I know its only a game but You can see the difference in naval design doctrine between these two navies. US - specialises in efficiently using numerous smaller vessels with high tech interconnected weapons systems emphasising tactical manoeuvrability and multi-role flexibility ranging from surgical special forces delivery in littoral waters all the way to open sea's projection of geopolitical power which necessitates the mastery of utilising a high degree of naval training which goes to form a effective combat battle group. Russia - use big hammer.
fludblud I just hate our DD's are built around the Aegis and defense warfare. The 5" guns and harpoons for ship to ship would be tough without air power in a Pacific showdown.
@@navyseal1689 their talking about irl, this is a game that 110% doesn't have the ship weapons and radars modelled the same as real life because some of the shit is classified
this is one of the coolest DCS videos I have ever seen! 4:31 The music and the filming and the shear scale of this part is amazing. How cool is it that a crazy navel battle like this can be fought by the AI in a flight simulator.
Those Russian supersonic ASMs are deadly. In comparison the US Harpoons & Tomahawks feel almost lethargically slow. Still shows a difference in naval doctrine; the Russians with their large heavy hitting surface fleets (the Kirov-class comes to mind) while the US plays defensively centering around the CVNs. Still, I think DCS underplays the AEGIS of the US navy quite a bit. From what I know, 4 Arleigh Burkes surrounding a carrier with AEGIS active not even 50+ enemy missiles coming in at the same time can breach its defensive perimeter.
+Trades46 LOL, US ASM are slow and therefore lethargic? I guess you really don't know anything about Surface-to-Surface warfare. Missiles are just a part of much bigger system when it comes to fleet battle. There are suppression/repression, initial and sequential engagement, ingression and egression of delivery, which all play its part in sinking a single ship. And missiles are simply a part of that entire system. Russia's supersonic missile really does not give any advantage (if any country's SAM has any trouble shooting down a supersonic object, you are living in 1960s...) - nor any subsonic missile has any disadvantage.
LooxGood I unfortunately have to admit I know next to nothing other than the basics of naval warfare in the modern era (my interest is in the dreadnoughts & WWII battlewagon-to-carrier transition period). I'm just commenting on what I see in this game, which looks quite fun. I want to see more games do modern naval combat as its main theme.
+Trades46 I agree that Russians have an edge in ASMs, but this is not a realistic scenario. An aircraft carrier is one of the offensive kits of hardware you can have. 48 F/A-18E Hornet each carrying four Harpoons (192) is a potent anti-ship force, and they can launch from a point 700 km away from the carrier. The carrier also carriers it's own AEW that can detect the Russian warships at least 550 km away (and any of the missiles they may fire)
+Patrick Lundström True, but a lot of these Russian supersonic ASMs also have a range of 500 km+, not much less than the range of a carrier harpoon strike. Really makes a mockery of the harpoon's ~120 km range.
This was just fantastic, ive been wanting to see a good video of these DCS simulations. Back in 2004ish when Lock On first came out, i was running these simulations as well but my P4 wasnt fast enough hahaha to be able to construct these epic scale wars... This was also a fantastic edit. Please make more :P
And in the real world, it's somewhat likely it could/would go into a tactical nuclear exchange, pretty quickly. I was waiting to see huge explosions at sea, in this simulation.
There is already one...can't you see Ticonderogas and Burkes engaging with SM-2 missiles?! Well those are a standard part of Aegis missile defense program, the best missile defense program USA has to offer so far. Land based systems are a joke compared to it, and experimental THAAD has more trouble than it's worth. The reason why SM-2 is not so effective is because it's intercepting low level flying super-sonic missiles, out of which some models can be notoriously hard to shoot down even for Aegis.
This is very interesting and very well done. My humble Observations from a regular player of DCS: The realism (in my opinion) is enough to show lack of enough in depth CIWs (only one or two 20mm Phalanx) covering some angles when they need 30mm Goalkeepers, and maybe some 35mm weapons with much greater range and option of proximity fuses (and in reality lots more RAMs and improved active radar Sea Sparrows, which are more common). ALSO, the Harpoon entered service when I was in High school - I'm 58 yrs old now; I used to read their McDonald Douglas adds on the backs of "Proceedings" magazine in the Darlington library - early 70s. Tomahawk not much later, too slow now. CLINTON cancelled the stealth replacements. Rusns have far more modern and more types of missles. Ours have been updated, but they are still too slow. BUT the post below was correct about US aircraft being involved, as USN strategy WAS to attrit an enemy fleet before they get into SSM range with F-14s at long range also. BUT this was before: A.Pres Bush let genius Sec Def Gates take the newly upgraded F-14B/Ds out of service with thier AIM-54s that had over 100 mile range. AND NOW we can't return the F-14s to service because pres Obama had them all scrapped, the 2cd most capable and high performance AC in the inventory (next to the F-22). Oh yeah, we can only get three CVNs in the water at any one time now, so a surface fight like is far more likely than it used to be. Not being political (criticized both party's), but just pointing out some important facts to consider. Naval air is gonna have to take out some ships before the fight starts.
+Nie wieder Krieg mit Russland! Damn my friend, you must be about to be sent to Syria by Putin. Where do you get the idea they are in visual range? You didn't even watch it all. My only real complaint is that the ships aren't moving about very much, but I think DCS is a bit limited on that kinda thing. Everytime some Euro guy gets pissed a tme, it's over something he hasn't watched and knows nothing about. BTW, teh Harpoon misles they showed only have about a 60 mile range. Which is still out of visual btw. Nowhere was there even a hint taht they were in visual range.
Nice Vid. I nearly created the same scenario in th emission editor by myself for fun. I like the effects of the highspeed guns when they try to hit the missiles and the riccochets of the buletts on the water. Nice action. But in real life I think we never see two battle fleets come this close to each other.
First, Tomahawks are not "subsonic". They are programmed as to the 'mileage' of flight, therefore they CAN fly 'short' distance at supersonic speed. They were designed to fly anywhere from more than 20 miles, to near 2000 miles. Now, as poster 'fudblub' should know, both the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles can be laaunched from surface ships, subs, and aircraft. Also, as 'fud' should know, when on the water, 'horizon', depending on the where the eyeballs are looking from which station on a ship, it is from 23 point five to 26 miles distant. Sea surface radar is "as far as the eye can see". Nicely done video. Thanks. "There is no system in the world perfect enough to 'get all of them'.
on advantage of theirs is the CIWS they use, they have 30mm turrets that have a bigger range than the Phalanx. And the ammo is more powerful. Also their missiles are much faster, therefore harder to hit. Also they have the SA-10A as missile system which is a beast! As a Backup they have the SA-15 Grizzly, which is shorter ranged, but just as deadly. Also you had two types of missiles attack the P-700 Granit and the Kh-35, a two altitude attack, with the granites acting as missile sponge.
One sided engagement with the carriers in the battle line. The US carrier would have put at least 50 attack aircraft in the air well before missile range could be achieved. The Soviet anti ship missiles would create a nightmare for the US ships but carry standard surface to air missiles to engage them.
Очень интересное видео. Ребята из DCS - когда замутите симулятор или стратегию на эту тему, не забудьте, что там, под водой тоже плавает всяческое небезобидное железо. И оно очень сильно может поменять весь расклад.
The thing is purpose here - Kirov is a big ship intended for long stay on either open sea or in northern seas (I mean - in months - nuclear propulsion). It's purpose can vary from the patrol, coastal attacks, inland attacks, fleet protection, fleet AA protection,... basically big girl-for-anything ship. Ticonderoga is basically a small boat intended for large prodiction and more or less same roles - but armament is lighter, everything smaller, the range is shorter - compact ship for standalone local missions or distant missions - with fleet with auxiliary ship(s) and such. And that is basically the only difference between battlecruiser and "normal" cruiser... but basically, much more types exist - battle cruiser, heavy cruiser, light cruiser - then much more by special attributes, like AAA cruisers, nuclear cruisers,... too many... :)
+Dima Permyakov that's because Russian ships are specialy designated to attack Carrier Strike Groups and have lots of offensive weaponry. Even Kuznetsovs class is an "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser".
For years I’ve been arguing we need an upgraded defensive system similar to the Kashtan, as well as a directed energy weapon on our larger surface combatants. At least a combined ciws and ram system in the interim.
Wouter d.B. You mean the Phalanx? No Goalkeeper systems were shown in this video, and the USN doesn't have the Goalkeeper to begin with. It is primarily a Dutch weapon, being designed and constructed in the Netherlands.
2 questions .... 1- why the Russian ships with their missiles of ranges up to 650 km max waited so long till they get within range of the US ships with Harpoon missiles 126 km max ?????? why using TASM while the TASM are removed from all US ships , turned into TALM even though their range still 450 km max !!!!! then why the Russians Didn't fire 1st safely from stand off position ??? 2- why the Russian ships didn't use it's on-board s-300 which can easily target the US missiles from 100s of kms away the SM-2 has a max range of 100 miles while the Russian S-A-N-6 with range up to 200 to 400 km for the newest version and there are layer and layers of defenses on the russian ships at least 4 layers for the KIROV & SLAVA classes ??!! Ooohhhh ............ It's only a GAME not a Strategy simulator
Well, yes, if all the systems are working. ;) The Russian Navy has some pretty good ships, however they are in a cycle of serious refurbishing, as some ships are in a bad state of disrepair. DCS Simulates many systems in perfect condition, even if some, like the Tunguska have some serious problems in real life. The Tunguska has problems with unburned propellant, which can detonate the ammo prematurely.
Yes, technically you are right, somewhat. Anti-ship missiles (i'm all about anti-ship missile this-that in like 3 of my past comments...lol...but it's true) revolutionized and changed from the core how naval ship engagements work. For example, in Falklands conflict, only 2 Argentinian planes, each with 4 Exocet missiles(i think 4, at the very least it could not have been more than 6) sunk 2 British destroyers, just like that. The problem was there was no effective naval SAM for missile intercept.(Sure there were SAM's but not nearly as sophisticated as missile intercept job requires, which is logical, intercepting a missile is like shooting at a bullet with another bullet, well almost). So back then, if anti-ship missiles were inbound you were basically a sitting duck(not totally a sitting duck, but much more a sitting duck than you would be today), so no wonder the only 2 planes fired their Exocet payload(btw, Exocet is somewhat an obsolete missile by today's standards) and something got sunk. Lucky for the Brits, their submarine managed to locate track&trail and in the end sink an Argentinian missile cruiser, which was somewhat based on luck since the cruiser went south of Farklands, going around to jump on British naval group from the other side, and was passing in general area of the British sub(i forgot the name). The sub sunk the Missile cruiser and the British task force was saved from annihilation, because if a volley of 8 Exocet's managed to sink British 2 destroyers, what would have happened if that missile cruiser started firing it's complement, which could have been easily over 50-60 missiles. Let's just say a 90% of sailors from British naval task force would not be drinking their 5PM tea the next day, or ever again.
WTG Dogmeat! Visual Range? No air wing exchanges? EW, etc etc..... For a game though, it clearly shows why being an EW could make your hair turn gray in your twenties. Ask me how I know..............
Radoslav komar no destroyers in american side, only the carrier, Ticonderoga class cruiser, and oliver hazard perry class frigate. I though maybe he had a mod because i have dcs and like to make ship battles too but haven't ever seen a tomahawk.
Little lopsided, the americans nose on removing half their weapon systems for anti missile defense, vs the Russians at a 45* oblique to maximize theirs lol
Wouldnt that be something. Make a ship sim in dcs too, tanksim.. Both ofcourse with cockpit as clickable as in the airplanes sim. After that they make soldiers you can play as like in Arma, but better and then dcs wouls
It is funny to see LupusAries's and frdrcklim's posts downvoted just like that, without any counterarguments. Guess it means their posts contain some grain of truth.
"lul 3 ginormous russian ships stops 9 comparatively speaking, much smaller us ships" Fixed it for you :) No fight is ever fair, can you ever say two different ships can ever be equal in combat? Nope.
***** No, but they are *comparatively* small. And the russian ships were largely dedicated anti-ship missile carriers, using large supersonic missiles, wheres the us cruisers were using tomahawks and harpoons, both smaller, subsonic missiles, far easier to shoot down and smaller warheads.
p1t1o The problem is that Tico and Burke ARE US navy's biggest ships and they both have Aegis missile defense system on board with ridiculously long-ranged SM-2's stored in compact array of VLS tubes, along with but load of Harpoons and Tomahwaks. Add to that top-notch radar systems, ECM systems, electronics and fire-control and what do you get...you get that size is irrelevant. Don't start making excuses based on size, this is not world war 2 where a destroyer would not stand a farts chance against Iowa or something similarly big. Kara class and Slava class are Russian biggest ships or at least really big(I think "Petar Veliki" is bigger) but they actually have less SAM capability than either Ticonderoga or Burke. They main ace is that they are literally missile carriers, because they have large quantities of fast and heavy anti-ship missiles which they can spam on and on. And because the US navy does not have super-sonic anti-ship missiles, they don't need a strong SAM systems such as the Aegis. That balances it out.
Russians got sams too, specialy on there battlecruiser, revolver magazine p300/400 beside that are there kashtan ciws, these things are the terminators in the ciws world
потопят вас как котят. американцы в отличие от вас будут иметь внешнее целеуказание. плюс самолёты с авианосца перехватят все ваши ракеты. а гиперзвук кроме как в мультиках есть. даже если и есть то опять-же целеуказание давать некому. то есть они вас атакуют раньше так как раньше вас будут видеть
Why would you need Iowa?! The real world ship engagements take place at ranges of 100nm+, even Harpoon(which is actually short range anti-ship missile) has range of 170nm i think. TASM(Anti-ship Tomahawks) have range up to 500nm. Ruskie anti-ship missiles have ranges of 300nm and above, and some models have up to 800-900nm, and some of them are armed with 100kT+ nuclear warheads(like the P-700 Granit's, or you may know them as SSN-19 Shipwreck). Not to mention all these ships have sophisticated radars, and usually have an AWACS support somewhere up in the sky to use as early warning for potential incoming missiles. As i said to one dude before, this is not world war 2, Iowa's big guns won't help her squat if she drinks up 1 or 2 anti-ship missiles. Not to mention Iowa does not have CIWS(Close in weapons support) so even at 3nm range, her chances of shooting down an incoming missile are equal 0. or converge towards 0.
You're correct except for the Iowa class was refitted with CIWS. I have personally seen CIWS on the Missouri. As for longer range air defense, Aegis ships would cover that. Also TASM was withdrawn in the 90's due to seeker problems. However the military is developing a new long range anti ship missile.
Aaron Fess Even so,maybe I was wrong, but still, with CIWS and Aegis vessel to assist, she can potentially defend herself against enemy anti-ship missiles, but still can't engage other ships, since her canons, even as big as they are, don't even have a 3% of the range a-s missiles have. There was a plan to refit Iowa to be a heavy missile cruiser, but the plans were thrown out. The project was to costly, and a ship that big would probably need to be a CGN or "Nuclear powered missile cruiser"(Like Russian CGN "Petar Veliki"), since having diesel in that big of a ship wastes to much fuel. Sure, civilian ships(like big container carriers) can manage with diesels, but big military ships can't afford that luxury always. As for TASM, i know it was retired but i don't think it was because of the seeker problems(although i remember reading somewhere that TASM supposedly had some problems), but because Cold war was over and there was, in US opinion, no need for a long range a-s missile anymore.(Since TASM's were withdrawn in the 1990's just after the USSR broke apart, and there is no logical explanation why would they withdraw them and not just refit them with new electronics and new guidance systems). As for a new a-s missile, well SM-2's are dual purpose, they can be used in SSM role and can get the job done, but they don't pack the same punch. But, they are harder to intercept because they are massively super-sonic, and also have a nice range(greater than the Harpoon which is a dedicated a-s missile).When in SSM mode they can clock mach 3, when used as a SAM they are much faster, mach 5-6. But maybe they are developing new a-s missile, would be stupid if an Ohio SSGN refit had only TLAM's in it's VLS tubes.
I know its only a game but You can see the difference in naval design doctrine between these two navies.
US - specialises in efficiently using numerous smaller vessels with high tech interconnected weapons systems emphasising tactical manoeuvrability and multi-role flexibility ranging from surgical special forces delivery in littoral waters all the way to open sea's projection of geopolitical power which necessitates the mastery of utilising a high degree of naval training which goes to form a effective combat battle group.
Russia - use big hammer.
truly epic , but strangely sobering. lets just hope that this is the only place this happens
True story.
TheFaveteLinguis :o) hope is the last thing you have already :o)
19Koty96 don't get it.
TheFaveteLinguis :D only the hope is left, that Ami's won't get the ass kicked if something poops up ;)
19Koty96 Ami's - stands for americans, right?
Those subsonic Harpoons and Tomahawks are really starting to show their age.
fludblud I just hate our DD's are built around the Aegis and defense warfare. The 5" guns and harpoons for ship to ship would be tough without air power in a Pacific showdown.
the Americans tend to rely on EW power than brute force
tibsimm But it’s smart. Aegis enables defense and also offense, its more than just a radar array. It’s a battle management system as well.
@@Stinger913 failed to defence againts 3 ships, while having more ships on your side...
@@navyseal1689 their talking about irl, this is a game that 110% doesn't have the ship weapons and radars modelled the same as real life because some of the shit is classified
this is one of the coolest DCS videos I have ever seen! 4:31 The music and the filming and the shear scale of this part is amazing. How cool is it that a crazy navel battle like this can be fought by the AI in a flight simulator.
Best round of Battleship I've seen in years.
EG47 .. HIT .... and SUNK !!
Puts Hasbro to shame !
oh wow - harpoons' terminal stage "pop up" maneuver is modeled --- nice!
Those Russian supersonic ASMs are deadly. In comparison the US Harpoons & Tomahawks feel almost lethargically slow.
Still shows a difference in naval doctrine; the Russians with their large heavy hitting surface fleets (the Kirov-class comes to mind) while the US plays defensively centering around the CVNs.
Still, I think DCS underplays the AEGIS of the US navy quite a bit. From what I know, 4 Arleigh Burkes surrounding a carrier with AEGIS active not even 50+ enemy missiles coming in at the same time can breach its defensive perimeter.
+Trades46 LOL, US ASM are slow and therefore lethargic? I guess you really don't know anything about Surface-to-Surface warfare. Missiles are just a part of much bigger system when it comes to fleet battle. There are suppression/repression, initial and sequential engagement, ingression and egression of delivery, which all play its part in sinking a single ship. And missiles are simply a part of that entire system. Russia's supersonic missile really does not give any advantage (if any country's SAM has any trouble shooting down a supersonic object, you are living in 1960s...) - nor any subsonic missile has any disadvantage.
LooxGood
I unfortunately have to admit I know next to nothing other than the basics of naval warfare in the modern era (my interest is in the dreadnoughts & WWII battlewagon-to-carrier transition period).
I'm just commenting on what I see in this game, which looks quite fun. I want to see more games do modern naval combat as its main theme.
+Trades46 I agree that Russians have an edge in ASMs, but this is not a realistic scenario. An aircraft carrier is one of the offensive kits of hardware you can have. 48 F/A-18E Hornet each carrying four Harpoons (192) is a potent anti-ship force, and they can launch from a point 700 km away from the carrier. The carrier also carriers it's own AEW that can detect the Russian warships at least 550 km away (and any of the missiles they may fire)
+Patrick Lundström True, but a lot of these Russian supersonic ASMs also have a range of 500 km+, not much less than the range of a carrier harpoon strike. Really makes a mockery of the harpoon's ~120 km range.
SiegenDignitas You have to find the target to hit it.
This was just fantastic, ive been wanting to see a good video of these DCS simulations. Back in 2004ish when Lock On first came out, i was running these simulations as well but my P4 wasnt fast enough hahaha to be able to construct these epic scale wars... This was also a fantastic edit. Please make more :P
Hey...that was awesome and fun to watch. Great music and editting. I loved when the ship turrets started to defend against missiles. Good job!
Really liked the movie. Haven´t seen that many sea battles in DCS so this was a little different and epic!
+Nie wieder Krieg mit Russland! Agree, but as entertainment it was a fun watch! Really enjoyed it.
And in the real world, it's somewhat likely it could/would go into a tactical nuclear exchange, pretty quickly. I was waiting to see huge explosions at sea, in this simulation.
Admiral Kuznetsov is an Aircraft Cruiser
brilliantly edited, hope to see some more like this but with jets. super mini movie
thank you.~^^
I hope the f18 fighter will be released soon.
Missile defense systems are what you need in ship combat.
There is already one...can't you see Ticonderogas and Burkes engaging with SM-2 missiles?! Well those are a standard part of Aegis missile defense program, the best missile defense program USA has to offer so far. Land based systems are a joke compared to it, and experimental THAAD has more trouble than it's worth. The reason why SM-2 is not so effective is because it's intercepting low level flying super-sonic missiles, out of which some models can be notoriously hard to shoot down even for Aegis.
This is very interesting and very well done. My humble Observations from a regular player of DCS: The realism (in my opinion) is enough to show lack of enough in depth CIWs (only one or two 20mm Phalanx) covering some angles when they need 30mm Goalkeepers, and maybe some 35mm weapons with much greater range and option of proximity fuses (and in reality lots more RAMs and improved active radar Sea Sparrows, which are more common). ALSO, the Harpoon entered service when I was in High school - I'm 58 yrs old now; I used to read their McDonald Douglas adds on the backs of "Proceedings" magazine in the Darlington library - early 70s. Tomahawk not much later, too slow now. CLINTON cancelled the stealth replacements. Rusns have far more modern and more types of missles. Ours have been updated, but they are still too slow.
BUT the post below was correct about US aircraft being involved, as USN strategy WAS to attrit an enemy fleet before they get into SSM range with F-14s at long range also. BUT this was before:
A.Pres Bush let genius Sec Def Gates take the newly upgraded F-14B/Ds out of service with thier AIM-54s that had over 100 mile range. AND NOW we can't return the F-14s to service because pres Obama had them all scrapped, the 2cd most capable and high performance AC in the inventory (next to the F-22). Oh yeah, we can only get three CVNs in the water at any one time now, so a surface fight like is far more likely than it used to be. Not being political (criticized both party's), but just pointing out some important facts to consider. Naval air is gonna have to take out some ships before the fight starts.
+Nie wieder Krieg mit Russland! Damn my friend, you must be about to be sent to Syria by Putin. Where do you get the idea they are in visual range? You didn't even watch it all. My only real complaint is that the ships aren't moving about very much, but I think DCS is a bit limited on that kinda thing. Everytime some Euro guy gets pissed a tme, it's over something he hasn't watched and knows nothing about. BTW, teh Harpoon misles they showed only have about a 60 mile range. Which is still out of visual btw. Nowhere was there even a hint taht they were in visual range.
Nice Vid. I nearly created the same scenario in th emission editor by myself for fun. I like the effects of the highspeed guns when they try to hit the missiles and the riccochets of the buletts on the water. Nice action.
But in real life I think we never see two battle fleets come this close to each other.
Lol when they run out of Missiles "Well, what now?"
Torpedoes and Naval Gunnery
Thanks! A fascinating example of saturating missile defenses. Hopefully this visual aid will help my friends understand the concept.
This is Awesome :D
I've always wanted to see what a Naval Battle Group Skirmish looked like in DCS
great DCS naval battle I ever seen on youtube :)
I'd to see this again now in 2.5
First, Tomahawks are not "subsonic". They are programmed as to the 'mileage' of flight, therefore they CAN fly 'short' distance at supersonic speed. They were designed to fly anywhere from more than 20 miles, to near 2000 miles.
Now, as poster 'fudblub' should know, both the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles can be laaunched from surface ships, subs, and aircraft.
Also, as 'fud' should know, when on the water, 'horizon', depending on the where the eyeballs are looking from which station on a ship, it is from 23 point five to 26 miles distant. Sea surface radar is "as far as the eye can see".
Nicely done video. Thanks. "There is no system in the world perfect enough to 'get all of them'.
Thank you for watching the video.
on advantage of theirs is the CIWS they use, they have 30mm turrets that have a bigger range than the Phalanx.
And the ammo is more powerful.
Also their missiles are much faster, therefore harder to hit.
Also they have the SA-10A as missile system which is a beast!
As a Backup they have the SA-15 Grizzly, which is shorter ranged, but just as deadly.
Also you had two types of missiles attack the P-700 Granit and the Kh-35, a two altitude attack, with the granites acting as missile sponge.
One sided engagement with the carriers in the battle line. The US carrier would have put at least 50 attack aircraft in the air well before missile range could be achieved. The Soviet anti ship missiles would create a nightmare for the US ships but carry standard surface to air missiles to engage them.
james haney You mean Soviet or Russia ?
james haney America really needs new missiles. These ones are slow and old, and are easy to shot down.
can you imagen a navy person from the 1700s coming to the future and seeing how our ships look
1700s ??? ye~funny ^^
You need to do more of these modern naval vids using DCS, its very good and helps visualise the subject matter
Awesome film...do you have the miz file you used for this? Would love to see it on machine. Or just list the ships used so we can recreate it.
Dcs has come a long way
1:36 So Many Missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!
No sea platform available :\ idk if there will be a sea platform. Hopefully!
i always get goose bump watching this. :D
Which flyable planes in DCS are specifically anti-ship?
None have them as their primary role and none can drop torpedo's. However, dropping bombs or missiles has been the go-to alternative.
su25 t
The newly added Vigen is a Naval-Attack aircraft, though it is an absolute bitch to fly!
In the last part when they ran outta missiles . I just imagine them all lining up in a line and shelling the Kuznetzov till it sinks
I know DCS strives for reality, so does that Russian carrier come with a tow strap like the real one?
Lmao, that carrier i more powerful than most warships in this world, it just old and not in well routine mainstain. And yes it have VLS
@@AbdulRasyidPangrango-qr9dt Too funny look up the ships history, its scrap.
@@KingKatRider the history is not that bad. Born in hard situation, Almost never mainstained, but still serve for russia and fight terrorist in Syria
@@AbdulRasyidPangrango-qr9dt yeah but not for much longer
Soundtrack is very cool
Очень интересное видео. Ребята из DCS - когда замутите симулятор или стратегию на эту тему, не забудьте, что там, под водой тоже плавает всяческое небезобидное железо. И оно очень сильно может поменять весь расклад.
So the CVN battle group doesn't launch it's aircraft? Right.
3 VS 9 ?? Lol
Dima Permyakov That big russian ship should be actually classified as Battlecruiser ;) Ami's don't have such a thing...
The thing is purpose here - Kirov is a big ship intended for long stay on either open sea or in northern seas (I mean - in months - nuclear propulsion). It's purpose can vary from the patrol, coastal attacks, inland attacks, fleet protection, fleet AA protection,... basically big girl-for-anything ship.
Ticonderoga is basically a small boat intended for large prodiction and more or less same roles - but armament is lighter, everything smaller, the range is shorter - compact ship for standalone local missions or distant missions - with fleet with auxiliary ship(s) and such.
And that is basically the only difference between battlecruiser and "normal" cruiser... but basically, much more types exist - battle cruiser, heavy cruiser, light cruiser - then much more by special attributes, like AAA cruisers, nuclear cruisers,... too many... :)
By the way, I like your name and pic -.o
+Dima Permyakov that's because Russian ships are specialy designated to attack Carrier Strike Groups and have lots of offensive weaponry. Even Kuznetsovs class is an "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser".
At least Russia has their Dreadnought Kirov class
Did you use mods or add ons of any kind to set up the ship v ship warfare?
add? ~ no~ past patch
No kashtan ciws's missile??
For years I’ve been arguing we need an upgraded defensive system similar to the Kashtan, as well as a directed energy weapon on our larger surface combatants. At least a combined ciws and ram system in the interim.
amazing.
i could've sworn this was an unfair fight, but the russians seem to be holding on just fine at the beginning with three ships.
Can you control ships on DCS Combined Arms?
Not yet.
*****
Awwww :(
Franco Soto i was just about to ask that! its a shame you cant. i was about to buy it for that reason.
Great part where the goalkeepers opened up!
Wouter d.B. You mean the Phalanx? No Goalkeeper systems were shown in this video, and the USN doesn't have the Goalkeeper to begin with. It is primarily a Dutch weapon, being designed and constructed in the Netherlands.
Damn fine work!
you have a good imagination .. well done sir
2 questions ....
1- why the Russian ships with their missiles of ranges up to 650 km max
waited so long till they get within range of the US ships with Harpoon missiles 126 km max ??????
why using TASM while the TASM are removed from all US ships , turned into TALM even though their range still 450 km max !!!!!
then why the Russians Didn't fire 1st safely from stand off position ???
2- why the Russian ships didn't use it's on-board s-300 which can easily target the US missiles from 100s of kms away the SM-2 has a max range of 100 miles while the Russian S-A-N-6 with range up to 200 to 400 km for the newest version and there are layer and layers of defenses on the russian ships at least 4 layers for the KIROV & SLAVA classes ??!!
Ooohhhh ............ It's only a GAME not a Strategy simulator
....somewhere in a parallel universe.
do you have any hypersonic armaments form DCS
well, what will happen if you control this ship by CA?
Seawolf says hi
MODERN WARFARE 2 MUSIC!!!! That music was awesome.
Dat moment when you see an enemy missile arch up... Fuck.
1:58 VLS on a flight deck!?
Yes Russian ship
i can't believe it even they was "Russian Bias"
Barri 2410 It's an actual design feature on several Russian Aircraft Carrier designs.
Who'd be in the navy? Great video, thanks! (And I don't care how realistic - good enough for some armchair naval warfare!)
Great video! Really enjoyed watching this
are the ships free with dcs world or do you need a module
Нереально. Где авиация? Где подводные лодки? Под водой, в принципе, что то подобное должно происходить... 2:16 - 2:23
Superb proof of concept!
Epic! Is this call of duty music? Because what is the name?
4:35 brave missle
I used to do the exact same thing in the old Flanker 2.51.
Haha,I remember placing hundreds of units and looking how they fight each other many times..
Iowa class battleships hav been decommission since 1999
yeah because old battleships are not fit for modern naval combat
Sharp Iowa served during the guild war in 1991 since it was updated to have Cruise missiles
Well, yes, if all the systems are working. ;)
The Russian Navy has some pretty good ships, however they are in a cycle of serious refurbishing, as some ships are in a bad state of disrepair.
DCS Simulates many systems in perfect condition, even if some, like the Tunguska have some serious problems in real life.
The Tunguska has problems with unburned propellant, which can detonate the ammo prematurely.
no its in the original lockon and FC2 haven't got FC3 yet =/
Man..... I think ship combat would be the scariest combat to be in. EVERYBODY is a sitting duck.
Yes, technically you are right, somewhat. Anti-ship missiles (i'm all about anti-ship missile this-that in like 3 of my past comments...lol...but it's true) revolutionized and changed from the core how naval ship engagements work. For example, in Falklands conflict, only 2 Argentinian planes, each with 4 Exocet missiles(i think 4, at the very least it could not have been more than 6) sunk 2 British destroyers, just like that. The problem was there was no effective naval SAM for missile intercept.(Sure there were SAM's but not nearly as sophisticated as missile intercept job requires, which is logical, intercepting a missile is like shooting at a bullet with another bullet, well almost). So back then, if anti-ship missiles were inbound you were basically a sitting duck(not totally a sitting duck, but much more a sitting duck than you would be today), so no wonder the only 2 planes fired their Exocet payload(btw, Exocet is somewhat an obsolete missile by today's standards) and something got sunk. Lucky for the Brits, their submarine managed to locate track&trail and in the end sink an Argentinian missile cruiser, which was somewhat based on luck since the cruiser went south of Farklands, going around to jump on British naval group from the other side, and was passing in general area of the British sub(i forgot the name). The sub sunk the Missile cruiser and the British task force was saved from annihilation, because if a volley of 8 Exocet's managed to sink British 2 destroyers, what would have happened if that missile cruiser started firing it's complement, which could have been easily over 50-60 missiles. Let's just say a 90% of sailors from British naval task force would not be drinking their 5PM tea the next day, or ever again.
NothingGoran
You know your shit dude!
yes you can I spent hours trying to land it and kept exploding before finally getting it
What do I need to play or see this ?
Hello, could you tell me how to do this in DCS please ? I never understood how :S
You can go in the editor and place down ships. They should find each other and engage.
Cool simulation!
yes cool ~^^
That's cool DCS movie. Good job.
Nevermind its in the description. Great job though.
what type of game is this Simulation RTS or what?
1612maximus air simulator
1612maximus
store.steampowered.com/app/223750/?l=english
+1612maximus DCS World
Not sure why you show a carrier firing missiles.....
WTG Dogmeat! Visual Range? No air wing exchanges? EW, etc etc.....
For a game though, it clearly shows why being an EW could make your hair turn gray in your twenties. Ask me how I know..............
can u control the ships?
Yes! Russian carrier launches rockets from the middle of the flight deck. ^^
which ship fires tomahawks?
Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
Radoslav komar no destroyers in american side, only the carrier, Ticonderoga class cruiser, and oliver hazard perry class frigate. I though maybe he had a mod because i have dcs and like to make ship battles too but haven't ever seen a tomahawk.
Awsome video but what am i looking at?
Modern battle ships firing at eachother
In the DCS sim.
Is it possible to play as a naval unit?
+Sigge Steen Nope!
+Micke Mike Well that sucks
You can command the units in DCS: Combined Arms. But cannot play as them individually yet, it will be added in as things are developed.
I jizzed...I want an online multi-player game that features all of what I see here and more.
Little lopsided, the americans nose on removing half their weapon systems for anti missile defense, vs the Russians at a 45* oblique to maximize theirs lol
well,who exactly win?
Zerg
There is a tank sim. Almost at least. DCS Combined Arms.
you have the the Su 33 which is for the Russian carrier
It is very slightly real other than it though distance feels near.
nice movie awaitng carrier OPS
I’m guessing dcs world don’t have battleships?
Wouldnt that be something. Make a ship sim in dcs too, tanksim.. Both ofcourse with cockpit as clickable as in the airplanes sim. After that they make soldiers you can play as like in Arma, but better and then dcs wouls
Beautiful, but unlikely. "Kirov" do not sink the subsonic missiles. He can shoot down hundreds of them.
Battlestar Galactica ????
Клип очень грамотна сделан . Зачет +5
Да, только мы два корабля потеряли. Хотя Кузя держался молодцом. Походу дела по нему - ни одного попадания - кортики сделали свою работу.
i think he means F-18?
It is funny to see LupusAries's and frdrcklim's posts downvoted just like that, without any counterarguments.
Guess it means their posts contain some grain of truth.
that modern warfare 2 soundtrack
what now? Ramming speed engaged!
lul 3 russian ships stops 9 us ships
"lul 3 ginormous russian ships stops 9 comparatively speaking, much smaller us ships"
Fixed it for you :)
No fight is ever fair, can you ever say two different ships can ever be equal in combat? Nope.
cruisers aren't small, the us navy dont have anything bigger than that. And it isnt the size, it is the armament
***** No, but they are *comparatively* small.
And the russian ships were largely dedicated anti-ship missile carriers, using large supersonic missiles, wheres the us cruisers were using tomahawks and harpoons, both smaller, subsonic missiles, far easier to shoot down and smaller warheads.
p1t1o
The problem is that Tico and Burke ARE US navy's biggest ships and they both have Aegis missile defense system on board with ridiculously long-ranged SM-2's stored in compact array of VLS tubes, along with but load of Harpoons and Tomahwaks. Add to that top-notch radar systems, ECM systems, electronics and fire-control and what do you get...you get that size is irrelevant. Don't start making excuses based on size, this is not world war 2 where a destroyer would not stand a farts chance against Iowa or something similarly big. Kara class and Slava class are Russian biggest ships or at least really big(I think "Petar Veliki" is bigger) but they actually have less SAM capability than either Ticonderoga or Burke. They main ace is that they are literally missile carriers, because they have large quantities of fast and heavy anti-ship missiles which they can spam on and on. And because the US navy does not have super-sonic anti-ship missiles, they don't need a strong SAM systems such as the Aegis. That balances it out.
Russians got sams too, specialy on there battlecruiser, revolver magazine p300/400 beside that are there kashtan ciws, these things are the terminators in the ciws world
America: high power magnetic catapult
Boshköp land: r a m p
Да все так и будет! Только все скоротечно пройдет.Гиперзвук в щепки все разнесет.Да еще где Ониксы???Цирконы???
это тебе к 1-ому каналу там что хочешь нарисуют
потопят вас как котят. американцы в отличие от вас будут иметь внешнее целеуказание. плюс самолёты с авианосца перехватят все ваши ракеты. а гиперзвук кроме как в мультиках есть. даже если и есть то опять-же целеуказание давать некому. то есть они вас атакуют раньше так как раньше вас будут видеть
And not a single Iowa class Battleship around.
Why would you need Iowa?! The real world ship engagements take place at ranges of 100nm+, even Harpoon(which is actually short range anti-ship missile) has range of 170nm i think. TASM(Anti-ship Tomahawks) have range up to 500nm. Ruskie anti-ship missiles have ranges of 300nm and above, and some models have up to 800-900nm, and some of them are armed with 100kT+ nuclear warheads(like the P-700 Granit's, or you may know them as SSN-19 Shipwreck). Not to mention all these ships have sophisticated radars, and usually have an AWACS support somewhere up in the sky to use as early warning for potential incoming missiles. As i said to one dude before, this is not world war 2, Iowa's big guns won't help her squat if she drinks up 1 or 2 anti-ship missiles. Not to mention Iowa does not have CIWS(Close in weapons support) so even at 3nm range, her chances of shooting down an incoming missile are equal 0. or converge towards 0.
You're correct except for the Iowa class was refitted with CIWS. I have personally seen CIWS on the Missouri. As for longer range air defense, Aegis ships would cover that. Also TASM was withdrawn in the 90's due to seeker problems. However the military is developing a new long range anti ship missile.
Aaron Fess
Even so,maybe I was wrong, but still, with CIWS and Aegis vessel to assist, she can potentially defend herself against enemy anti-ship missiles, but still can't engage other ships, since her canons, even as big as they are, don't even have a 3% of the range a-s missiles have. There was a plan to refit Iowa to be a heavy missile cruiser, but the plans were thrown out. The project was to costly, and a ship that big would probably need to be a CGN or "Nuclear powered missile cruiser"(Like Russian CGN "Petar Veliki"), since having diesel in that big of a ship wastes to much fuel. Sure, civilian ships(like big container carriers) can manage with diesels, but big military ships can't afford that luxury always. As for TASM, i know it was retired but i don't think it was because of the seeker problems(although i remember reading somewhere that TASM supposedly had some problems), but because Cold war was over and there was, in US opinion, no need for a long range a-s missile anymore.(Since TASM's were withdrawn in the 1990's just after the USSR broke apart, and there is no logical explanation why would they withdraw them and not just refit them with new electronics and new guidance systems). As for a new a-s missile, well SM-2's are dual purpose, they can be used in SSM role and can get the job done, but they don't pack the same punch. But, they are harder to intercept because they are massively super-sonic, and also have a nice range(greater than the Harpoon which is a dedicated a-s missile).When in SSM mode they can clock mach 3, when used as a SAM they are much faster, mach 5-6. But maybe they are developing new a-s missile, would be stupid if an Ohio SSGN refit had only TLAM's in it's VLS tubes.