The Mk 41 VLS on the Spruances replaced the ASROC launcher. Prior to VLS they carried 8 ASROCs in the launcher with up to another 16 in a magazine to reload. The VLS magazine on the Spruance held 61 missiles. The loadout would have been a mix of Tomahawk land attack and Tomahawk anti-surface cruise missiles. In the mid-80s the VLA (vertically launched ASROC) was not yet ready (many delays, as with so many US naval weapons programs), so it wouldn't be until the mid-90s that you could load out a Spruance with Tomahawks and VLAs. (During that time period, the Spru-cans would have been dependent on their helicopters to deliver torpedoes on an enemy sub.) In the end, the Spruances really only ever ended up being used as a platform to launch Tomahawk land attack missiles from. The Spruances would have turned broadside in order to be able to engage the incoming ASMs with the Sea Sparrow, as it was carried on the rear. The older Mk 26 twin-launcher Ticonderogas would also have turned broadside in order to be able to fire missiles from both launchers. However, even the modern Ticos with VLS would want to turn broadside to be able to use all 4 of their fire control directors (two mounted forward and two aft). While the SM-2s of the era were able to be guided by AEGIS they still used the SPG-62s for terminal guidance.
@@spineless1 The Spruance didn't really have any AAW capability. The Sea Sparrow was just a self-defense weapon. The Spruance was designed as an ASW weapon (and it was a very, very good one). Later on with the addition of VLS and the near elimination of a submarine threat at the end of the cold war it became a strike platform with its land attack Tomahawk cruise missiles. It played a large role in the Tomahawk strikes during Desert Storm, for instance. It was also a passable platform for anti-surface warfare and after the final decommissioning of the Iowas was as good a platform for NGFS (Naval Gunfire Support) as any other. But with the end of the Soviet blue water submarine threat its days were numbered.
Yes there was a gain in missiles carried and launch speed. And you aren't dependent on the mechanics of the launcher. But for AAW none of this matters if you can't control the missiles. A ship with 2 fire control channels with a VLS will still be only able to control 2 missiles. It was Mk41 with AEGIS that gave the real boost as it allowed more control channels. I think back then it was 8 birds in the air.
It not strictly "8 birds in the air at the same time", as the requirement is the 4x SPG-62 are only used in the terminal phase of the intercept. Tico Aegis could have 8 SM-2s in terminal phase on four targets, and an "officially undisclosed" number of other SM-2s in midcourse phase under command guidance of the SPY-1. So more than 8 SM-2s in the air at the same time, just staggered in batches of 8 so that only 8 are ever in terminal phase at the same time.
Not sure if this has been called out already, but on the Spruance the SPS-40 is NOT a surface search radar. It is a 2D air search radar. The Spruance had an SPS-55 surface search radar.
My thoughts on as to why the red Tico survived, I’ve noticed with NTU that when you let the ships salvo off all of their tomahawks the tomahawks tend to go for one target so in this test you end up with 40 something tomahawks going for the Spruance and none going for the Tico, not sure if it’s an issue with the mod or the base game but it’s something I’ve noticed playing around with fleets
it's probably because the tomahawk(or USN AShM in general) doesn't have the same system as more advanced soviet AShM like the sandbox and shipwreck, they'll go to the biggest radar return they see regardless how many missiles already targeting the same thing
Hey Cap, I recently learned about the USS Edsall, an American destroyer in WWII that fought the entire Japanese Kido Butai. In the battle, the Japanese had to fire 1335 shells and use about 100 aircraft against the destroyer to sink it. I was wondering if you could do a video where a 2020s US Arleigh Burke destroyer fights the Japanese in the same way. Could it sink the entire Kido Butai using AShMs and helicopter AWACS? I think it would be cool.
Such anachronism always leaves me cold. But enough of you enjoy it that it's a regular thing. If you could explain why you enjoy it so much I'd appreciate it.
@@grimreapers Cap, the tico radars werent moving, I know it has the spy 1 static one but surface search wasnt moving and that leads me to believe that it was pure emcon and didnt have air search on too
it was only the Tico that was emcon. the Spruance had their radars going. @@grimreapers I'm guessing you selected the Spruance as the formation leader, and set it to radar on from the menu, but didn't realize you needed to tell each vessel if they should have radar on or not.
To see all enemy units: F10 ->Tf sensors - > Truth ON for player. The F10 menu is useful for seeing what is happening in the game. For example a lot of missiles miss their target due to defensive ECM jamming. Being able to spawn units in might be useful for you too. Also from F10 I found out that helicopter radars can now see periscope/esm masts from around 3nm. Prior to this update submarine masts were invisible on radar.
Love the videos, could you do a battle using the NTU mod that showcases the improved ability of US fighter aircraft? In previous videos, I remember noted frustration with the performance of US fighters. Thus, I'm curious to see how significant late 80's tech improvements were to naval airpower!
I have a good friend and coworker who served on 2 Ticonderoga Class. He was on Port Royal and Yorktown. He told me that Port Royal was superior in every single thing.
We need a modernised Soviet Navy. Would be interesting to see almost an inverse of the DCS attack on Fujian you did, where the Soviets attack a US carrier protected by SAMs and VLS Ticos, maybe a couple of shore-based F-15s to defend as well, but have lots of Shipwrecks and Soviet Air Force attacking a weakened US force.
Thanks Cap. I have a new video suggestion, please: re-run the "Dance of the Vampires" mission with the NTU mod, including the carrier mod to enable 4 elevators for more accurate fighter launches. A couple of relevant notes from playing Sea Power: - Land attack Tomahawks are terrain-following and can be fired at all land targets, as they will fly over elevation increases. - Anti-ship Tomahawks and I believe Harpoons do not follow terrain, so you have to have the enemy ship come out from behind land coverage or the piece of land has to be really flat. - If you have land Tomahawks and no land targets, you can fire them in the general direction of the enemy ships being targeted, and they will serve as effective decoy missiles as the enemy AI still engages them. - I'm not sure if the NTU mod does this, but future mods should have this feature, so any time a new mod or Harpoon variant is released, check to see if you can assign it waypoints. Apparently the real Harpoon released in the late 1980's/early 1990's had the capability to set waypoints for time on target and multi-directional attacks (as well as to prevent back-tracing the missile's track to find the launch source). - The F10 key offers some options. A useful one is disabling aircraft/helicopters from dropping their fuel tanks if you order them to visually ID or attack a target (they drop them immediately even if you click attack on a target 1,000 miles away; you can manually drop tanks if using this new option).
Dang, even with EMCON and blinded, the NTU ships could pick up enough ESM to successfully defend themselves anyway (at least one of the two was EMCON, vs Red which had all radars on)
@coffeejelly523 im no dataminer at all, but the ratio of harpoons i've seen intercepted is WAY higher than shipwrecks, for some reason interceptors almost allways fly over them while they nail other smaller or faster missiles, go figure...
@coffeejelly523 im no dataminer at all, but the ratio of harpoons i've seen intercepted is WAY higher than shipwrecks, for some reason interceptors almost allways fly over them while they nail other smaller or faster missiles, go figure...
The Spruance upgrade moved some of its ASW weapons to the VLS; I am pretty sure all the ASROCs were moved, and I THINK the number of ASROCs they carried increased. Good video. I thought the older TICO might survive... though totally outclassed.
All you have to do when using ntu is scale the scenarios give soviets stronger and or more ships and keep it challenging. Scale the soviets to more or stronger ships and make it challenging even with stronger nato ships. Basically give the soviets overwhelming odds and see if the Americans can win. Things like that. Maybe some more experiments like single ntu American ships vs 2 stronger soviet ships as experiments
@@rubiconnn But the Iowas were pretty useless back then, especially with no SAM capability. Also my point of large ship was referring to the CGNs, not the battleships. But with today’s tech, if you remove the 16 inch guns and their barbettes, you can now fill those massive empty spaces with an unfree healthcare amount large very long range hypersonic cruise missile VLS launchers, while the superstructure is rebuilt to carry regular VLS for SAM and ASW and the Aegis system. That’s basically what the USN is planning on doing with the Zumwalts anyways which is removing their small ammo-less guns and replace them with said hypersonic VLS launchers. Basically turn them into large menaces that can attack land targets from far away without the enemy being able to do anything about it, AKA the same roles battleships were built for. The battleship isn’t truly dead, we simply just need to rethink what a modern battleship should be able to do.
Now imagine a new warship the size of a Kirov or Iowa that is basically just the planned upgrade for the Zumwalt but with basically infinite ammo due to its sheer size. That is a modern battleship.
You could probably convert the Virginia class (or build new ones) to VLS at cost, but the key word is *at cost*. They would, being nuclear cruisers, be over 40 percent more expensive to run per ship than a Ticonderoga, and more than twice that of an Arleigh Burke. Without the Cold War going on, and thus a reduced need for cruisers and nuclear powered ships, they got rid of many of their cruisers anyways
Love the videos cap thanks for the awesome naval content. I don't have a pc to play so I really appreciate getting to watch it on your channel. All you have to do when using ntu is give the soviets more or stronger ships when using ntu to keep it challenging for bato ships. That's all. Just change thr amount or give the soviets stronger ships when using NTU American ships.
Tom Clancy in Red Storm rising has the Julias Fucik turning so that the waterline is higher on the side facing the missile...this is so that the missile (which is trying to hit right at the waterline) would hit higher on the ship and be less likely to have a hole that takes on water. In all these sims so far it looks like the Harpoon hits the topside of the ship (I think it looks like this in both DCS and Sea Power), but a lot of the Russian missiles go straight into the sides. While the internet is obviously a questionable source of actual information, the pop-up of the Harpoon is a selectable attack profile but it is supposedly to better acquire the target and not to hit the deck of the ship, they should be going for the sides too. I have never seen a Harpoon fired, so I could be completely wrong of course, but comments help the algorithm so a rubbish comment is still a comment! :D
Cap those VLS launches were quite a bit too fast compared to RL rates. The cell being fired vents the exhaust into another. he MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) has a fast reaction time and rate of fire. It can prepare two missiles simultaneously in each 8-cell launcher module. The MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) has a fast reaction time and rate of fire. It can prepare two missiles simultaneously in each 8-cell launcher module.
I still wonder if you can play with weather in Sea Power. No battle will always be flat calm seas. Add some large waves in North Atlantic? I asked AI what effectiveness of anti-ships missiles with rough seas and this is what is said. Sea Power is a naval combat simulation game set during the Cold War era, primarily focusing on conflicts between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces . The game does not provide specific data on missile performance in rough sea conditions near Iceland in the present day. However, the game does model various environmental factors that can affect naval combat: Weather conditions, including rough seas, can impact sensor effectiveness and weapon accuracy The game simulates fog of war, making target detection and identification more challenging in adverse conditions Radar and other sensor systems can be affected by environmental factors, potentially reducing detection ranges While the game doesn't give exact numbers for missile losses due to weather, it's reasonable to assume that rough seas and poor weather conditions would negatively impact missile accuracy and effectiveness. Factors like large waves, reduced visibility, and degraded radar performance could all contribute to increased missile losses or reduced hit probability in such a scenario. It's important to note that Sea Power is a simulation game and may not perfectly reflect real-world missile performance in modern naval combat scenarios .
Spruence went side on because the cwis are midships on the sides. Sucks you have to make yourself a bigger radar signature to deal with missiles. Soviet ships typically had cwis right on the front and won't go side on
Cap, whenever a US ship goes broadside it is to unmask its defensive armament and bring it to bear. 7:45 the Spruance is turning to bring its ESSM to bear along with the phalanx.
That was a lot of missles all at once! Cap, is there anything you can do with the Knox class frigates? My father served eight years on one as a radar operator and just started watching your videos(says he is going to run the whole channel. I wished him good luck!) He is bummed out that he missed out on aegis though as that went into the next generation of frigates. Maybe a game of frigates tag with older boats to show how it would have been done peer to peer somewhere nice, like New Zealand?
Requesting 2030’s carrier battles in DCS plz. Things to consider: -Zumwalt class destroyers will have hypersonic missiles (don’t know if they’ll be capable of anti-shipping though) -American (and possibly British) aircraft will be using a combination of towed electronic warfare decoys as well as BriteCloud electronic warfare decoys, making them much harder to hit than traditional self-defense jammers and chaff (don’t know about Chinese and Russian aircraft though) -British aircraft will most likely be equipped with air-launched Spear 5 missiles while American aircraft will be equipped with HACM hypersonic cruise missiles -both American and Chinese carrier groups should be equipped with EA-18G Growler and the J-15D electronic warfare aircraft to aid in missile penetration as well as possibly defending against incoming missiles -American AWACS will most likely have missiles specifically designed to shoot down anti-air missiles fired at them -American stealth fighters will most likely be using new generation of stealth materials that not only reduce RCS but also reduce the IR signature, while the NGAD will quite possibly sport a laser dazzler for additional defense against EO/IR missiles -possibility of the NGAD internally carrying HACM, LRASM, JASSM, and AIM-174B -NGAD has a high probability of sporting thrust vectoring nozzles to assist in general flight control due to lack of vertical tails with a knock-on effect of boosting its agility in visual range dogfighting -F-35’s have stealthy wingtip pylons for heat seeking missiles -American stealth fighters will be able to carry stealthy underwing pods for use as either fuel tanks or weapons bays and when jettisoned, they break away cleanly without compromising the aircraft’s stealth
I'm with you man, in an ideal world, yes. However, DCS doesn't allow quite a few of these features (such as towed decoys of any kind, infrared/laser dazzlers, and electronic warfare of any kind), and nearly all of the items you listed aren't modded into DCS (per the best of my knowledge). For example, no Zumwalt (let alone a Zumwalt with their new hypersonic missiles), no US hypersonic missiles, no EA-18G or J-15D, no HACM, no USAF NGAD, the USN NGAD GR attempted to mod wasn't accurate (in my opinion) to what their NGAD will be, as the bays didn't have a lot of capacity and the range/speed weren't very impressive, and no stealth pods are modded.
If my memory serves me, the Russian variants of the Tyco have been much more robust with their hypersonic missiles and defensive capabilities. How about a test of the updated Tycos vs the older Russian variants? more evenly matched, no?
I'm not sure if that's accurate (Kirov surviving that) because it's the 1980's, or super unrealistic per Russia failing to defend against just two missiles with the Moskva.
Can any of you surface warfare guys advise as to the rate of fire for the VLS system? That seems a little fast to me, but I’ve only seen it fire multiple missiles one time in a documentary so what the hell do I know?
The NTU mod is currently using placeholder values for the fire rate of the Mk41 and the specs of the radar. This means that (currently) the NTU VLS Tico is way better than the IRL one was.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
Not gonna lie... after that last broadside duel with the Iowas, I really wanna see just the Iowas vs... the fucking planet. How much does it take at close range to take one down?
Every Major Naval SAM from Terrier/Talos/Tartar has an anti surface capability so Standards. Don't think Sea Sparrow has but newer blocks of RAM RIM-116 have Passive Radar homing so can be used against ships that way
@@bourbonbrigade I saw one game video (Vietnam scenario) where the player was using Terrier and Talos to attack land targets. I'd guess the game creators would also allow RIM-66 to be used the same way. In another game video, I saw the player (Soviet side) using SA-N-1 Goa missiles to attack enemy ships, so I'd guess the game would let US players do the same with their SAMs.
From each 8 cell block, meaning about 15 missiles spaced across 7 seconds or about 2 missiles every second. Thats is if the selected missiles have been perfectly spaced across the differnt blocks so yes the fire rate in game is a little high. They also could not guide that many missiles at once back in the late 80s configuration.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
@@lsy6237 YT is blocking comments with links in them, so I'll just post the video titles instead: A video titled "Hot Launch! How the vertical launch system VLS work? How it works!" by the channel "How It Works". At the 15 sec mark, looks to be like a little over 2 secs in the vid. Like you said probably improvements done over time since in the vid this is a Burke. A video titled "RIM-66/67 Standard Missile SM-1/SM-2" by the channel "jaglavaksoldier". At the 8 sec mark, I know it's just Norton Sound with the EDM Aegis and Mk 41, but look at her firing off a two missile salvo as fast as the game does it, kind of funny, lol.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
@xenoaltrax485 I qualified as a Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist on a VLS equiped TICO and worked as the ID Sup. I can promise you it's fast, but not quite that fast. At least not from 1 deck. It's a game, I get it. But it is simply too fast.
@@reminder9146 YT is blocking comments with links in them, so I'll just post the video titles instead: A video titled "Hot Launch! How the vertical launch system VLS work? How it works!" by the channel "How It Works". At the 15 sec mark, looks to be like a little over 2 secs in the vid. A video titled "RIM-66/67 Standard Missile SM-1/SM-2" by the channel "jaglavaksoldier". At the 8 sec mark, I know it's just Norton Sound with the EDM Aegis and Mk 41, but look at her firing off a two missile salvo as fast as the game does it, kind of funny, lol.
Dont think Ive seen a game yet, where the blues didnt win. Maybe Im watching "the wrong" content creators, but this game seems horribly skewed towards Nato forces. Anyone here seem some Natos losses anywhere?
"I can't see the missiles."
Turn your radar on.
There has to be a song in there somewhere about that.
The Ticonderoga only fears another Ticonderoga.
Every time I play a VLS Tico against a Kirov in Cold Waters Dot Mod the Tico wins every time.
The Mk 41 VLS on the Spruances replaced the ASROC launcher. Prior to VLS they carried 8 ASROCs in the launcher with up to another 16 in a magazine to reload. The VLS magazine on the Spruance held 61 missiles. The loadout would have been a mix of Tomahawk land attack and Tomahawk anti-surface cruise missiles. In the mid-80s the VLA (vertically launched ASROC) was not yet ready (many delays, as with so many US naval weapons programs), so it wouldn't be until the mid-90s that you could load out a Spruance with Tomahawks and VLAs. (During that time period, the Spru-cans would have been dependent on their helicopters to deliver torpedoes on an enemy sub.) In the end, the Spruances really only ever ended up being used as a platform to launch Tomahawk land attack missiles from.
The Spruances would have turned broadside in order to be able to engage the incoming ASMs with the Sea Sparrow, as it was carried on the rear. The older Mk 26 twin-launcher Ticonderogas would also have turned broadside in order to be able to fire missiles from both launchers. However, even the modern Ticos with VLS would want to turn broadside to be able to use all 4 of their fire control directors (two mounted forward and two aft). While the SM-2s of the era were able to be guided by AEGIS they still used the SPG-62s for terminal guidance.
In addition, the Spruance lacked a 3D air search radar, which severely limited it’s AAW capability
@@spineless1 The Spruance didn't really have any AAW capability. The Sea Sparrow was just a self-defense weapon. The Spruance was designed as an ASW weapon (and it was a very, very good one). Later on with the addition of VLS and the near elimination of a submarine threat at the end of the cold war it became a strike platform with its land attack Tomahawk cruise missiles. It played a large role in the Tomahawk strikes during Desert Storm, for instance. It was also a passable platform for anti-surface warfare and after the final decommissioning of the Iowas was as good a platform for NGFS (Naval Gunfire Support) as any other. But with the end of the Soviet blue water submarine threat its days were numbered.
Yes there was a gain in missiles carried and launch speed. And you aren't dependent on the mechanics of the launcher.
But for AAW none of this matters if you can't control the missiles. A ship with 2 fire control channels with a VLS will still be only able to control 2 missiles. It was Mk41 with AEGIS that gave the real boost as it allowed more control channels. I think back then it was 8 birds in the air.
I literally found this out the hard way in next big battle that we recorded. Will upload soon.
It not strictly "8 birds in the air at the same time", as the requirement is the 4x SPG-62 are only used in the terminal phase of the intercept. Tico Aegis could have 8 SM-2s in terminal phase on four targets, and an "officially undisclosed" number of other SM-2s in midcourse phase under command guidance of the SPY-1. So more than 8 SM-2s in the air at the same time, just staggered in batches of 8 so that only 8 are ever in terminal phase at the same time.
Not sure if this has been called out already, but on the Spruance the SPS-40 is NOT a surface search radar. It is a 2D air search radar. The Spruance had an SPS-55 surface search radar.
My thoughts on as to why the red Tico survived, I’ve noticed with NTU that when you let the ships salvo off all of their tomahawks the tomahawks tend to go for one target so in this test you end up with 40 something tomahawks going for the Spruance and none going for the Tico, not sure if it’s an issue with the mod or the base game but it’s something I’ve noticed playing around with fleets
Yeah the majority of missiles went after the other ship.
Overkill is a thing IRL too
it's probably because the tomahawk(or USN AShM in general) doesn't have the same system as more advanced soviet AShM like the sandbox and shipwreck, they'll go to the biggest radar return they see regardless how many missiles already targeting the same thing
Cap will sea power take any part in your DCS campaigns. Kind of like arma back when you had time to do that
That's actually a really good question. I'll have a think.
@@grimreapershey just curious, where did you get the DLC for the update to see power? Apparently I'm blind I haven't been able to find it
Hey Cap, I recently learned about the USS Edsall, an American destroyer in WWII that fought the entire Japanese Kido Butai. In the battle, the Japanese had to fire 1335 shells and use about 100 aircraft against the destroyer to sink it. I was wondering if you could do a video where a 2020s US Arleigh Burke destroyer fights the Japanese in the same way. Could it sink the entire Kido Butai using AShMs and helicopter AWACS? I think it would be cool.
Such anachronism always leaves me cold. But enough of you enjoy it that it's a regular thing. If you could explain why you enjoy it so much I'd appreciate it.
The blue side had EMCON on during the exchange.
Must be visual bug, they were using their radars to fire the SM-2 and RIM-7 etc.
@grimreapers Could they have fired them once they were in visual range? The vls ships only began launching interceptors around 7 miles.
@@grimreapers Cap, the tico radars werent moving, I know it has the spy 1 static one but surface search wasnt moving and that leads me to believe that it was pure emcon and didnt have air search on too
it was only the Tico that was emcon. the Spruance had their radars going.
@@grimreapers I'm guessing you selected the Spruance as the formation leader, and set it to radar on from the menu, but didn't realize you needed to tell each vessel if they should have radar on or not.
To see all enemy units: F10 ->Tf sensors - > Truth ON for player.
The F10 menu is useful for seeing what is happening in the game. For example a lot of missiles miss their target due to defensive ECM jamming. Being able to spawn units in might be useful for you too.
Also from F10 I found out that helicopter radars can now see periscope/esm masts from around 3nm. Prior to this update submarine masts were invisible on radar.
Love the videos, could you do a battle using the NTU mod that showcases the improved ability of US fighter aircraft? In previous videos, I remember noted frustration with the performance of US fighters. Thus, I'm curious to see how significant late 80's tech improvements were to naval airpower!
Good idea, will try.
I have a good friend and coworker who served on 2 Ticonderoga Class. He was on Port Royal and Yorktown. He told me that Port Royal was superior in every single thing.
We need a modernised Soviet Navy. Would be interesting to see almost an inverse of the DCS attack on Fujian you did, where the Soviets attack a US carrier protected by SAMs and VLS Ticos, maybe a couple of shore-based F-15s to defend as well, but have lots of Shipwrecks and Soviet Air Force attacking a weakened US force.
7:50 the Spru-can went broadside to get their Sea Sparrows into firing arc to engage the incoming missiles.
Thanks Cap. I have a new video suggestion, please: re-run the "Dance of the Vampires" mission with the NTU mod, including the carrier mod to enable 4 elevators for more accurate fighter launches.
A couple of relevant notes from playing Sea Power:
- Land attack Tomahawks are terrain-following and can be fired at all land targets, as they will fly over elevation increases.
- Anti-ship Tomahawks and I believe Harpoons do not follow terrain, so you have to have the enemy ship come out from behind land coverage or the piece of land has to be really flat.
- If you have land Tomahawks and no land targets, you can fire them in the general direction of the enemy ships being targeted, and they will serve as effective decoy missiles as the enemy AI still engages them.
- I'm not sure if the NTU mod does this, but future mods should have this feature, so any time a new mod or Harpoon variant is released, check to see if you can assign it waypoints. Apparently the real Harpoon released in the late 1980's/early 1990's had the capability to set waypoints for time on target and multi-directional attacks (as well as to prevent back-tracing the missile's track to find the launch source).
- The F10 key offers some options. A useful one is disabling aircraft/helicopters from dropping their fuel tanks if you order them to visually ID or attack a target (they drop them immediately even if you click attack on a target 1,000 miles away; you can manually drop tanks if using this new option).
Dang, even with EMCON and blinded, the NTU ships could pick up enough ESM to successfully defend themselves anyway (at least one of the two was EMCON, vs Red which had all radars on)
A lot. Question answered. Also, there were major improvements in radar tracking and engaging which is how they fired so many at once. :)
Great job, Cap. Thanks!
The tico can fend off 40 missiles, yet a couple of big ass shipwrecks get through no problem and blows it in a single hit, hmmm
There a quite a few problems in the game with missile and gun accuracy as well as with the Shipwrecks having the same RCS as the Harpoons.
@coffeejelly523 im no dataminer at all, but the ratio of harpoons i've seen intercepted is WAY higher than shipwrecks, for some reason interceptors almost allways fly over them while they nail other smaller or faster missiles, go figure...
@coffeejelly523 im no dataminer at all, but the ratio of harpoons i've seen intercepted is WAY higher than shipwrecks, for some reason interceptors almost allways fly over them while they nail other smaller or faster missiles, go figure...
The Spruance upgrade moved some of its ASW weapons to the VLS; I am pretty sure all the ASROCs were moved, and I THINK the number of ASROCs they carried increased. Good video. I thought the older TICO might survive... though totally outclassed.
Thank You to the crews of the USS Thomas Gates (CG-51) and USS Moosebrugger (DD-980)! Love Ticos and SpruCans!!
All you have to do when using ntu is scale the scenarios give soviets stronger and or more ships and keep it challenging. Scale the soviets to more or stronger ships and make it challenging even with stronger nato ships. Basically give the soviets overwhelming odds and see if the Americans can win. Things like that. Maybe some more experiments like single ntu American ships vs 2 stronger soviet ships as experiments
Do the Kirovs in the game have Shipwreck missiles?
Just imagine how OP the Arleigh Burke will be when somebody inevitably mods it in.
Thanks!
Keeping making these great Sea Power videos! Thanks for all the free content.
And that's why the Virginia class cgn was decommissioned
No need for big boat when small boat can now spam far more daka from further away.
@@Dingusdoofus Tell that to the huge amount of people who obsess over the Iowa class ships. 16 inch guns are a handicap in the missile era.
@@rubiconnn But the Iowas were pretty useless back then, especially with no SAM capability. Also my point of large ship was referring to the CGNs, not the battleships.
But with today’s tech, if you remove the 16 inch guns and their barbettes, you can now fill those massive empty spaces with an unfree healthcare amount large very long range hypersonic cruise missile VLS launchers, while the superstructure is rebuilt to carry regular VLS for SAM and ASW and the Aegis system.
That’s basically what the USN is planning on doing with the Zumwalts anyways which is removing their small ammo-less guns and replace them with said hypersonic VLS launchers. Basically turn them into large menaces that can attack land targets from far away without the enemy being able to do anything about it, AKA the same roles battleships were built for.
The battleship isn’t truly dead, we simply just need to rethink what a modern battleship should be able to do.
Now imagine a new warship the size of a Kirov or Iowa that is basically just the planned upgrade for the Zumwalt but with basically infinite ammo due to its sheer size. That is a modern battleship.
You could probably convert the Virginia class (or build new ones) to VLS at cost, but the key word is *at cost*. They would, being nuclear cruisers, be over 40 percent more expensive to run per ship than a Ticonderoga, and more than twice that of an Arleigh Burke.
Without the Cold War going on, and thus a reduced need for cruisers and nuclear powered ships, they got rid of many of their cruisers anyways
Love the videos cap thanks for the awesome naval content. I don't have a pc to play so I really appreciate getting to watch it on your channel. All you have to do when using ntu is give the soviets more or stronger ships when using ntu to keep it challenging for bato ships. That's all. Just change thr amount or give the soviets stronger ships when using NTU American ships.
Ticonderoga with VLS
*I have become death, destroyer of fleets*
Tom Clancy in Red Storm rising has the Julias Fucik turning so that the waterline is higher on the side facing the missile...this is so that the missile (which is trying to hit right at the waterline) would hit higher on the ship and be less likely to have a hole that takes on water. In all these sims so far it looks like the Harpoon hits the topside of the ship (I think it looks like this in both DCS and Sea Power), but a lot of the Russian missiles go straight into the sides. While the internet is obviously a questionable source of actual information, the pop-up of the Harpoon is a selectable attack profile but it is supposedly to better acquire the target and not to hit the deck of the ship, they should be going for the sides too. I have never seen a Harpoon fired, so I could be completely wrong of course, but comments help the algorithm so a rubbish comment is still a comment! :D
All viewer comments are valued, especially this one!
So tempted to buy this game
Cap those VLS launches were quite a bit too fast compared to RL rates. The cell being fired vents the exhaust into another. he MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) has a fast reaction time and rate of fire. It can prepare two missiles simultaneously in each 8-cell launcher module. The MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) has a fast reaction time and rate of fire. It can prepare two missiles simultaneously in each 8-cell launcher module.
I still wonder if you can play with weather in Sea Power. No battle will always be flat calm seas. Add some large waves in North Atlantic? I asked AI what effectiveness of anti-ships missiles with rough seas and this is what is said.
Sea Power is a naval combat simulation game set during the Cold War era, primarily focusing on conflicts between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces
. The game does not provide specific data on missile performance in rough sea conditions near Iceland in the present day. However, the game does model various environmental factors that can affect naval combat:
Weather conditions, including rough seas, can impact sensor effectiveness and weapon accuracy
The game simulates fog of war, making target detection and identification more challenging in adverse conditions
Radar and other sensor systems can be affected by environmental factors, potentially reducing detection ranges
While the game doesn't give exact numbers for missile losses due to weather, it's reasonable to assume that rough seas and poor weather conditions would negatively impact missile accuracy and effectiveness. Factors like large waves, reduced visibility, and degraded radar performance could all contribute to increased missile losses or reduced hit probability in such a scenario. It's important to note that Sea Power is a simulation game and may not perfectly reflect real-world missile performance in modern naval combat scenarios
.
Spruence went side on because the cwis are midships on the sides. Sucks you have to make yourself a bigger radar signature to deal with missiles.
Soviet ships typically had cwis right on the front and won't go side on
HELL, YEAH, THIS MOD KICKS ASS. THANKS!!
Cap, whenever a US ship goes broadside it is to unmask its defensive armament and bring it to bear. 7:45 the Spruance is turning to bring its ESSM to bear along with the phalanx.
Wish there was modern ships. This game is far more accurate then DCS for naval combat
That was a lot of missles all at once! Cap, is there anything you can do with the Knox class frigates? My father served eight years on one as a radar operator and just started watching your videos(says he is going to run the whole channel. I wished him good luck!) He is bummed out that he missed out on aegis though as that went into the next generation of frigates. Maybe a game of frigates tag with older boats to show how it would have been done peer to peer somewhere nice, like New Zealand?
Are blue on blue engagements possible or only with this mod? I mean an Iowa vs Iowa battleship battle would at least be cool to watch.
Requesting 2030’s carrier battles in DCS plz. Things to consider:
-Zumwalt class destroyers will have hypersonic missiles (don’t know if they’ll be capable of anti-shipping though)
-American (and possibly British) aircraft will be using a combination of towed electronic warfare decoys as well as BriteCloud electronic warfare decoys, making them much harder to hit than traditional self-defense jammers and chaff (don’t know about Chinese and Russian aircraft though)
-British aircraft will most likely be equipped with air-launched Spear 5 missiles while American aircraft will be equipped with HACM hypersonic cruise missiles
-both American and Chinese carrier groups should be equipped with EA-18G Growler and the J-15D electronic warfare aircraft to aid in missile penetration as well as possibly defending against incoming missiles
-American AWACS will most likely have missiles specifically designed to shoot down anti-air missiles fired at them
-American stealth fighters will most likely be using new generation of stealth materials that not only reduce RCS but also reduce the IR signature, while the NGAD will quite possibly sport a laser dazzler for additional defense against EO/IR missiles
-possibility of the NGAD internally carrying HACM, LRASM, JASSM, and AIM-174B
-NGAD has a high probability of sporting thrust vectoring nozzles to assist in general flight control due to lack of vertical tails with a knock-on effect of boosting its agility in visual range dogfighting
-F-35’s have stealthy wingtip pylons for heat seeking missiles
-American stealth fighters will be able to carry stealthy underwing pods for use as either fuel tanks or weapons bays and when jettisoned, they break away cleanly without compromising the aircraft’s stealth
I'm with you man, in an ideal world, yes.
However, DCS doesn't allow quite a few of these features (such as towed decoys of any kind, infrared/laser dazzlers, and electronic warfare of any kind), and nearly all of the items you listed aren't modded into DCS (per the best of my knowledge).
For example, no Zumwalt (let alone a Zumwalt with their new hypersonic missiles), no US hypersonic missiles, no EA-18G or J-15D, no HACM, no USAF NGAD, the USN NGAD GR attempted to mod wasn't accurate (in my opinion) to what their NGAD will be, as the bays didn't have a lot of capacity and the range/speed weren't very impressive, and no stealth pods are modded.
This is amazing
if it was search wouldnt the missiles stop doing it when they acquire targets? then if they still do it, its evasive.
Makes sense.
Tico NTU vs Kirov!
If my memory serves me, the Russian variants of the Tyco have been much more robust with their hypersonic missiles and defensive capabilities. How about a test of the updated Tycos vs the older Russian variants? more evenly matched, no?
Try a battle with China wee they have their "fishing fleet" aka auxiliary targets mixed in with the navy. What does target saturation do for them??
For complete overkill the NTU mod adds that Ohio class sub with about 128 TLAMs. Still tough for it to take down a Kirov
I'm not sure if that's accurate (Kirov surviving that) because it's the 1980's, or super unrealistic per Russia failing to defend against just two missiles with the Moskva.
If you think the tico vls is op look a the udaloy it’s absolutely ridiculous how good that ship works
Use the ntu war isn’t fair the us has better eq in some aspects the Soviets and others that’s balanced
Can you do a sea vs land battle on Seapower? Maybe Russian navy vs US land & vice versa.
Will investigate.
@grimreapers thanks
I heard about your demonitization. I PayPal 'd you like 35 GBP. I wish I could do more Skipper. God Bless you and your family and Merry Christmas.
Can any of you surface warfare guys advise as to the rate of fire for the VLS system? That seems a little fast to me, but I’ve only seen it fire multiple missiles one time in a documentary so what the hell do I know?
The NTU mod is currently using placeholder values for the fire rate of the Mk41 and the specs of the radar. This means that (currently) the NTU VLS Tico is way better than the IRL one was.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
Not gonna lie... after that last broadside duel with the Iowas, I really wanna see just the Iowas vs... the fucking planet. How much does it take at close range to take one down?
Infinitely.
CG-47 here!!!
If this were War Thunder, a Russian speedboat would show up and all the American ships would spontaneously sink.
you mean war thunder?
@@nimarashidi4510 I stand corrected
Can the 66H’s be used anti-surface?
Every Major Naval SAM from Terrier/Talos/Tartar has an anti surface capability so Standards. Don't think Sea Sparrow has but newer blocks of RAM RIM-116 have Passive Radar homing so can be used against ships that way
@ I understand that for real life. Sorry I was more meaning in the game
@@bourbonbrigade I saw one game video (Vietnam scenario) where the player was using Terrier and Talos to attack land targets. I'd guess the game creators would also allow RIM-66 to be used the same way.
In another game video, I saw the player (Soviet side) using SA-N-1 Goa missiles to attack enemy ships, so I'd guess the game would let US players do the same with their SAMs.
Maybe the Tomahawks are just hitting F10 to look at the map? 😂
Ticos only fire one vls missile every 7 seconds
From each 8 cell block, meaning about 15 missiles spaced across 7 seconds or about 2 missiles every second. Thats is if the selected missiles have been perfectly spaced across the differnt blocks so yes the fire rate in game is a little high. They also could not guide that many missiles at once back in the late 80s configuration.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
The cg i was on when i served, i was informed it was one every 7 seconds due to tracking and system limits. Though combat systems was never updated.
@@lsy6237
YT is blocking comments with links in them, so I'll just post the video titles instead:
A video titled "Hot Launch! How the vertical launch system VLS work? How it works!" by the channel "How It Works". At the 15 sec mark, looks to be like a little over 2 secs in the vid.
Like you said probably improvements done over time since in the vid this is a Burke.
A video titled "RIM-66/67 Standard Missile SM-1/SM-2" by the channel "jaglavaksoldier". At the 8 sec mark, I know it's just Norton Sound with the EDM Aegis and Mk 41, but look at her firing off a two missile salvo as fast as the game does it, kind of funny, lol.
Ships turn broadside because it brings the most CIWS firepower to bearing
The VLS is op but it's so cool at the same time 😂
I'd say use the VLS for stuff that the old ones can't do like for example a swarm attack or full air attack ect
NTU MOD TIMEEEEEEEEE
Can anyone tell me the a mk 41 vls rate of fire is because it looks pretty fast in this mode like 40-50 missiles per minute
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
Turn you damn radars on.
The Mark-41 Mod-0 can't shoot quite that fast. I don't know if the cyclic rate for a single missile deck is classified, but yea.Not that fast.
Norman Friedman's reference books ("Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems") list the Mk 41 as having a 1 sec cycle rate. The game seems to fire off at a half-sec cycle rate.
@xenoaltrax485 I qualified as a Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist on a VLS equiped TICO and worked as the ID Sup. I can promise you it's fast, but not quite that fast. At least not from 1 deck.
It's a game, I get it. But it is simply too fast.
@@reminder9146 Care to provide a hint as to how fast it really is as compared to the reference book "1 sec cycle rate"?
@@xenoaltrax485 It's not much slower. And the ordinance being fired is a factor.
@@reminder9146 YT is blocking comments with links in them, so I'll just post the video titles instead:
A video titled "Hot Launch! How the vertical launch system VLS work? How it works!" by the channel "How It Works". At the 15 sec mark, looks to be like a little over 2 secs in the vid.
A video titled "RIM-66/67 Standard Missile SM-1/SM-2" by the channel "jaglavaksoldier". At the 8 sec mark, I know it's just Norton Sound with the EDM Aegis and Mk 41, but look at her firing off a two missile salvo as fast as the game does it, kind of funny, lol.
Oh come on, this needed explanation?
Jesus Loves You
Dont think Ive seen a game yet, where the blues didnt win. Maybe Im watching "the wrong" content creators, but this game seems horribly skewed towards Nato forces. Anyone here seem some Natos losses anywhere?
Not dcs
no shit
Thanks changed.
@@Madmax-nh5yd it was labeled as dcs