out what military service is all about! No sleep and carry on as normal. Respect! 😊
The US would be using F-35s in such an engagement, meaning the Chinese wouldn't be able to get a lock until it was far too late.
Realistically a Chinese CSG wouldn't be operating that far from their coast, it would almost certainly stay within the landbased sam net and anti-shipping coastal defenses. Additionally if it takes place in the near future (as opposed to today when US CSG's still carry F/A18's) they'd have PL21's and possibly even J35's.
Thats why they were simulating 90's era tech level, so that they could focus on comparative missile performance.
We finally have AMRAAM D3s!
25:40 maybe bugs?
Hello valued, Supa Cap. I hope you’re all doing well!
Hey Cap... I have a bit of baby sleeping advice and kids in general. Humans will adapt to all things that annoy them. The more baby deals with sleeping with noise going on, that will make baby sleep through moderate noise.
Use basic math to figure out how many missiles Blue fired... Subtract however many Hornets died. Then take what's left and divide it by the cost of an Aim120D3
Love the channel, my only thought is you give the Chinese American radar and tech. Now every Chinese copy I've ever gotten has been a lesser version of the real thing.
The bots will be out on this one 😂😂😂 great video as always.
The comment section cannot be placated
what does the "overload" stat mean?
Basically how hard the missile can turn in flight without breaking in half.
Max G-force it can take in a turn before disintegrating.
A bit depressing but probably very hard to try to get granular on just the missiles themselves. So many other factors.
..no fun if Mercia always wins imo 😊. Good to see a balance
@@dexlab7539 Agreed.
Didn't you say that the J-15 spawns in the catapult. and the F-18 are pulling up to the catapults. do this with the chinese carrier. might be a different result.
Agreed but I can;t sadly, Chinese planes refuse to start from parking positions. Annoying problem I can't seem to fix.
I've noticed that although the PL-15 weighs more but has smaller control surfaces and a lesser max g-load, it routinely outmaneuvers the 120 (which in simple physics makes no sense). Is this just an in-game code mismatch or what? It seems like the 120s are actively trying to be bad at maintaining lock or tracking a maneuvering aircraft..
13:10 vs 16:20 for example
I think I'll run a non-naval version to gather more data.
Might very well be a core game issue. This is just really odd...
Nuke amelioration?
GR! When the Type 26 Frigate will be ready? :D When it is, can you do a Russian CSG vs UK CSG?
For the Naval Battles, I never liked the F-18 Hornet or the Superhornet. Never been my favourite fighter jets. For me, the F-14 Tomcat is the winner or the F-35B.
Ages away, CH is concentrating on ground units ATM.
@@grimreapers So is there a chance that he will do the Sky Sabre for the UK?
Effectiveness of jammers, and the lack of a f18g growler and the fact china using a American carrier and getting more aircraft in air .as you know in modern warfare first to shoot is biggest advantage. One china doesn’t have