Video idea: The US navy just announced they integrated the pac-3 with aegis. They can quad pack pac-3 into one VLS cell which greatly increases magazine depth. Would be interesting to see if that allows them to handle more incoming ballistic missiles, etc
In addition, if the new Constellation FFG is outfitted with PAC3 in place of the normal SM2 loadout, that should be a massive upgrade in terms of defense umbrella. But, how close is it to an old flight ii Burke?
Cap is like Adam Richman from Man vs Food or Sean Evans from Hot Ones. They are the heart and soul of the the show and make YOU care, because THEY care, and make it so entertaining and interesting to watch. I found GR a few months back, i have NO real interest in VR, flight simulation or war games, but somehow one of their videos was in my suggested category, and i was hooked immediately. Praise to all the other participants, the channel wouldn't work without them, but putting Cap in the presenters chair was a great decision to capture new viewers.
as reaction time seems important, have the low cross-section F-35's fly to within 40 - 50 miles of the carrier group (undetected), release the MAKO's, then get the hell out of Dodge ! Why have Stealth aircraft if you're not going to use that feature? At 100 miles, may as well use 4th Gen Super Hornets or F-15's..
They aren’t using Chinese aircraft in this scenario, but in real life there would be. The F35 isn’t going to get 35 miles away from that carrier without being detected by something.
@@unknownuser069 I'd be interested to see a situation in which 2x FA18 squadrons maybe unrealistic (I'm a internet pilot not a navy pilot) with a flight of 4 using MALDs and the rest a ToT with suspected MALD intercept with MAKO. I am curious as to the Chinese aegis equivalent being able to prioritize targets over another in a mass wave of inbound strikes, while in this situation using 4th gen have a Chinese AWAC and standard 2 ship Chinese CAP (or x4 depending on PLAN doctrine for combat under these circumstances) for fleet defense with 2 or 4 on ready alert. Do they manage to get aircraft up, does that make a difference to the FA18 shoot and scoot tactic anyway? To finish repeat same Chinese situation win or lose with a 1 sqn F35C or A depending on engagement type with 4 ship FA18 as MALD and decoy from a completely different direction same principles try timing MALD engagement with MAKO presence on radar. But this time knowing the hornets are visible and attracting attention push to halfway between MAKO detect and F35 detect (Shorten response time). It is more moving parts but I think the research can help create a better understanding of DCS's limitations or the weapons and radar or aircraft limitations for further testing, training and evaluation trials like this in the future. Will post this on main comments too, FYI.
6 internal Makos means the F35 is totally defenseless. If it bumps into a fighter patrol its game over. Realistically you'll carry 2 Makos and Maybe have enough space for 4 air to air missiles.
Just remember what makes a hypersonic weapon is just breaking the hypersonic barrier, not maneuvering. Source: Habitual Linecrosser, a Patriot MIM-104 operator.
@@Lv-sl3rm Nothing against a Patriot operator, but the Brookings Institute, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and others disagree. Russia and India mostly go by the speed definition, but more and more Western analysts define hypersonic class missiles as being able to sustain Mach 5+ speeds through maneuvers and until impact - which differentiates missiles in that class from the ballistic missiles that travel hypersonic speeds.
@@hanrockabrand95western pundits try and make their own definition because their hypersonic missiles aren’t as fast as Russia, China, or India’s, which simply blow past enemy air defences. By this western logic, all ICBM re-entry vehicles would have to fall under the same class as the Mail because they can maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
130Ib warhead but the missile weighs 1399lbs, so the kinetic energy released by impact alone at M5.5 would be 440lbs of TNT equivalent, so you would have a total explosive yield of approx 570lbs of TNT. So theoretically you could just stick a lump of steel for a warhead and do pretty much the same damage.
The kinetic energy would cripple the enemy ship, while the chemical energy would enhance with the damaging potential after the penetration of the deck of the aircraft carrier. Or in other words, the Chinese are fucked 💀.
@@Dimitris_Datseris Depends on the kind of warhead. antiship missiles have semi-armour piercing warheads with a hardened shell and a time delay explosive. If the Mako was semi-armour peircing it would have to trade alot of that explosive mass for the penetrator. If it isn't armour piecing it will likely splatter on the side of a ship's hull on contact like a SAM would.
as for targetting specific modules. the moment a ship pops its chaff which totally obscures vision and radar what you hit is down to chance.@@Dimitris_Datseris
I am curious have much better the results might be if the F35 got in closer. Something like half way between outer and inner rings. The MAKO would be stealthy until launch changes time in target, condense the spread, and maybe overwhelm the radars.
Did some simulations in Command: Modern Operations out of curiosity and the hypersonics would likely be much more effective in real life than DCS. There's no MAKO in CMO, but there is the HAWC (Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept) anti-ship variant which is similar. It weighs 1800kg, has no warhead (kinetic weapon), an RCS of 0.23sq m, and a speed of Mach 5.5. China's CSG contained the Type 003 CV, 2x Type 055 CGs, and 2x Type 052 DDGs in a diamond formation with 10nmi spacing. I launched 6 time-on-target HAWCs at the carrier from 180nmi out and had success in sinking it 9/10 times. The HAWCs were detected 110nmi out by the CSG but the HHQ-9Bs were unable to intercept any most of the time as they simply did not have the capability to intercept them. In about half of the scenarios only one HAWC was intercepted, the rest they all got through. The chance of the HAWCs being spoofed by ECM was about 5% and they had a 10% chance to outright miss/malfunction. In seven out of ten tests I ran, enough hit the carrier that it sunk outright. In two others the carrier was crippled and later succumbed to flooding. In the final scenario (got unlucky with one intercept, one spoof and one miss) the carrier sustained about 55% damage and had significantly reduced air ops capacity. Launching 5 missiles instead of 6 yielded about a 50% kill rate and dropping down to four was substantially less than that. The kill rate was essentially 100% any higher than 6.
Would the kinetic energy of the missile not contribute significantly more to the damage? It seems DCS is treating it as merely a standard explosive missile instead of a mach 4-5 impact with an explosive.
They used over 100 drones, decoys, MLRS , storm shadow and ATACMs to overwhelm the defences. And they still shot down all the drones and 10 of the ATACMs It’s not a “s400 can’t kill ATACMs” like you seem to believe .
I wouldn't say it is essentially an S300. The rocket portion may be more similar to an S300 but the rest of it uses American and Israeli technology. So it is more like a Chinese version of a Patriot missile than an S300.
@@jugganaut33I’m no military analyzer but I don’t two s400 launchers have enough missiles for 100 drones storm shadows and 10+ atacms, nor would Ukraine waste that much on a target. But I mean you got those numbers from an official source right? You wouldn’t lie to me would you 🥺?
Cap's reasoning about the firing position is ... I'll just explain. F-35 costs about the same as an F-16. I am sure you have heard of wild weasel ... of course the F-35 will take some risk to maximize effectiveness. No chance they'll try to keep the plane "safe" instead of using its full capability. F-35 has a RWR ... that means the pilot can manage the risks - that is all anyone would ask. The goal here is to deny the CSG time to reply. Every second you deny OPFOR air defense radar really increases the PK. A DCS test should show that. It's a pretty dramatic difference as you close the circles even a few seconds of flight time. Mach 5 is 1 mile per second... that is almost 60 seconds reaction time for the CSG, assuming detection at 60 miles. In 21st century air defense ... 60 seconds may as well be the life age of the universe. Mach 8 is 1.7 miles per second. If fired at 35 miles the CSG would only have around 20-22 seconds to react, the Mako might still be *accelerating* when they hit. That might get you to 99+% PK against a Chinese CSG, which may not be able to even launch missiles in that time - even assuming instant detection. The first target should be the radar of the destroyers. Second target should be the launch area of the carrier - which would suspend flight ops. I don't know if DCS offers system level damage on naval units... but you can "rule" a hit as targeting a system and disabling it. Grab a few human Reapers and fly the mission a few times. 4 F-35, should easily cripple the air defenses and flight deck, a follow on flight of AI controlled 4th Gen Jets should easily eliminate the CSG in detail. About the Mako itself, it doesn't matter fi the RCS might be smaller than shown.. The missile is basically going to be the fastest flare anyone has ever seen, which means it will be seen at about the same range on IR sensors. In other words ... reasonable assumption about when it might detected in free flight.
@@mattwright2964 That is a good guess ... but I think it mostly has to do with being able to have "infinite" ammo reserves against drones. Think more what we are seeing in Ukraine, not what we are discussing with China. The problem with lasers against hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) is that any laser close to being in service needs extended contact time. In other words, the laser must be on target for some time before it has an effect sufficient to disable the weapon. 5-10 seconds for most air vehicles. Against a target designed for high temperatures, like an HGV, that contact time is over 30 seconds ... longer than the flight time of the missile.
Yo Cap Futuristic, Hypersonic, and Stealth battle!🙏 The Boy's and Yourself are in F/A-XX's starting airborn with AIM-260's and AI HAVE GLASS F-16 Loyal Wingman! They are representing smaller aircraft and maintain low observable by either having 4 Peregrine's plus 2 AIM-9X or 2 AIM-120D's plus 2 AIM-9X! Ford Class Carrier with few F/A-XX's with AIM-260's however mostly F-35's with Mako's! LHD carrying F-35's with AIM-260's! 2 Arleigh Burke's, 2 Ticonderoga's, and 1 Constellation Class! 2 SR-72's with AGM-183's! 3 B-21's with JASSM-ER's! Opposition! off the coast 2 Type 055's, on the coast DF-26's, protecting them and an Airbase near the coast HQ-9, S-350, and S-400! The Airbase has SU-57's with R-77M's, SU-35's with couple R-37M's and R-77M's, and MIG-31's some with R-37M's and some with Kinzhal's! Inside/further protection for Airbase, Iglas, Tunguska's, and Pantsir's! To the south away from the action Carrier with J-35's with PL-15's and 1 Type 055 for protection! Finally further inland away from the action small Airfield with J-20's with PL-15's and few J-15's with PL-17's! Mission-- as stated The Boy's and Yourself are responsible for air superiority with immediate help from the F-35's on the LHD, however Ford Carrier will launch F-35's with Mako first then the few F/A-XX's will launch as last support/clean up! The Mako F-35's are tasked with taking out ALL air defenses! Before that The 2 SR-72's are tasked with hitting the 2 Type 055's off the coast! B-21's are tasked with taking out all DF-ZF's! Optional last strike, Tomahawks from the Ships (if any survive;) smash Airfield!👍
Not sure based on the simulator images but it looks like the Mako missiles are on a straight run ballistic path. The actual missile can maneuver, which at those speeds makes it a far more difficult target to interdict.
The HQ-9B is based on the S-300F. Judging by the performance of S-300 and the newer S-400 against ATACMS in Ukraine I would bet that S-300/HQ-9 is probably NOT capable against 'hypersonics'. The ship damage model in DCS leaves a bit to be desired. The solid fuel or jet fuel still contained in impacting anti-ship weapons is as much a hazard as the warhead. Modern warships are fragile. Anti-ship missiles tend to home on the ships 'radar centric', which is also where most of their vital systems are located. A Ticonderoga class DDG was once disabled for several hours by taking a hit from a jet powered coyote target drone which hit it in the superstructure. The drone did not have a warhead. The Moskva should have been able to survive two Neptune strikes in theory, but they both struck around its radar centric, right under its superstructure amidships, taking out vital engineering and electronics spaces. It was fire that finished the Moskva and I would bet that it was the Neptune's unused jet fuel spewing around the interior that made it into an inferno. Rumour has it that only one Neptune actually exploded, but this happened in the Falklands and Gulf. Even an impact by a dud missile that sprays burning fuel around the ships spaces is enough to destroy a ship.
Forget about the fuel, the missile essentially acts as a several-hundred kilogram bullet traveling at Mach 5 straight through everything in its path. The sheer kinetic energy in it dwarfs the damage potential of the explosive warhead and any remaining fuel combined.
How many Mako’s could the B-21 Raider carry? It would be really good to see 2 of those carrying whatever they could (20 each??) go for the CSG and see what it could achieve. Could bombers carrying many Hypersonics end the reign of the Aircraft carrier the way the Warbird ended the Battleship? Hope you’re staying well Cap! 👍🏻👍🏻
Simulation is fundamentally flawed because Mako is NOT a ballistic missile as depicted. It is a maneuvering hypersonic missile, which makes it considerably more difficult to intercept. And to date, no Chinese ships have demonstrated any defensive countermeasures reliably capable of intercepting inbound maneuvering hypersonic missiles. The Chinese military is working on that but as yet have not achieved that goal.
One of the reasons modern hypersonic missiles have such small warheads is because most of their damage is done with the kinetic energy from its speed. These missiles should hit with more energy than a 1000lb warhead. US analysts have stated that the Russian hypersonic missiles used in Ukraine have uad more impact energy than a 5000lb bomb.
Having more energy than explosives doesn't mean more damage. Kinetic energy is less likely to cause more damage to a ship than chemical energy. The mass difference is too great. The superstructure will absorb most of the kinetic energy and the missile will destroy itself trying to burrow further. An explosive will cause an area effect damage, the blast can go through every direction instead of just forward like a kinetic warhead.
@@nicholaslee5473 for the record released chemical energy is kinetic energy. Neither is likely to cause more damage because they're the same thing just in a different direction. Apparently penetration doesn't count, just area effects. lol This isn't a video game. Your logic is flawed.
@@140theguy One is going to cause more damage precisely because it travels in a different direction. If both are the same tonnage of TNT equivalent, one being a bomb and the other being a kinetic penetrator like an armor piercing round, the bomb will damage the ship much more than leaving a small hole like the AP round would do, even if they have the same energy. Battleships use to survive AP rounds all the time, they just plug the leaks. An explosive shell however, may trigger fires and secondary explosions of munitions/fuel.
Aside from the comments already about realistic missile performance etc, the reality is that ANY attack on a PLN carrier would be proceeded by an attack on the escorts to avoid this very type of scenario (low hit/missile ratio).
And given that it's being shown that nations that were *thought* to be near-peer or peer against the U.S have instead shown to be nothing more than paper tigers and barely capable of fighting an adversary smaller than them, well, that PLN carrier is as good as sunk.
Someone can correct my math but if the unclassified specs of the mako are accurate, it weighs 1300 lbs and strikes at a terminal velocity of mach 5.5 (which is just an educated guess), it's releasing an extra quarter ton of explosive damage in kinetic energy alone. Add the 130 lb warhead and you've got the approximate equivalent of a Mk82 JDAM in explosive yield (+ 20%). The formula for conversion (and forgive me for not knowing how to show the formula properly): KE=1/2mv2 Where m(ass) is1300 lbs and v(elocity) is 4220 mph equals K(inetic energy) of 1049.29MJ which converts to approximately .2507 tons of explosive equivalent. I was just pondering this when the 'dinky' 130 lb warhead was mentioned. I mean, the missiles very speed should be factored into its destructive capability, right?? I am deliberately omitting fuel in the end result as there will be a certain amount of 'bleed off' and the remaining fuel should account for that if the missile(s) were launched at the range you showed. Thank you. It's late, I'm recovering from my latest round of chemo, and frankly, I just had to put my mind to something for a few minutes.
"According to Lockheed Martin, an F-35A or C could carry six Makos between internal and external bays.[1]" It's one per bay and two under each wing. A block 4 F35 can BARELY hold 6 amraams interally.
Have you seen that the USN is going to start putting Patriot missiles on ships they can quad pack in a single VLS cell and work with AGIS. That’s could be some fun to model
Launch at 40-50 miles out and from 3 directions (all 90deg apart). Could also have a B2 launch a plane load of decoys from the other cardinal direction.
It does not need to sink a ship. If the bridge is destroyed its over. Thats a disabled carrier afterwards. Same thing about other ships. If the bridge is destroyed its over.
@@sulyokpeter3941 the CIC (the actual brains of the ship) on a warship is generally not on the bridge. its buried deep inside the bridge and likely armoured to some extent. At best hitting the bridge will take out the driver and some sensors but in an actual firefight important officers are below decks for a reason.
CAP "Im not feeling well enough to do these videos as long or as often" Also CAP-Continues producing long format high quality videos despite his health Mate make sure you are getting your rest. We would like to keep you around for a while so you need to take care of yourself damnit.
Hi Cap, just wondering is the Mako's small warhead offset by its kinetic energy? I *think* at 590kgs at 1715 m/s (Mach 5) would give it 860mj of KE. Way more than the 50kg explosive warhead. Does DCS model KE or just chemical warhead size?
Loving this noryway map. That one missile that hit on the 2 shooter run took out the launch ramp. I'd say that disables enough of the ship as far as that short engagement is concerned. Depending on how damaged the catapult mechanics underneath are..
I was imagining this as well, a joint Time on Target attack utilizing Mako's and LRASM's. Timing would be tricky given significant difference in the missles speed. Maybe the best you could do is time the Mako launch/detection to just before the LRASM's cross their detection ring.
Since the US doesn't pull a Russia and label air launched ballistics as hypersonic, Mako would be a maneuvering target for SAMs to chase. I assume DCS isn't currently capable of making missiles maneuver to avoid being shot down.
The company selling it is calling the Mako a hypersonic missile, not the US armed forces. And that company is trying to market it heavily because it lost the competion with the AARGM-ER for the SiAW program.
Thanks Cap, I really love these videos. I beg you to do one more with a couple of changes, for science! I'm interested in seeing a test setup just like this, but purely looking at a scaling time-on-target attack (start small and increase as needed, like this video), that involves, LRASM and Mako fired from F-35s, and then also Naval Strike Missiles from the Constellation class and SM-6 (plus perhaps some SM-2) configured for anti-ship mode. If the Maritime Strike Tomahawk is coded by CH, then replace the SM-2 and potentially the SM-6 as well (although SM-6 is basically a precision hypersonic anti-ship missile as well). Feel free to add Chinese jets on defense to scramble (plus a normal CAP flight up upon detection), otherwise the US forces would just be the assets to launch those four weapons. Concerning the Chinese defense in this video, I don't think the results are too unrealistic. However, I'm absolutely skeptical of the Chinese navy in the real world. They have never fired one of those SAMs in anger to-date, they don't release the frequency or results of their test fires, and if you've ever watched Chinese military training videos, they are almost comical. Granted, those videos weren't training on VLS fire control consoles. I also don't know this for sure, but I imagine the Chinese VLS has an awful lot more in common with the simulated US Aegis and SM-series of missiles than compared to the real world, simply due to the limited number of variables in DCS to develop these weapons with unique characteristics and I assume at least some copy-paste was done when modding them into DCS after the base SM-2 missiles were already in the core game. Finally, what also makes me skeptical is the fact the Chinese military and navy doctrine in the real world is generally modeled off of Soviet and Russian tactics and hardware more than any other single source. We've all seen how poorly their ships and S-400/S-350/S-300 and other SAM systems are performing compared to pre-war claims, so I imagine a reverse engineered or licensed Russian SAM used by a Chinese crew with no war time experience wouldn't be the most capable of solutions. I could be entirely wrong and I'm not saying you should change anything or accusing you of false results of some kind, just sharing some thoughts dude. :)
0:55 Only if the Chinese ships are as cracked up as they’re supposed to be. Recent intel shows the new 003 carrier smocking like 20 MiG29s, with a tug boat and frigate nearby. Same mentality as Russia & USSR prior.
I would agree with Cap, I don't think that F-35 will venture on minimum ranges for it's stealth capabilities, it will engage targets on its maximum stealth range in which they have minimal to no radar signatures, will deploy their stand off munitions and return to base for re arming. And will re-engage the target coming from another direction.
They could fly low into within 60nm of the CSGs, climb and launch the MAKOs. The 35s wouldn’t be detected and a much higher kill rate will probably be present
i agree that F-35 are expensive and the US wouldn't want to risk them but firing at 100 miles is a little overkill. Id say they would get way closer to that 30 miles, also having the game and creating the scenarios. it would have been cool to see the same test 1-4 F-35s firing 6 MAKO each at 100 miles then again at 60 then again at 30 and seeing how much more effective it would be to get closer. Kinda approach it not necessarily on what would happen in real life but more so test the scenarios and then after come to a conclusion based on testing on what would most likely happen. Because I think if they effectiveness does go up exponentially I think they would see as close as they could get then add some conservatism and then use that as the launch point. So say 30 miles is that exact line then they would fire at say 40-45 miles out and hard turn around out of there.
I think, realistically speaking, there wouldn't be just one or two planes on the attack. There'd be several coming from various directions to overwhelm the defenders.
@@dexlab7539 Yeah, that's my thought. The whole idea being that the enemy doesn't specifically know exactly WHERE the threat is coming from, and what they need to prioritize first. Afterall, ships do have limited resources for missiles, and air defense options, and only so much their systems can process at any given time. If I were planning this as an attack, I'd have fighters out front, running interference for the F35's, but I'd also utilize some decoy squadrons with jamming pods, to make the attack seem larger than it is. Once the decoy squadrons get burn through on the jammers, they retreat, behaving as though they have launched their payloads, and yes, some would be launching older, slower missiles, while the F35's slip in from random locations.
+GrimReapersAtomic *This mission had **_better_** use the USN-USMC / Lockheed Martin F-35 Charlie all-weather attack aircraft.* Ideal scenario: Northrop Grumman AF-14 Echo for escort and MiGCAP; Northrop Grumman EF-14 Golf for electronic warfare.
Even before you calculate the damage those missiles did, I notice just the cost of the missiles they fired to stop most of them was more than double the amount.
From past experience, I know an attack would be attempted from multiple directions to spread their defenses. Having an attack come from 1 direction, means all their defenses can concentrate in that direction. Also, from the latest videos showing the various issues with the Chinese navy, I would not consider them at the "excellent" skill level. When 1 chief goes on vacation and a whole ship is at a standstill because he's the only one that knows what to do?!?!
Could you use this kind of missile (fast, but small warhead) + an F-35 to disable the radar of a ship, and then sink it with a missile with a big warhead that the ship would normally be able to intercept?
Stealth Squadron's & Futuristic Planes VS Star Destroyer Fleet! Center front formation-- Ten ST-21 Super Tomcat's, Next-- Five F-15EX's and Ten F-15STOL/MTD's, Next-- Four B-1R's, Next above-- Four YF-12A's! Right Flank-- Ten F-22's, Next-- Fifteen F-35's, Next-- Two B-21's, Next-- Two SR-72's! Left Flank-- Ten YF-23's, Next-- Fifteen HAVE GLASS F-16's, Next-- Five F-117's, Next-- Four B-2's! Surprise Attack-- Ten NGAD's, Millennium Falcon, Five X-Wing's, and Five Y-Wings! Please have the correct fighters on the right teams ;) it'd also be cool af if you had an ace card at the end Large Rebel Ship AIM-4 Falcon and or Genie Rocket!
Would it make a difference if the missiles were fired from different vectors at the ships? Also I wonder if a couple F-35s with NSMs firing would do well since the defenders would be concentrating on the hypersonic missiles?
Considering irl the chinese can barely intercept a Harpoon, there’s a good chance a single F35 with Makos would probably disable the entire strike group.
@@YepTriedToTellYounah the f-22 can’t really hold AGMs. It is air superiority. That is why the F-35 exists. But yes, the Chinese and Russian missiles in this game are massively over rated.
@@YepTriedToTellYou indeed. However the F-22 isn’t built for air to surface work, the F-35 is arguably a much better platform for the US. The F-22 is basically just designed for the purpose of ending other aircraft, and has been given the ability to launch AGMs.
I’ve always been curious how much damage a hypersonic missile would do to a naval ship even without a warhead. You would think most of the damage they cause are from speed alone and even if you managed to shoot it down close to a shop it would still do damage from the inertia of it. Idk I’m just a regular ole Joe with zero background in this stuff
I think the thing about hypersonics as well is that they have a large amount of kinetic energy as well. That said, I am not surprised that the US hypersonics are being intercepted. The Russian hypersonic also got intercepted in Ukraine in the real world by a Patriot system.
Hey @Cap (not sure the @ does anything) but idea: I'd be interested to see a situation in which 2x FA18 squadrons maybe unrealistic (I'm a internet pilot not a navy pilot) with a flight of 4 using MALDs and the rest a ToT with the suspected MALD intercept time against air defence with MAKO presence. I am curious as to the Chinese aegis equivalent being able to prioritize targets over another in a mass wave of inbound strikes, while in this situation using 4th gen have a Chinese AWAC and standard 2 ship Chinese CAP (or x4 depending on PLAN doctrine for combat under these circumstances) for fleet defense with 2 or 4 on ready alert. Do they manage to get aircraft up, does that make a difference to the FA18 shoot and scoot tactic anyway? To finish repeat same Chinese situation win or lose with a 1 sqn F35C or A depending on engagement type with 4 ship FA18 as MALD and decoy from a completely different direction same principles try timing MALD engagement with MAKO presence on radar. But this time knowing the hornets are visible and attracting attention push to halfway between MAKO detect and F35 detect (Shorten response time). It is more moving parts but I think the research can help create a better understanding of DCS's limitations or the weapons and radar or aircraft limitations for further testing, training and evaluation trials like this in the future. Cheers Cap and best wishes for your recovery brother.
@@Thewhitetilelol PL-15 irl has a dual-pulse rocket motor which would be closer to aim-260 previously shown on this channel, rather than being comparable to an amraam as in DCS.
@@Thewhitetile The performance of Chinese weapons on this channel is not well represented. In addition to the PL-15's dual-pulse motors, the YJ-18 will use ignites solid rocket motors in the terminal phase and accelerate to Mach 3, YJ-21 will not follow a straight-down ballistic missile trajectory, both of which are much more difficult to intercept. CH, who was responsible for making the weapon modules, acknowledged this and made the current version on the grounds that it was difficult to program (which is true). But over time, viewers seem to default to this being what they actually do In the meantime, weapons like the AIM-260, which are not widely fielded, or even MAKO, which still far from production, you guys just fantasize about their performance and the number of units. Reassuring yourselves that this is the future, but refuse to face up to the real power of the opponents, and the fact that they improves too
@@gaobilidude have you seen their channel? Literally no other country wins but they bring out weapons that aren’t even tested or fielded yet and say that Russia and China overstate their abilities so therefore reduce it. I haven’t seen the US lose once and even Cap said if America loses he gets less money and views
Could you try this with a swarm attack before the makos? Just launching tons of cheap rockets at the fleet to overwhelm the defences and spend most of those anti hyper rockets?
The other issue is a hyper sonic missile doesn't need a warhead the kinetic energy of the missile alone will kill a target. All you need is a solid or fragmentary steel to do damage.
In most of your videos involving attacking a carrier group like this, I've noticed that the typical approach only involves attempting to overwhelm the SAM defense with sheer numbers of ASMs. Would it not be more likely for ASMs to be successful by not only in numbers, but also coordinating a time-on-target attack from two or more vectors?
I may be off base, here, but If your simulator has not been adjusted to consider hypersonic speeds, and relied only on proximity destruction at more commonly expected speeds, the results would be as depicted, as the software would not know any better. Proximity missiles might detonate too late to destroy a hypersonic target at what, twice the expected speed, on average? This is also true of the defensive missile's own internal programming. So unless that missile has programming to sense the target's speed usefully in detonation point, the outcome is suspect. Do we know it that is so, or not?
I don't know how carriers are constructed these days, whether they have some part armored or not, but if a missile hits a sweet spot, say where ammo, fuel, or even fueled and ammo-ed aircraft, well the effect of the hit should multiply. In some ways a carrier isn't a good place to be in a war.
I think DCS puts way too much stock into Russian and Chinese anti air missiles. The Chinese missiles are just derivatives of the S-400 & S-300 missiles which aren’t serving Russia so well. Subsonic cruise missiles like Neptune and Stormshadow have taken them out plus plain old GMLRS rockets. The Chinese have never been able to shoot down a hostile missile in real life but they are god tier in DCS😂
Between your visit from NCIS and the number of times you're testing almost-in-service tech against chinese and russian defences, I'm beginning to think that they're using you and the boys as a simulation test group. Cheaper and safer than the real thing, and a lot more entertaining I dare say!
The F-35 can only carry 2 Mako missiles and still retain its stealth features: a total of 6 in beast mode with subsequent degradation in stealth qualities and increased exposure to adversary targeting radars. I would be interested to see an attack profile using Makos and LRASM coordinated for speed differentials to arrive in the target area simultaneously.
wonder if could simulate decoys? like a smaller set of missile that could be stealth enough to be externally mounted; that at press of a button/launch time increases its RCS to match or be slightly larger than the real missile..
Not only are you not using the stealth aspect to it's full potential, but you're not using the strength of the missle either. Closer release coupled with 9 planes firing 2 missile each as close to simultaneously as possible would likely be more effective. The strung out nature of the salvos allows the ships tracking and fire control time they need to defeat the makos.
Since radar follows invers-square-law, then shouldn't the 30/60 mile difference be 4 times in sqm? So if the MACO is detected at 60 miles with 0.2sqm, then F-35 being 100 times stealthier should be detected at 10 times less range, so 6 miles
I’m curious as to how much DCS accounts for the speed of the missile for its damage. I’d imagine the missile would break deep into a ship before exploding, potentially hitting a lot of the softer insides and aircraft with a bunch of hypersonic fragments.
Hey Cap. No other way to reach you. Be great for the Grim Reapers to do a memorial flight for Bud Anderson the 103 year old Triple Ace in WWII. He was the pilot of the P-51's named /Old Crow/. He passed on May 17th, 2024.
Try two different lines of attack, separated by at least 90 degrees. And try mixing the MAKOs with other, slower anti ship missles. That would be more realistic.
what about heaving the hypersonics actually manouvre? isn't that the main difference between hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles that go hypersonic?
Would be interesting to see a flight of two in advance half way between the two rings, as the first wave crosses they launch confusing the radar picture enen more.
Is The Kinetic Energy Potential Calculated Into The MAKO Impacts? I Would Expect Greater Damage On Target Even Though The Warheads Are Relatively Small?
I thought the F-35 had to beast mode to carry 6? Surely 6 Makos don't fit inside if 6 Aim-120s do not. I suspect if you carried the missiles in closer (just outside the F-35 detection range), I think that would give them less time to respond, and you would have better effect.
What if you spawn in a bunch of JASSM-ERs at a distance where you get a TOT affect with the Mako's? The Mako's covered 60 miles in about 53 seconds averaging a speed of Mach 5.5 I don't know the distance at which the F35's fired, but if you can get the speed of the JASSM ER you can spawn the F35s so that they fire such that the makos arrive at the same time the JASSM ERs do.
Regarding the decision not to close within just short of detection range to launch: the question wasn't 'would America risk their F-35s?' it was 'will it work?' Why NOT test both scenarios? No real F-35s are being risked, and I would have liked to have seen China's short-range defense attempts against these missiles, not just more and more HHQ-9s as more and more missiles are fired from long range. But good vid anyway!
Keep in mind PAC3 MSE is HtK and has no surface engagement mode ( or explosives ). Would MRLS based missiles with Sensor based guidance be viable for surface engagements.
Interesting how people will take on this. The logic if it's a chinese missile is hitting stuff with a hypersonic missile is impossible because the plasma from the speed of the missile blocks the targetting system. So if that logic is true, idk how these missiles would hit certain points of a ship. I'm more so interested to see if there are gonna be double standards or not lol
@@nietkees6906 Which part, the bit where people say that regularly about the yj21 and why it's not a threat or the fact people are arguing that a US missile can but a chinese missile can't.
Video idea: The US navy just announced they integrated the pac-3 with aegis. They can quad pack pac-3 into one VLS cell which greatly increases magazine depth. Would be interesting to see if that allows them to handle more incoming ballistic missiles, etc
In addition, if the new Constellation FFG is outfitted with PAC3 in place of the normal SM2 loadout, that should be a massive upgrade in terms of defense umbrella. But, how close is it to an old flight ii Burke?
Very interesting idea! The PAC-3 MSE can potentially replace the SM-2
I thought it was only duel pack not quad pack
@@abritishguy7295 either a dual or quad
@@abritishguy7295 Its quad. They are the same diameter as the essm.
No voice first thing: immediately misses Cap.
Sudden Cap. YAY!!!
Surprise Cap, best Cap?
Get better Cap. that is an hors d'oeuvre!
Cap is like Adam Richman from Man vs Food or Sean Evans from Hot Ones. They are the heart and soul of the the show and make YOU care, because THEY care, and make it so entertaining and interesting to watch.
I found GR a few months back, i have NO real interest in VR, flight simulation or war games, but somehow one of their videos was in my suggested category, and i was hooked immediately. Praise to all the other participants, the channel wouldn't work without them, but putting Cap in the presenters chair was a great decision to capture new viewers.
@@JimBiddle. Indeed!
as reaction time seems important, have the low cross-section F-35's fly to within 40 - 50 miles of the carrier group (undetected), release the MAKO's, then get the hell out of Dodge ! Why have Stealth aircraft if you're not going to use that feature? At 100 miles, may as well use 4th Gen Super Hornets or F-15's..
How many Makos would an F-15 carry?
@@roli4040 Maybe 8 on an EX.
Probably 6 on an E.
Also likely 6 for F/A-18E/F. I'm guessing 4 on F-16.
They aren’t using Chinese aircraft in this scenario, but in real life there would be. The F35 isn’t going to get 35 miles away from that carrier without being detected by something.
@@unknownuser069 I'd be interested to see a situation in which 2x FA18 squadrons maybe unrealistic (I'm a internet pilot not a navy pilot) with a flight of 4 using MALDs and the rest a ToT with suspected MALD intercept with MAKO.
I am curious as to the Chinese aegis equivalent being able to prioritize targets over another in a mass wave of inbound strikes, while in this situation using 4th gen have a Chinese AWAC and standard 2 ship Chinese CAP (or x4 depending on PLAN doctrine for combat under these circumstances) for fleet defense with 2 or 4 on ready alert. Do they manage to get aircraft up, does that make a difference to the FA18 shoot and scoot tactic anyway?
To finish repeat same Chinese situation win or lose with a 1 sqn F35C or A depending on engagement type with 4 ship FA18 as MALD and decoy from a completely different direction same principles try timing MALD engagement with MAKO presence on radar. But this time knowing the hornets are visible and attracting attention push to halfway between MAKO detect and F35 detect (Shorten response time).
It is more moving parts but I think the research can help create a better understanding of DCS's limitations or the weapons and radar or aircraft limitations for further testing, training and evaluation trials like this in the future.
Will post this on main comments too, FYI.
6 internal Makos means the F35 is totally defenseless. If it bumps into a fighter patrol its game over.
Realistically you'll carry 2 Makos and Maybe have enough space for 4 air to air missiles.
It’s unfortunate that DCS doesn’t allow the Mako to maneuver as a real missile would…
I was thinking the same thing. The point of a hypersonic class missile is to NOT be a kinzhal that takes the easiest to compute trajectory.
Just remember what makes a hypersonic weapon is just breaking the hypersonic barrier, not maneuvering. Source: Habitual Linecrosser, a Patriot MIM-104 operator.
@@Lv-sl3rm Nothing against a Patriot operator, but the Brookings Institute, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and others disagree. Russia and India mostly go by the speed definition, but more and more Western analysts define hypersonic class missiles as being able to sustain Mach 5+ speeds through maneuvers and until impact - which differentiates missiles in that class from the ballistic missiles that travel hypersonic speeds.
@@Lv-sl3rmthat’s completely incorrect
@@hanrockabrand95western pundits try and make their own definition because their hypersonic missiles aren’t as fast as Russia, China, or India’s, which simply blow past enemy air defences. By this western logic, all ICBM re-entry vehicles would have to fall under the same class as the Mail because they can maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
130Ib warhead but the missile weighs 1399lbs, so the kinetic energy released by impact alone at M5.5 would be 440lbs of TNT equivalent, so you would have a total explosive yield of approx 570lbs of TNT. So theoretically you could just stick a lump of steel for a warhead and do pretty much the same damage.
The kinetic energy would cripple the enemy ship, while the chemical energy would enhance with the damaging potential after the penetration of the deck of the aircraft carrier. Or in other words, the Chinese are fucked 💀.
@@Dimitris_Datseris Depends on the kind of warhead. antiship missiles have semi-armour piercing warheads with a hardened shell and a time delay explosive. If the Mako was semi-armour peircing it would have to trade alot of that explosive mass for the penetrator. If it isn't armour piecing it will likely splatter on the side of a ship's hull on contact like a SAM would.
Could be better to use EFP, or use millimeter wave guidance to disable radar for other missiles
as for targetting specific modules. the moment a ship pops its chaff which totally obscures vision and radar what you hit is down to chance.@@Dimitris_Datseris
@@hughmungus2760 good point
I am curious have much better the results might be if the F35 got in closer. Something like half way between outer and inner rings. The MAKO would be stealthy until launch changes time in target, condense the spread, and maybe overwhelm the radars.
Great video like always. Keep them coming.
Thanks Bacon!
Did some simulations in Command: Modern Operations out of curiosity and the hypersonics would likely be much more effective in real life than DCS. There's no MAKO in CMO, but there is the HAWC (Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept) anti-ship variant which is similar. It weighs 1800kg, has no warhead (kinetic weapon), an RCS of 0.23sq m, and a speed of Mach 5.5. China's CSG contained the Type 003 CV, 2x Type 055 CGs, and 2x Type 052 DDGs in a diamond formation with 10nmi spacing. I launched 6 time-on-target HAWCs at the carrier from 180nmi out and had success in sinking it 9/10 times. The HAWCs were detected 110nmi out by the CSG but the HHQ-9Bs were unable to intercept any most of the time as they simply did not have the capability to intercept them. In about half of the scenarios only one HAWC was intercepted, the rest they all got through. The chance of the HAWCs being spoofed by ECM was about 5% and they had a 10% chance to outright miss/malfunction. In seven out of ten tests I ran, enough hit the carrier that it sunk outright. In two others the carrier was crippled and later succumbed to flooding. In the final scenario (got unlucky with one intercept, one spoof and one miss) the carrier sustained about 55% damage and had significantly reduced air ops capacity. Launching 5 missiles instead of 6 yielded about a 50% kill rate and dropping down to four was substantially less than that. The kill rate was essentially 100% any higher than 6.
hypersonics as a whole in CMO is much more realistically modelled. Missiles aren't gaurenteed to be destroyed by HE frag interceptors.
Yeh DCS does indeed struggle with hypersonic. It's not quite sure what to do with them.
Would the kinetic energy of the missile not contribute significantly more to the damage? It seems DCS is treating it as merely a standard explosive missile instead of a mach 4-5 impact with an explosive.
Yes it would
Not much, instead it would over penetrate like a needle, that’s why most of the damage are dealt by explosive
@@Ilovecruiseso make it expand, I’m not sure how but if you can make bullets expand I’m sure Lockheed can make a missile expand
not entirely convinced the HHq-9B would take down a hypersonic. it's essentially an S300 . ATCAMS just took out a whole S400 site
Exactly what I was thinking
They used over 100 drones, decoys, MLRS , storm shadow and ATACMs to overwhelm the defences.
And they still shot down all the drones and 10 of the ATACMs
It’s not a “s400 can’t kill ATACMs” like you seem to believe .
I wouldn't say it is essentially an S300. The rocket portion may be more similar to an S300 but the rest of it uses American and Israeli technology. So it is more like a Chinese version of a Patriot missile than an S300.
Chinese missiles are vastly overestimated in DCS
@@jugganaut33I’m no military analyzer but I don’t two s400 launchers have enough missiles for 100 drones storm shadows and 10+ atacms, nor would Ukraine waste that much on a target. But I mean you got those numbers from an official source right? You wouldn’t lie to me would you 🥺?
I have to say I love the ‘Taxpayer’ statistic for the losses 😂😭
Remember, this is just MAKOs in isolation. No jamming, no MALDs, no ECM, no LRASMs
And no submarines either…
Cap's reasoning about the firing position is ... I'll just explain.
F-35 costs about the same as an F-16. I am sure you have heard of wild weasel ... of course the F-35 will take some risk to maximize effectiveness. No chance they'll try to keep the plane "safe" instead of using its full capability. F-35 has a RWR ... that means the pilot can manage the risks - that is all anyone would ask.
The goal here is to deny the CSG time to reply. Every second you deny OPFOR air defense radar really increases the PK. A DCS test should show that. It's a pretty dramatic difference as you close the circles even a few seconds of flight time.
Mach 5 is 1 mile per second... that is almost 60 seconds reaction time for the CSG, assuming detection at 60 miles. In 21st century air defense ... 60 seconds may as well be the life age of the universe.
Mach 8 is 1.7 miles per second. If fired at 35 miles the CSG would only have around 20-22 seconds to react, the Mako might still be *accelerating* when they hit. That might get you to 99+% PK against a Chinese CSG, which may not be able to even launch missiles in that time - even assuming instant detection.
The first target should be the radar of the destroyers. Second target should be the launch area of the carrier - which would suspend flight ops. I don't know if DCS offers system level damage on naval units... but you can "rule" a hit as targeting a system and disabling it.
Grab a few human Reapers and fly the mission a few times. 4 F-35, should easily cripple the air defenses and flight deck, a follow on flight of AI controlled 4th Gen Jets should easily eliminate the CSG in detail.
About the Mako itself, it doesn't matter fi the RCS might be smaller than shown.. The missile is basically going to be the fastest flare anyone has ever seen, which means it will be seen at about the same range on IR sensors. In other words ... reasonable assumption about when it might detected in free flight.
Must be why there is such a push for laser.
@@mattwright2964
That is a good guess ... but I think it mostly has to do with being able to have "infinite" ammo reserves against drones. Think more what we are seeing in Ukraine, not what we are discussing with China.
The problem with lasers against hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) is that any laser close to being in service needs extended contact time.
In other words, the laser must be on target for some time before it has an effect sufficient to disable the weapon. 5-10 seconds for most air vehicles.
Against a target designed for high temperatures, like an HGV, that contact time is over 30 seconds ... longer than the flight time of the missile.
Gonna need a video of the Patriot PAC-3 being used by the AEGIS platforms
Jive turkey/sub brief fan?
@@lazyjackass77 Why isn't?
Yo Cap Futuristic, Hypersonic, and Stealth battle!🙏
The Boy's and Yourself are in F/A-XX's starting airborn with AIM-260's and AI HAVE GLASS F-16 Loyal Wingman! They are representing smaller aircraft and maintain low observable by either having 4 Peregrine's plus 2 AIM-9X or 2 AIM-120D's plus 2 AIM-9X! Ford Class Carrier with few F/A-XX's with AIM-260's however mostly F-35's with Mako's! LHD carrying F-35's with AIM-260's! 2 Arleigh Burke's, 2 Ticonderoga's, and 1 Constellation Class! 2 SR-72's with AGM-183's! 3 B-21's with JASSM-ER's! Opposition! off the coast 2 Type 055's, on the coast DF-26's, protecting them and an Airbase near the coast HQ-9, S-350, and S-400! The Airbase has SU-57's with R-77M's, SU-35's with couple R-37M's and R-77M's, and MIG-31's some with R-37M's and some with Kinzhal's! Inside/further protection for Airbase, Iglas, Tunguska's, and Pantsir's! To the south away from the action Carrier with J-35's with PL-15's and 1 Type 055 for protection! Finally further inland away from the action small Airfield with J-20's with PL-15's and few J-15's with PL-17's! Mission-- as stated The Boy's and Yourself are responsible for air superiority with immediate help from the F-35's on the LHD, however Ford Carrier will launch F-35's with Mako first then the few F/A-XX's will launch as last support/clean up! The Mako F-35's are tasked with taking out ALL air defenses! Before that The 2 SR-72's are tasked with hitting the 2 Type 055's off the coast! B-21's are tasked with taking out all DF-ZF's! Optional last strike, Tomahawks from the Ships (if any survive;) smash Airfield!👍
I second this
Not sure based on the simulator images but it looks like the Mako missiles are on a straight run ballistic path. The actual missile can maneuver, which at those speeds makes it a far more difficult target to interdict.
I wonder how different it would be if you had a dozen LRASMs approaching detection range just as a dozen MAKOs were detectable at 60km.
The HQ-9B is based on the S-300F. Judging by the performance of S-300 and the newer S-400 against ATACMS in Ukraine I would bet that S-300/HQ-9 is probably NOT capable against 'hypersonics'.
The ship damage model in DCS leaves a bit to be desired.
The solid fuel or jet fuel still contained in impacting anti-ship weapons is as much a hazard as the warhead. Modern warships are fragile. Anti-ship missiles tend to home on the ships 'radar centric', which is also where most of their vital systems are located.
A Ticonderoga class DDG was once disabled for several hours by taking a hit from a jet powered coyote target drone which hit it in the superstructure. The drone did not have a warhead.
The Moskva should have been able to survive two Neptune strikes in theory, but they both struck around its radar centric, right under its superstructure amidships, taking out vital engineering and electronics spaces. It was fire that finished the Moskva and I would bet that it was the Neptune's unused jet fuel spewing around the interior that made it into an inferno. Rumour has it that only one Neptune actually exploded, but this happened in the Falklands and Gulf. Even an impact by a dud missile that sprays burning fuel around the ships spaces is enough to destroy a ship.
Forget about the fuel, the missile essentially acts as a several-hundred kilogram bullet traveling at Mach 5 straight through everything in its path. The sheer kinetic energy in it dwarfs the damage potential of the explosive warhead and any remaining fuel combined.
How many Mako’s could the B-21 Raider carry? It would be really good to see 2 of those carrying whatever they could (20 each??) go for the CSG and see what it could achieve. Could bombers carrying many Hypersonics end the reign of the Aircraft carrier the way the Warbird ended the Battleship? Hope you’re staying well Cap! 👍🏻👍🏻
Simulation is fundamentally flawed because Mako is NOT a ballistic missile as depicted. It is a maneuvering hypersonic missile, which makes it considerably more difficult to intercept. And to date, no Chinese ships have demonstrated any defensive countermeasures reliably capable of intercepting inbound maneuvering hypersonic missiles. The Chinese military is working on that but as yet have not achieved that goal.
One of the reasons modern hypersonic missiles have such small warheads is because most of their damage is done with the kinetic energy from its speed. These missiles should hit with more energy than a 1000lb warhead. US analysts have stated that the Russian hypersonic missiles used in Ukraine have uad more impact energy than a 5000lb bomb.
Having more energy than explosives doesn't mean more damage. Kinetic energy is less likely to cause more damage to a ship than chemical energy. The mass difference is too great. The superstructure will absorb most of the kinetic energy and the missile will destroy itself trying to burrow further. An explosive will cause an area effect damage, the blast can go through every direction instead of just forward like a kinetic warhead.
@@nicholaslee5473 for the record released chemical energy is kinetic energy. Neither is likely to cause more damage because they're the same thing just in a different direction. Apparently penetration doesn't count, just area effects. lol This isn't a video game. Your logic is flawed.
@@140theguy One is going to cause more damage precisely because it travels in a different direction. If both are the same tonnage of TNT equivalent, one being a bomb and the other being a kinetic penetrator like an armor piercing round, the bomb will damage the ship much more than leaving a small hole like the AP round would do, even if they have the same energy. Battleships use to survive AP rounds all the time, they just plug the leaks. An explosive shell however, may trigger fires and secondary explosions of munitions/fuel.
It's nice to see that we are finally reaching the levels of missile madness that Gundam told us the future would hold!
Aside from the comments already about realistic missile performance etc, the reality is that ANY attack on a PLN carrier would be proceeded by an attack on the escorts to avoid this very type of scenario (low hit/missile ratio).
And given that it's being shown that nations that were *thought* to be near-peer or peer against the U.S have instead shown to be nothing more than paper tigers and barely capable of fighting an adversary smaller than them, well, that PLN carrier is as good as sunk.
Someone can correct my math but if the unclassified specs of the mako are accurate, it weighs 1300 lbs and strikes at a terminal velocity of mach 5.5 (which is just an educated guess), it's releasing an extra quarter ton of explosive damage in kinetic energy alone. Add the 130 lb warhead and you've got the approximate equivalent of a Mk82 JDAM in explosive yield (+ 20%).
The formula for conversion (and forgive me for not knowing how to show the formula properly):
KE=1/2mv2 Where m(ass) is1300 lbs and v(elocity) is 4220 mph equals K(inetic energy) of 1049.29MJ which converts to approximately .2507 tons of explosive equivalent.
I was just pondering this when the 'dinky' 130 lb warhead was mentioned. I mean, the missiles very speed should be factored into its destructive capability, right?? I am deliberately omitting fuel in the end result as there will be a certain amount of 'bleed off' and the remaining fuel should account for that if the missile(s) were launched at the range you showed.
Thank you. It's late, I'm recovering from my latest round of chemo, and frankly, I just had to put my mind to something for a few minutes.
"According to Lockheed Martin, an F-35A or C could carry six Makos between internal and external bays.[1]"
It's one per bay and two under each wing. A block 4 F35 can BARELY hold 6 amraams interally.
Have you seen that the USN is going to start putting Patriot missiles on ships they can quad pack in a single VLS cell and work with AGIS. That’s could be some fun to model
Clever idea for a vid
Welcome back, Cap!
Launch at 40-50 miles out and from 3 directions (all 90deg apart). Could also have a B2 launch a plane load of decoys from the other cardinal direction.
Mach 5.5 and marginal damage ?
I suspect that there will be armor to protect the warhead.....
That will go through alot.
It does not need to sink a ship. If the bridge is destroyed its over. Thats a disabled carrier afterwards. Same thing about other ships. If the bridge is destroyed its over.
@@sulyokpeter3941 the CIC (the actual brains of the ship) on a warship is generally not on the bridge. its buried deep inside the bridge and likely armoured to some extent.
At best hitting the bridge will take out the driver and some sensors but in an actual firefight important officers are below decks for a reason.
CAP "Im not feeling well enough to do these videos as long or as often"
Also CAP-Continues producing long format high quality videos despite his health
Mate make sure you are getting your rest. We would like to keep you around for a while so you need to take care of yourself damnit.
Hi Cap, just wondering is the Mako's small warhead offset by its kinetic energy? I *think* at 590kgs at 1715 m/s (Mach 5) would give it 860mj of KE. Way more than the 50kg explosive warhead. Does DCS model KE or just chemical warhead size?
the missile would be significantly lighter after burnout. Probably 1/3 that weight
Loving this noryway map. That one missile that hit on the 2 shooter run took out the launch ramp. I'd say that disables enough of the ship as far as that short engagement is concerned. Depending on how damaged the catapult mechanics underneath are..
Wonder if you could use a simulstrike. Mako to suck up missiles so LRASMs can sneak in and kill the ships
I would like to see this scenario because I also thought of it right away
I was imagining this as well, a joint Time on Target attack utilizing Mako's and LRASM's. Timing would be tricky given significant difference in the missles speed. Maybe the best you could do is time the Mako launch/detection to just before the LRASM's cross their detection ring.
The act of observation has changed the outcome.
We are going sub-atomic??
I'd like to see this run at just inside 60 mile ring for the launch point. See if that lowered time to react gives a better idea of capabilities
I wonder if we can all pitch in and get an AI replicant for Cap's voice.
I would like that very much!
Holy crap! I havent seen this channel since 2023!
@Grim Reapers Thanks for this, I like these types of videos, really interesting, in my opinion.
Since the US doesn't pull a Russia and label air launched ballistics as hypersonic, Mako would be a maneuvering target for SAMs to chase. I assume DCS isn't currently capable of making missiles maneuver to avoid being shot down.
The company selling it is calling the Mako a hypersonic missile, not the US armed forces. And that company is trying to market it heavily because it lost the competion with the AARGM-ER for the SiAW program.
@@nietkees6906 LockMart would, out of necessity, use the same terminology as their #1 benefactor.
Thanks Cap, I really love these videos. I beg you to do one more with a couple of changes, for science!
I'm interested in seeing a test setup just like this, but purely looking at a scaling time-on-target attack (start small and increase as needed, like this video), that involves, LRASM and Mako fired from F-35s, and then also Naval Strike Missiles from the Constellation class and SM-6 (plus perhaps some SM-2) configured for anti-ship mode. If the Maritime Strike Tomahawk is coded by CH, then replace the SM-2 and potentially the SM-6 as well (although SM-6 is basically a precision hypersonic anti-ship missile as well). Feel free to add Chinese jets on defense to scramble (plus a normal CAP flight up upon detection), otherwise the US forces would just be the assets to launch those four weapons.
Concerning the Chinese defense in this video, I don't think the results are too unrealistic. However, I'm absolutely skeptical of the Chinese navy in the real world. They have never fired one of those SAMs in anger to-date, they don't release the frequency or results of their test fires, and if you've ever watched Chinese military training videos, they are almost comical. Granted, those videos weren't training on VLS fire control consoles.
I also don't know this for sure, but I imagine the Chinese VLS has an awful lot more in common with the simulated US Aegis and SM-series of missiles than compared to the real world, simply due to the limited number of variables in DCS to develop these weapons with unique characteristics and I assume at least some copy-paste was done when modding them into DCS after the base SM-2 missiles were already in the core game.
Finally, what also makes me skeptical is the fact the Chinese military and navy doctrine in the real world is generally modeled off of Soviet and Russian tactics and hardware more than any other single source. We've all seen how poorly their ships and S-400/S-350/S-300 and other SAM systems are performing compared to pre-war claims, so I imagine a reverse engineered or licensed Russian SAM used by a Chinese crew with no war time experience wouldn't be the most capable of solutions. I could be entirely wrong and I'm not saying you should change anything or accusing you of false results of some kind, just sharing some thoughts dude. :)
0:55 Only if the Chinese ships are as cracked up as they’re supposed to be.
Recent intel shows the new 003 carrier smocking like 20 MiG29s, with a tug boat and frigate nearby.
Same mentality as Russia & USSR prior.
Hi Cap.
So nice to hear you.
Got the stickers, thank you. 😀👍
Question, what if the jets fired from multiple directions?
I would agree with Cap, I don't think that F-35 will venture on minimum ranges for it's stealth capabilities, it will engage targets on its maximum stealth range in which they have minimal to no radar signatures, will deploy their stand off munitions and return to base for re arming. And will re-engage the target coming from another direction.
They could fly low into within 60nm of the CSGs, climb and launch the MAKOs. The 35s wouldn’t be detected and a much higher kill rate will probably be present
i agree that F-35 are expensive and the US wouldn't want to risk them but firing at 100 miles is a little overkill. Id say they would get way closer to that 30 miles, also having the game and creating the scenarios. it would have been cool to see the same test 1-4 F-35s firing 6 MAKO each at 100 miles then again at 60 then again at 30 and seeing how much more effective it would be to get closer. Kinda approach it not necessarily on what would happen in real life but more so test the scenarios and then after come to a conclusion based on testing on what would most likely happen. Because I think if they effectiveness does go up exponentially I think they would see as close as they could get then add some conservatism and then use that as the launch point. So say 30 miles is that exact line then they would fire at say 40-45 miles out and hard turn around out of there.
I think, realistically speaking, there wouldn't be just one or two planes on the attack. There'd be several coming from various directions to overwhelm the defenders.
There would also be CAP as well - that would push out the F35s further
@@dexlab7539 Yeah, that's my thought. The whole idea being that the enemy doesn't specifically know exactly WHERE the threat is coming from, and what they need to prioritize first. Afterall, ships do have limited resources for missiles, and air defense options, and only so much their systems can process at any given time. If I were planning this as an attack, I'd have fighters out front, running interference for the F35's, but I'd also utilize some decoy squadrons with jamming pods, to make the attack seem larger than it is. Once the decoy squadrons get burn through on the jammers, they retreat, behaving as though they have launched their payloads, and yes, some would be launching older, slower missiles, while the F35's slip in from random locations.
+GrimReapersAtomic *This mission had **_better_** use the USN-USMC / Lockheed Martin F-35 Charlie all-weather attack aircraft.* Ideal scenario: Northrop Grumman AF-14 Echo for escort and MiGCAP; Northrop Grumman EF-14 Golf for electronic warfare.
Even before you calculate the damage those missiles did, I notice just the cost of the missiles they fired to stop most of them was more than double the amount.
From past experience, I know an attack would be attempted from multiple directions to spread their defenses. Having an attack come from 1 direction, means all their defenses can concentrate in that direction. Also, from the latest videos showing the various issues with the Chinese navy, I would not consider them at the "excellent" skill level. When 1 chief goes on vacation and a whole ship is at a standstill because he's the only one that knows what to do?!?!
Could you use this kind of missile (fast, but small warhead) + an F-35 to disable the radar of a ship, and then sink it with a missile with a big warhead that the ship would normally be able to intercept?
I dont think module damage is modelled on DCS nor could you get AI to target modules.
Stealth Squadron's & Futuristic Planes VS Star Destroyer Fleet!
Center front formation-- Ten ST-21 Super Tomcat's, Next-- Five F-15EX's and Ten F-15STOL/MTD's, Next-- Four B-1R's, Next above-- Four YF-12A's!
Right Flank-- Ten F-22's, Next-- Fifteen F-35's, Next-- Two B-21's, Next-- Two SR-72's!
Left Flank-- Ten YF-23's, Next-- Fifteen HAVE GLASS F-16's, Next-- Five F-117's, Next-- Four B-2's!
Surprise Attack-- Ten NGAD's, Millennium Falcon, Five X-Wing's, and Five Y-Wings! Please have the correct fighters on the right teams ;) it'd also be cool af if you had an ace card at the end Large Rebel Ship AIM-4 Falcon and or Genie Rocket!
They would probably use cheaper missiles to draw out and use up the anti-missiles. Once they run out thats when you use the expensive stuff.
Would it make a difference if the missiles were fired from different vectors at the ships? Also I wonder if a couple F-35s with NSMs firing would do well since the defenders would be concentrating on the hypersonic missiles?
Considering irl the chinese can barely intercept a Harpoon, there’s a good chance a single F35 with Makos would probably disable the entire strike group.
I would agree.
Also, the F-22 loadout is heavier and could easily sink an entire carrier group.
@@YepTriedToTellYounah the f-22 can’t really hold AGMs. It is air superiority. That is why the F-35 exists. But yes, the Chinese and Russian missiles in this game are massively over rated.
@@FreeRojava2025 And yet the F-22 mod 3 can indeed. Interior bay fitted for the AGM-197. Range 200 miles.
@@YepTriedToTellYou indeed. However the F-22 isn’t built for air to surface work, the F-35 is arguably a much better platform for the US. The F-22 is basically just designed for the purpose of ending other aircraft, and has been given the ability to launch AGMs.
MAKO and JASSM time on target?
I’ve always been curious how much damage a hypersonic missile would do to a naval ship even without a warhead. You would think most of the damage they cause are from speed alone and even if you managed to shoot it down close to a shop it would still do damage from the inertia of it. Idk I’m just a regular ole Joe with zero background in this stuff
The damage should look something like what the US quicksink missile is capable of.
Thanks CAP!!!
where can i get the mako mod ? as well i dont why but for me, the type 055 never fires the YJ-21, someone can tell me why ?
Cant wait to see the laser canons to be made available. I believe they will used in the navy ships and their ultra modern aircrafts
Would the stealth anti ship missiles be able to sneak in under the cover of the hypersonis?
I think the thing about hypersonics as well is that they have a large amount of kinetic energy as well. That said, I am not surprised that the US hypersonics are being intercepted. The Russian hypersonic also got intercepted in Ukraine in the real world by a Patriot system.
Hey @Cap (not sure the @ does anything) but idea:
I'd be interested to see a situation in which 2x FA18 squadrons maybe unrealistic (I'm a internet pilot not a navy pilot) with a flight of 4 using MALDs and the rest a ToT with the suspected MALD intercept time against air defence with MAKO presence.
I am curious as to the Chinese aegis equivalent being able to prioritize targets over another in a mass wave of inbound strikes, while in this situation using 4th gen have a Chinese AWAC and standard 2 ship Chinese CAP (or x4 depending on PLAN doctrine for combat under these circumstances) for fleet defense with 2 or 4 on ready alert. Do they manage to get aircraft up, does that make a difference to the FA18 shoot and scoot tactic anyway?
To finish repeat same Chinese situation win or lose with a 1 sqn F35C or A depending on engagement type with 4 ship FA18 as MALD and decoy from a completely different direction same principles try timing MALD engagement with MAKO presence on radar. But this time knowing the hornets are visible and attracting attention push to halfway between MAKO detect and F35 detect (Shorten response time).
It is more moving parts but I think the research can help create a better understanding of DCS's limitations or the weapons and radar or aircraft limitations for further testing, training and evaluation trials like this in the future.
Cheers Cap and best wishes for your recovery brother.
updated ATACMs vs S-400 would be nice since every week it seems more S-400 batteries are damaged/destroyed by 90s tech
S-400 is way too strong in DCS. It is based on what Russia says it will do and not what it can actually do. Same as the PL-15.
@@Thewhitetilelol PL-15 irl has a dual-pulse rocket motor which would be closer to aim-260 previously shown on this channel, rather than being comparable to an amraam as in DCS.
@@Thewhitetile The performance of Chinese weapons on this channel is not well represented. In addition to the PL-15's dual-pulse motors, the YJ-18 will use ignites solid rocket motors in the terminal phase and accelerate to Mach 3, YJ-21 will not follow a straight-down ballistic missile trajectory, both of which are much more difficult to intercept. CH, who was responsible for making the weapon modules, acknowledged this and made the current version on the grounds that it was difficult to program (which is true). But over time, viewers seem to default to this being what they actually do
In the meantime, weapons like the AIM-260, which are not widely fielded, or even MAKO, which still far from production, you guys just fantasize about their performance and the number of units. Reassuring yourselves that this is the future, but refuse to face up to the real power of the opponents, and the fact that they improves too
@@gaobilidude have you seen their channel? Literally no other country wins but they bring out weapons that aren’t even tested or fielded yet and say that Russia and China overstate their abilities so therefore reduce it. I haven’t seen the US lose once and even Cap said if America loses he gets less money and views
@@Thewhitetile alot of that could also be attributed to operator fatigue/skill
Could you try this with a swarm attack before the makos? Just launching tons of cheap rockets at the fleet to overwhelm the defences and spend most of those anti hyper rockets?
The other issue is a hyper sonic missile doesn't need a warhead the kinetic energy of the missile alone will kill a target. All you need is a solid or fragmentary steel to do damage.
In most of your videos involving attacking a carrier group like this, I've noticed that the typical approach only involves attempting to overwhelm the SAM defense with sheer numbers of ASMs. Would it not be more likely for ASMs to be successful by not only in numbers, but also coordinating a time-on-target attack from two or more vectors?
Would the debris form the initial interceptions disrupt the next? Almost like the affect of chaff.
Possibly.
I may be off base, here, but If your simulator has not been adjusted to consider hypersonic speeds, and relied only on proximity destruction at more commonly expected speeds, the results would be as depicted, as the software would not know any better. Proximity missiles might detonate too late to destroy a hypersonic target at what, twice the expected speed, on average? This is also true of the defensive missile's own internal programming. So unless that missile has programming to sense the target's speed usefully in detonation point, the outcome is suspect. Do we know it that is so, or not?
can you do a time on target mission with multiple diffirent munitions?
I don't know how carriers are constructed these days, whether they have some part armored or not, but if a missile hits a sweet spot, say where ammo, fuel, or even fueled and ammo-ed aircraft, well the effect of the hit should multiply. In some ways a carrier isn't a good place to be in a war.
Fabric Modular Blocks, so they probably have some composite material.
I think DCS puts way too much stock into Russian and Chinese anti air missiles. The Chinese missiles are just derivatives of the S-400 & S-300 missiles which aren’t serving Russia so well. Subsonic cruise missiles like Neptune and Stormshadow have taken them out plus plain old GMLRS rockets. The Chinese have never been able to shoot down a hostile missile in real life but they are god tier in DCS😂
would it make a difference if the attacks came in from multiple angles ?
Between your visit from NCIS and the number of times you're testing almost-in-service tech against chinese and russian defences, I'm beginning to think that they're using you and the boys as a simulation test group. Cheaper and safer than the real thing, and a lot more entertaining I dare say!
Feel better, cap!
If it was a maritime strike, would likely have a flight profile in terminal phase dropping low to evade SAMS
Why not do a series of videos on the other newer missiles like Champ, Mutan, Spike, etc...?
This cut-and-pasting method seems quite innovative. Why doesn't our military use it in such scenarios rather than building entirely new planes?
The F-35 can only carry 2 Mako missiles and still retain its stealth features: a total of 6 in beast mode with subsequent degradation in stealth qualities and increased exposure to adversary targeting radars. I would be interested to see an attack profile using Makos and LRASM coordinated for speed differentials to arrive in the target area simultaneously.
Yup, just realised that, my mistake.
wonder if could simulate decoys? like a smaller set of missile that could be stealth enough to be externally mounted; that at press of a button/launch time increases its RCS to match or be slightly larger than the real missile..
May as well mounted additional to the pylons if you were going to shoot stand off like that
Not only are you not using the stealth aspect to it's full potential, but you're not using the strength of the missle either. Closer release coupled with 9 planes firing 2 missile each as close to simultaneously as possible would likely be more effective. The strung out nature of the salvos allows the ships tracking and fire control time they need to defeat the makos.
Since radar follows invers-square-law, then shouldn't the 30/60 mile difference be 4 times in sqm? So if the MACO is detected at 60 miles with 0.2sqm, then F-35 being 100 times stealthier should be detected at 10 times less range, so 6 miles
I’m curious as to how much DCS accounts for the speed of the missile for its damage. I’d imagine the missile would break deep into a ship before exploding, potentially hitting a lot of the softer insides and aircraft with a bunch of hypersonic fragments.
Hey Cap. No other way to reach you. Be great for the Grim Reapers to do a memorial flight for Bud Anderson the 103 year old Triple Ace in WWII. He was the pilot of the P-51's named /Old Crow/. He passed on May 17th, 2024.
Understood thanks.
Try two different lines of attack, separated by at least 90 degrees. And try mixing the MAKOs with other, slower anti ship missles. That would be more realistic.
it would probably need to be fired at a reasonable distance so it can get up to top speed. If fired closer its not going to get to max velocity
Would it make a difference if they attacked from different directions or would the carrier group simply put more sams in the air?
You sunk my battleship...
No it's health bar was barely touched.
what about heaving the hypersonics actually manouvre? isn't that the main difference between hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles that go hypersonic?
Please, same scenario, but with Viggens, armed with RBS-15?
Would be interesting to see a flight of two in advance half way between the two rings, as the first wave crosses they launch confusing the radar picture enen more.
I wonder what would happen if the mako would use an atackpattern simliar to an exocet or a Harpoon
Is The Kinetic Energy Potential Calculated Into The MAKO Impacts? I Would Expect Greater Damage On Target Even Though The Warheads Are Relatively Small?
I think were underestimating proximity based thermobaric systems
the kinetic energy of a hypersonic weapon will probably be just as effective as its warhead
I thought the F-35 had to beast mode to carry 6? Surely 6 Makos don't fit inside if 6 Aim-120s do not.
I suspect if you carried the missiles in closer (just outside the F-35 detection range), I think that would give them less time to respond, and you would have better effect.
yeah they'd be lucky to carry 4 internally and 2 realistically since you'd need some form of self defense
@@hughmungus2760 Think it's one in each bay, and then 1 on each of the 4 external hardpoints.
@@PhillipChalabi Yeah so basically not practical unless you fly in a totally non-stealth configuration
Yeh I screwed up sorry.
What if you spawn in a bunch of JASSM-ERs at a distance where you get a TOT affect with the Mako's?
The Mako's covered 60 miles in about 53 seconds averaging a speed of Mach 5.5
I don't know the distance at which the F35's fired, but if you can get the speed of the JASSM ER you can spawn the F35s so that they fire such that the makos arrive at the same time the JASSM ERs do.
Regarding the decision not to close within just short of detection range to launch: the question wasn't 'would America risk their F-35s?' it was 'will it work?' Why NOT test both scenarios? No real F-35s are being risked, and I would have liked to have seen China's short-range defense attempts against these missiles, not just more and more HHQ-9s as more and more missiles are fired from long range. But good vid anyway!
Interestingly we are talking about an attak from just a couple of F35
Imagine a while air wing.
Keep in mind PAC3 MSE is HtK and has no surface engagement mode ( or explosives ).
Would MRLS based missiles with Sensor based guidance be viable for surface engagements.
Interesting how people will take on this. The logic if it's a chinese missile is hitting stuff with a hypersonic missile is impossible because the plasma from the speed of the missile blocks the targetting system. So if that logic is true, idk how these missiles would hit certain points of a ship.
I'm more so interested to see if there are gonna be double standards or not lol
Terminal guidance would be visual with AI, not radar.
@@Xanman64-p6q Uhuh.
That logic just isn't true.
@@nietkees6906 Which part, the bit where people say that regularly about the yj21 and why it's not a threat or the fact people are arguing that a US missile can but a chinese missile can't.
@@lonurad1259 The part about the Chinese missiles not being able to target due to plasma.