Alright. You got me. I don’t play DCS or any flying games. My father was a pilot. Retired air force (he has to explain the terminology you guys use). I’m a driver. Love the videos so much I’m a Patreon member now. I blame Grump. He’s a legend.
This scenario shows flaws in the AI. The F14s flew right into the fleet AA range and into the swarm of SAMs. In addition the F14s stayed supersonic instead of slowing down to dogfight and evasive speeds. I'd like to see this with more humans on both sides along with the ability for squadrons to RTB and rearm.
Cobbled up the same scenario in Harpoon, with period ships/aircraft/loadouts. Same result; left with 1 vehicle left, oddly. Was able to preserve my aircraft and go after the 2000's group.
you can't say it's more about the carrier when the suggestion is specifying the strike group of the carrier its more about everything that comes with the carrier than the carrier itself
I know the 70s “won”, but I’m not sure anyone won considering red lost a couple squadrons’ worth of birds and potentially pilots. Blue wiped out pretty much every F14 and a number of A4s. It wouldn’t be too far to say they could finish off that last red target and then proceed to wipe out the rest of the A4s. Maybe I’m biased, but I don’t think it is too much of a leap to say that blue could have launched a successful assault on reds ships. Red may have taken out the ground forces first, but it’s a pyrrhic victory at best!
19:41: I'm am NOT a real F-14 pilot, but from what I've heard, an F-14 could get airborne with 6x AIM-54s. The problem was, they couldn't land with all six still onboard. And no one wanted to jettison multiple $2.7M USD (inflation adjusted) missiles into the sea.
You could in fact trap with six although it required a significant reduction in fuel, only 2K lbs for the D model, in order to remain below max gross trap weight. Note: with six, and their rails, you’re looking at ~8700lbs.
This was so close it deserves another run. I’d bet if it was all humans things might turn out different. The Tomcats wouldn’t over pursue like the AI did and the Hornets would be able to use their advantage of more modern electronics too. Another AI simulation is still something that would be interesting. Are there not A-6 Intruders in DCS? I love watching y’all’s videos but other than that don’t know what is and isn’t included.
Using AI, launch the F-14's after the A-4's. This would take into account the A-4's slower speed and allow the Tomcats to arrive over the island at about the same time as the A-4's. This should also solve the issue of the F-14's having to fight inside the SM-2 umbrella and the Hornets not getting into the fight early
With all due respect to how much time it takes to prepare these simulations, this was a crap battle. There is NO way the F-14s would close to within SM-2 range. ZERO chance. They would provide air cover for the A-4s and stay over the island and not close. If this battle showed that? Then the 1970s carrier group would won without all the loss of the F-14s.
I am an USAF veteran of the 70's and I have to say DCS gets a few things quite wrong about guided munitions from that era. I worked as a missile guidance and control specialist (included guided bombs) and they were quite readily available to both the USAF and USN and were used in Vietnam. The Maverick had both optical guidance (100% kill rate when fired with target lock) as well as a passive radar guidance with a white phosphorous warheads used against SAM radar. These should have been available to your 70's naval planes instead of using dumb bombs. The AIM 7 and AIM 9 kill rates when fired with target lock (against the era planes) had kill rates close to 100% also. Laser guided bombs were quite accurate at the time . This tech was available and used in the early 70's. Other munitions were in the development stage at the time that DCS considers new weaponry such as guided ship launched missiles as well as cruise missiles.
@OverlordAntares The early models used in Vietnam were indeed pretty abysmal, but they were designed to see a large radar reflection from a large, barely maneuvering target. It wasn't initially meant to be a dogfight missile but a bomber intercept missile. Also, when you factor in that BVR was largely prohibited in the Vietnam theater, it took away the primary advantage that the Sparrow had. If pilots had been allowed to fire against older low tech MiG-17s in full BVR engagements, they likely would have been far more successful. All that said, those were mid/late 60s versions. I believe there was a much improved version introduced in the early/mid 70s which had a roughly 70% kill rate in the 1991 Gulf War.
well yes Michael, what you say is correct, by last years of vietnam there were already some TV guided bombs and laser bombs being used... but the fact is that A4E was in fact used in the 60s (along with the F4 Phantom II) and pods for dropping guided bombs was adopted in the later A4M, which required the radar to be removed in order to fit the equipment. The correct USNavy 70's CV air group should be tomcats + A6 Intruder with smartbombs and/or Maverick AGM. A4E could use the Bullpup, but i think it is not modded in the game. Last but not least... late Vietnam AIM-9G was quite better, but even the revolutionary AIM-9L isn't that big of a threat against a modern aircraft with improved flare programs. AIM-7 had a great kill ratio against aircraft without (or very basic) RWR and pilots not trained for BVR engagement
That's because they were flying close air support missions, typical CENTCOM loadout. A recent video from the Truman CSG showcased an F/A-18E carrying 6 AMRAAMs and 2 9Xs
I have to say Cap, you often overarm the F-18s in these sims. Its lovely to have 12 missiles onboard, but as you see they cant even get supersonic and so can't really sling their -120s. Especially the first couple bogs would really really benefit from only carrying 6, or even just 2 so they can get fast and get a couple missiles off which would break up the tomcats. Still good fun to watch, keep at it!
In reality, the Phoenix had a range of 400 miles, 0-100,000ft. The F14 radar could lock up to 6 targets at > 200 miles and launch on all 6 while tracking up to 24. I am not familiar with the modern missiles (I worked for the DOD before Hornets were even announced). In this scenario, the F14s could have engaged as soon as the were airborne and detecting Hornets.
So one thing I noticed: There's a tactical flaw here on the part of the '70s carrier group. The F-14s being unable to dodge the AMRAAMs at full speed is indeed a serious problem, but the Phoenix has a longer range. That being the case, once the Tomcats are within range to start firing at the Hornets, they should throttle back to improve maneuverability, thus reducing hit probability for their opponents, and also increasing the time before the F-18s come into the AMRAAM's range. This allows the deployment of even more AIM-54s, and more Hornet kills before they can mount a counterattack. The option would even exist to "kite" the Hornets, using the F-14's superior thrust to maintain a range that makes it difficult for the Hornets to return fire. Have the F-14s hang out and pick off the Hornets in this way until they achieve total air superiority, then it's basically lunchtime for the Skyhawks. Edit: The reduced speed also eliminates the SAM threat from the enemy carrier group.
I wonder how the fight would have gone with "Attack within radius" instructions. I know it's not the "Default setting", but it is better tactics if the defined mission is "Protect the CAS guys for the mission of destroying ground targets." This isn't really testing what was the better airwing, rather which airwing is better suited to the predefined AI instructions, IMHO.
Having the F-14's getting too close to the ships really skewed the results. Without that, the red team would have had more time for ground attack, not to mention less F-18's getting to the island in the first place. Enjoyed the simulation
Absolutely disagree with you on the "silly turning around". That is precisely what you would do. You get to keep your formation of the flight, it gives you time to build altitude, keeps in the air defence umbrella while you are at your most vulnerable . Going off piecemeal is a damn good way to get outnumbered in CAP.
@@grimreapers …right. Which is why I was asking why they weren’t included in the 2000s group? I sort of thought “early 2000s” would have still had them. Am I missing something?
While this is a great game and simulator, it would be interesting to see the 70's carrier vs Super Hornets and F35s. In either simulation, I don't see ECM and other technology that would probably make the Phoenix not as effective as it is here.
That one was interesting. I have a few comments. 1) The Tomcats' behaviour where they loiter and circle after launch would make sense in some circumstances. Obviously if the F-14 is launching as Alert-5 to intercept an incoming threat to the fleet, they should burn out hard for speed and altitude immediately. The sooner they get into range the further away from the fleet the threat gets interdicted. However, with a mission profile where the orders are to proceed to a waypoint and fly CAP, forming up their wingpairs and flights before proceeding would be good practice. In this scenario getting into CAP a couple mins earlier won't make much difference, but unit cohesion might. 2) I don't know if there's any way to program the Tomcats not to approach into SM2 range of the fleet? 3) I think one trick missed would have been to give the 2000s fleet some electronic warfare Hornets. I suspect a bit of jamming might degrade the Pheonix' tracking noticeably. Not sure exactly what's available in the game, but you get the idea.
Again, I'm not aware of the aircraft choices in DCS, but Grumman EA-6B's Prowler's began transitioning to the Boeing EA-18G Growler's from 2009 IIRC. Regards Rob
The 1970s F-14 team would have been even more effective if you made them start spawning the A-4Es before the F-14s finish spawning. Basically make first 3 F-14 + 1 A-4E, then the rest all 2 F-14 + 2 A-4Es until there are not more of either A-4E or F-14. Then it is all catapults for the remaining aircraft.
The 70's did not win because of luck or skill or the F14's. They won because of AIM-54 and that's it. It's by will of the mighty AIM-54 that the F14's were able the keep the F18's out just long enough so the F4's could carry out the attack.
Legacy hornets always fly double bubble IE 2 fuel tanks and empty centerline during carrier operations. We bombed the hell out of the Serbs in 1995-96 (VFA-82). Has to do with bring back weight. We were flying lot 10s and the Marines VMFA251 flew lot 18s. Marines also had a harm missile come off on landing and Skip across the flight deck right in front of me. I was on L4 working on a plane.
The AIM-54 and the F-14 were built to go together. Also those AIM-54s are too accurate, they were designed for attacking Bears...... There appears to be no jamming or any decent avoidance. This also goes back to my other comment of why you would group up. The F-14 was designed as a fleet defending interceptor not to go dogfight other fighters as well. Not to go out and defend attacking fighters. Which is why the F/A-18 is the better fleet aircraft. The F-14 were just too big and single role, which is why (sadly) the F-14 had to go and not be replaced
Whether this was super realistic or not…. That’s for people more knowledgeable about this subject than me to decide, you cannot deny how freaking exciting this was to watch. That ending was insane!
This is my favorite channel right now. I don't even play the game, but come from the old days of JSF, Comanche Maximum Overkill, and F-117 combat flight sim days and this channel is so damn interesting to watch. The history, the facts, the simulation, and the serious tone of it is absolutely engaging. Good show everyone, cheers!
I dont think most of us even play the game. Its so resource intensive it requires an arm and a leg to get atleast a semi functional setup to keep dcs running.
@@spyous7884 kind of, it actually doesn't run too bad in 1080p, 2k is a lot harder though. A 1000$ pc would probably do pretty well. PC prices are normalizing though and you can use for more than just DCS. I think the most expensive part is gear, a decent stick(VKB NXT) costs 150$, track IR another 50$, and a cheap throttle like 100$. I'd say these are all necessary, imo they make a world of difference.
@@hooptiej basically what i said, but you don't need to spend more than 300$ to get a decent set up with a hotas and track ir. There aren't many budget options but they are there! You don't need to spend 500$ on a WINWING hotas setup and 200$ on track IR5 or whatever that POS is called. At the end of the day, if it's what you love doing/are passionate about it you'll shell out 500$ on a hotas. Maybe not all at once though. Most people that play DCS are really passionate about aviation and military aviation and with how good DCS i can see why people play so much and are willing to get a good setup. Just look at the amount of A10 and F18 sim pits there are for DCS.
Great video and fantastic presentation! But not realistic. There was no tactics used at all and you restricted the technology for both sides. Not to mention no bomber would engage a ground target with a boggy near by. They would have situational awareness due to the AWAC providing support. The modern task force would be co-ordinated between all air wings to engage the targets at the same time, not charge in like fools. 1. Instead of using A-4's, you should be using A-6 Intruders's supported by A-4 skyhawks and EF-111A Raven's for ECM. Second, NO F-14 pilot would speed into combat knowing full well they had the Phenix onboard with AWAC support. You charged them into a dog fight when they would never need to get that close. You placed them into an engagement at max speed, removing their ability to jink or even avoid getting shot down. Loitering is an amazing thing - get into position and then wait for the enemy to pop their heads up.The F-14's had the range but no patience. 2. One word, F/A-18G Growlers. Where are they? They would single handedly turn those Phenixes into waisted metal. The Hawkeyes would never be so far away from their designated patrol zone. They would be overseeing the target area, not staying back with the fleet - unless those ships had no radar or com equipment. Another thing you should be aware of is that you don't carry EVERYTHING you can going into battle. Those F-18 E/F were over burdened and could not reach their Mach 1.2 velocity with a combat load. They should of had 1/3 less on them, flying at 15,000ft for a short range attack run. F-18E/F should of had 6x AIM-120 AMRAAM, 2 AIM-9X with ECM pods. F-18 E/F should of had 2x AIM-9X, ECM pod, 2x AIM-120 AMRAAM, Hughes pod and 6x AGM-65E Maverics. For this mission there was no need for an external fuel tank to add weight and the E2-Hawkeye would of had the strike wing defensive from the Phenix Missiles at 50 not miles. I don't mean to be an ass with such a GREAT video but in all realism, the 2000+ fleet would have just launched cruse missiles to destroy the artillery. I know, not what the video was about but thats the reality of the fleet battle. Keep up the fantastic effort and amazing videos. I look forward to seeing more from you. ;)
Have to agree with you. The concepts of air superiority and outer air battle, which in this case would have been over the target and not the battle group, were completely ignored. Should have had 12 plane squadrons and replace the A-4's with A-7E's and added 10 A-6E's, and their guided weapons, off of the Forrestal. Not having the Growlers and Prowlers is also a problem.
also i think the 2000s CSG would have won, realistically Considering their technology being modern. Also, The F-18s could have fired their AMRAAMs at the tomcats at the first place.
So glad I'm subscribed! This is what I like to see. All glory to our historic fleet when the weaponry was designed to be used for maximum death eg. end of days scenarios. It doesn't matter if it runs on propellers strings and weights as long as it gets the first kill. I don't think its the weaponry that makes the difference in todays battles. Its the information speed at which you can identify what exactly was killed and what to target next, where you are, who or what is coming at you and how close your support is makes all the difference. Older pilots had a paper map, radar blip and a radio and two eyes.
That SAM wall just changed the whole landscape. You're right if the AI was a little smarter and proper doctrine would have been to fall back and guard the A4's near the objective.
I honestly doubt 70’s pulsed Doppler have any anti jamming capability at all. It is the specialty of AESA radar, which can jump between frequency quickly.
I dont know how effective the f35 is without an awaks or a bunch of the supporting logistics. For multirole their fine but for grabbing asses almost any other carrier based craft will school it.
@@timothybayliss6680 yeah but they have reduced RCS, they can datalink with each other, all of which should have reduced the F14’s advantage somewhat…at what range would a Phoenix get a good lock on a low RCS aircraft? Then add in jamming and is it not possible that the F14 from 1970 would be sensor blind and have to resort to visual range attacks? Their ships radar too? Don’t forget we are putting a 1970’s standards of tech against a 00’s standard of tech, that doesn’t just mean the airframe is from the 1970’s, it means any additions or upgrades made to the tomcats radar, missiles, systems etc are all rolled back to 1970’s levels. Technically the hornets are almost 70,s airframes, being from the early 80’s, that’s why super hornets would be more representative of the 00’s - and super hornets coupled with growlers would be tough on 70’s tech I presume, and F35s near invisible.
@ approx 8:45mins; In response to your question: I haven't seen what happens yet, but the, apparently, 2 catapult system was obsolete before it was even in the water! Thanks politicians spending millions, billions, nay! TRILLIONS! Of American Citizens hard earned money just 💩, right down the toilet! And I'm presuming that this is Before the U.S.S. Enterprise. Damn politicians and bureaucracies!
WOW! Was cheering at the screen at the end, the battle kept getting the tables turned back and forth... Slow A-4s pulled it out at the end I can't believe it. I thought the modern planes had the ground attack win guaranteed omg! Ha haaa!!! So awesome! :D
I don't get what point "you have proved" I never get your comparisons between the bug and the tomcat. They were designed and used in different roles, and you not comparing them to how its actually used in fleet defenses. There were NOT LESSONS TO BE LEARNED here because the simulation methodology is deeply flawed in about every way including in variables you can control. Wars are not single battles. The F-14 wasnt replaced by the Hornet, but by the Super Hornet, which has much better performance, especially when loaded up (your VMAX would be much faster with the same weapons loadout, and the aircraft in general accelerates and climbs much better) , then the legacy, which your not comparing to the Tomcat (and superbugs were also used by the early 2000s, and the fleet defense role was still fulfilled by the tomcat anyways, meaning the regular bug didnt even do it). Also if your properly comparing which airplane is better, you should be not allowing 2 to 3 Tomcats to take off for Maintenance availability (only sending up 17 or 18) availability, some tomcats missing missiles since SUSTAINED ops from that many different aircraft (Spares, trained personnel, fuel, contractor support, using paper vs digital manuals, having to ship physical manual updates vs over the air updates, speed of flight control software updates, ect) and missiles is a lot harder, more expensive, and slower. The hornets should be able to set up an ambush since the Elint, jamming, and ISR capabilities are so much better. This is because real-world effectiveness is not simply flight and weapons performance in isolation. If it was the B-1 (its faster, longer range, more payload, better electronics, better defensive systems, and its stealthier) would have replaced the B-52 years ago, and wouldn't be the first one going to the boneyard. Also as someone who worked in USAF EW. The Iranians have Phoenix's, and AWG-9s and the US has had 30 Years of EW work with far better electronics with more power, to tackle that threat in your timeline. The Tomcats awg-9 acquisition for the phoenix max range, and tracking effectiveness is not being well simulated ( vastly degraded) against modern EW on the Hornets. The Phoenixes hit rate was WAY to HIGH and that's all Ill say on that. For that matter there were no EA-6Bs in your simulation on the early 2000's fleet which will be even more effective then the EW carried by the bugs. Your not simulating jamming and EW support from the Naval ships in the vicinity nor the vast effectiveness increases in the AWACS. Your surface ships are way to close in formation meaning the Tomcats would have ran into SAMS much sooner and missiles would have come in from a greater portion of the frontal are and been harder to dodge. Hopefully this was informative
@ approx 9min; Cap'n per your request, I'm piping in. With the more modern carriers, you can fairly quickly launch 4 fighters. The older class, apparently, can only launch 2. But if they, both sides, allow the other planes to use the full deck, then they both could be slapping planes in the air every 30-60 seconds!
1991 Gulf War CAG with Tomcats, F/A18 As and Cs, and A6E Intruders (A7Es instead of F/A18s if using USS John F Kennedy) would even more lopsided. A7s and A6s in 1991 were using Mavericks as well.
I kinda want to see a rematch of the first day of Taiwan war. Except instead of Taiwan building an indigenous fighter, they bought all the remaining F-14A's from the US. Can the Aim-54's counter the PL-15's?
Hot damn, you weren't lying with your thumbnail cap. This was bloody entertaining 😎😄 P.S. If there are Tomcats involved I can't bet against them. Just too damn sexy.
So I’m going to be purchasing a rtx 3060 ti and I’ll be running this game on a 16gb ram as well as a i5 11400f,does any one know ball park how many fps I’ll get on high setting on a single player mission?Will improve in the future with the vulkan api?
ok... so... why did the '70's carrier get planes airborne faster? um... well... depends on if the Dev's programmed in generational work ethics...? ok.. so maybe not... but in real life,.. does this effect a difference between era's of the military...??
Hahahaha let's make the ships faster!!! Imagine the f 18s are like oh shit nope, turn around and the fleet is like ok full speed and just blasts into the fight firing missiles. Hahahaha that'll be funny. I wonder if anyone has ever modelled a completely unrealistic non existing ship that could be used in a CSG? Real life fleet vs made up fleet. Just me. Oh ok
I don’t think it was too accurate for early 2000’s I served on a carrier during the early 2000’s and we had 3 squadrons of bogs and a squad of f-14d’s. Also the boys would have gone for a centerline bag with around 6-8 missile load out for that close of an engagement for air to air. But overall still fun to watch and it was still very close it warrants a rematch.
This should have been set up so that it's pure CSG vs CSG and with no ground stuff. Instead of sending out the strike aircrafts with ATG weapons, arm them with Anti-Ship weapons and then see which carrier sinks first
Cool don't you guys know during periods of time in the past.They had missiles that got 25% to over 50 percent failure crazy! That is why they fired at least 2 missles at a time.
The F-14's not going straight to battle might not actually be bad for them. Look at 13:42 where the F-14's are coming in as a group while F-18's are coming in as a line of targets.
Yea, I think the older fleet will work better. Honestly I think the 'Cat is the better aircraft One other thing. There is a reason the A-4 was used as an Agressor aircraft at TopGun.
The 70's had six Perry's as escorts. What did the reds have as escorts. If Perry's then it would be SM-1's and they could only have two in the air at a time.
Ai Don't Follow orders good xD the tomcats over-committed as a tomcat guy myself. I am glad we won, but I ask myself how would it go if the tomcats didn't over commit to a sam net of the 2000's fleet and stayed on-site, let's hope we get some fixes on the AI soon :)
Wouldn't it be good to take the best of both worlds? Use the faster planes (tomcats), equip them with modern braines and modern missiles. I don't know the first thing about this stuff, but to me it seemed that the old planes were better suited for the task but almost lost because of the better missiles and electronics of the new planes. What do you guys think of this?
were you using the ED update to the aim 54s ? and soon i will be in the sky in dcs :)..................watching now and simba brought it up too so nvm it is the update
This may not be an apples to apple comparison as the role of the aircraft carrier has changed. From power projection during the cold war towards aircraft carrier air defense and electronics warfare post cold war. Do you think the comparison is fair if the roles have changed?
You should do another test with two different missions against tu-22s and escorts, so it is like one mission has f14s intercepting the backfires and one mission with f18s instead.
I could be wrong, it seems in these battles the air group that makes the first huge push ends up regretting it and losing. And I was wrong this time...
