2020's Hypersonic Version: Red Storm Rising - The Dance Of The Vampires (Naval Battle 105b) | DCS 

while I can't say almost anything because my contract isn't over and I don't want to go the way of war thundering my self, I will say that it would have been easier to hear them at a hundred miles than it would have been To see Godzilla destroying Tokyo while visiting the Tokyo Tower. I mean don't get me wrong You don't exactly need specialty equipment for it, put 40 supersonic bombers on the air flying really close to one another And you are going to be leaving Sonic booms on the sound level of a small nuclear bomb behind them. Seriously almost nobody talks about acoustics By the aircraft are not exactly stealthy when it comes to sound unless it's B2 that thing is fuckin scary.

They were detected, but the American fighters in the book were misguided at the drones.

thx

@@grimreapers SM-2MRIIIB, which is the primary missile in US service, also uses a terminal IIR seeker. It has dual mode SARH and IIR guidance.

The first thing to consider about SM-3 in DCS should be the fact, that SM-3 was designed to be anti-TBMs weapon, and because of the way it works it can only work against targets that are effectively outside of Earth's atmosphere - so it couldn't be used against Kinzhau at all! IIRC an SM-3 missile is really a big booster for getting payload high and fast (several km/s) and out of Earth's atmosphere into the space, where the payload - small EKV (egzoatmospheric kill vehicle) is released and the EKV intercepts target (ballistic missile or warhead) using IIR seeker and rocket side thrusters to set itself precisely on collision course. The EKV can't work in the atmosphere, it has totally non-aerodynamic shape, if released inside the atmosphere at hipersonic speeds it would just desintegrate and burn from aerodynamic forces and the friction, also IIR seeker would not work if even thin atmosphere is present as the heat caused by air friction would heat up the seeker window and it could not detect targets anymore. Navy's primary weapon against endoatmospheric (aeroballistic, hypersonic) currently is the SM-6 missile. With aerodynamic steering, active radar seeker and terminal accuracy good-enough to be used against TBMs, it should also work fairly well against Kinzhau. Lately the Patriot PAC-3 was tested from naval VLS launchers and if the navy decides to integrate it with AEGIS it could be alternative, very good medium/close range (10-20nm) defence against very fast targets at the edge of the atmosphere. With proven combat record against Kinzhaus. PAC-3 has ARH seeker and with combined (aerodynamic & side-thrusters) controls it achieves direct-hit accuracy. Which SM-6 (which has only aerodynamic controls AFAIK?) is not capable of - instead relying on low miss-distance and proximity fusing to kill targets with it's big HE warhead (just like the older Patriot PAC-2 but with more modern guidance and fusing). Both missiles (SM-6 and PAC-3) could have their places in "defence envelope" where they perform best. SM-3 should be in game restricted to use against ballistic, egzoatmospheric targets (is it possible to set minimum target altitude or minimum intercept altitude for SM-3 to at least 50km?) Also an idea tor CAP - if you want to test anti-swarm capabilities of a carrier battle group - so a scenario where they would use cheaper med range ESSMs and not expensive, heavy, long range SM-6s) then in some cases maybe it would be better to just remove SM-6s (or both SM-6s and SM-2s) completely from ship's loadouts, then they would have to use ESSMs only for ship defence and we could see how effective they are. P.S. Is it possible to set a minimum launch range for SM-6s in a way that they are not used inside ESSMs envelope ? I know it would mean that a ship which spent all it's ESSMs can't continue defece using SM-6s, but such situation would rather not happen very often and in some scenarios such setting could be preferred and result in more logical SAM chose behaviour: Very Long range or long range over the horizon or difficult/advanced targets - use SM-6, long-med range, standard targets, moderate number of them - use SM-2s, med-close range and anti-swarm - use ESSMs.

@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186 ESSM Block II is already better than Patriot for what you are describing, and can be quadpacked. As far as I know, you are correct about SM-3, it cannot be used in the atmosphere.

​@nomorerainbows Cool, but the max altitude seems very wrong on the otherwise very cool Tico load out image, it's the same as the max horizontal range (27nm) which is twice that of the SM2MR (13nm) and still much higher than the SM 6 (18nm), I would expect it is more like 9nm (couldn't find anything quickly but a 15,000m max altitude stat).

awww

So this is more of a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile [i.e. the US planned scramjet powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM)] test than an anti-ship ALBM (Kinzhal) test.

​@@flashgordon6670That is an end of the world scenario you nimrod!

Bear and the Dragon is an awesome book. To bad the neocons turn the Bear & the Dragon in to best friends. now we are f'd.

Part of the reason that cost isn't a big talking point in warfare is because there is no equivalency. Russia would have already spent that much building those missiles with the intent that they would be expended, and likely already set aside resources to replace them. The carrier on the other hand was not intended to be expendable, not only would the loss of a CSG be a massive strategic blow, but also an unforseen one and it would likely take years to replace it.

you're forgetting russians are only on a 300usd/month salary. So the equipment is "'cheaper" but not comparable, because they can't produce the equipment in x10 the quantity.

@@RonanP12or quality

@@Thatonedude90 Russia dont even have Kinzhals. Its russian propaganda. Many belive Russia managed steal patriot missiles in Afghansitan and make us belive they have hypersonic missiles. At this point Russia got nothing that can even fly above mach 2-3.

Yup, this is why US aircraft carriers are quickly become in a thing of the past

I think there's a scenario book for "Harpoon" covering RSR. I'll post the link if I can

Yeah, I love and miss the Harpoon video game, back in the day I had bought several versions of it as each version came with additional expansions.

Thanks

​​@@grimreapersoh hey cap can you make a russian attack to the 🇺🇸 7th or 6th fleet (sorry for the lack of naulage i don't really study much about the 🇺🇸 navy) Here are the ai ( im making it as realistic a possible😊) Russian units: All of their TU22 bombers ( with HYPERSONIC missiles) 3/4 or 100% of their su 34 fleet All of their TU160 with cruise missiles 1/2 su 24 fleet An unkown number of tu95 (i dont really know how many they have) 36 or more mig 31s with r37m And to test out the modern russian costal defences from your last vid Just put 1/2 or all of them (again lack of naulage😢) And probably some su57 with r77m and r74 with steath coting (if possible) And the whole 7th fleet or what ever fleet the americans have oh and fpr their aircraft mabye the majority of the is f18 with aim 120 and a small number of them will be f35 with the same weapons (Im trying to make it as fun/realistic as possible😊😊😊) Sorry if this is mosty russian bias

regardless of what the book said, a 1 metric ton warhead would devastate a Ticonderoga class cruiser.

No more scenarios with aliens or UFOs for me, please. I prefer engagements with military assets that are actually available.

@@pike100 Fair enough. DCS IS a videogame however so I don't mind some fantastic scenarios from time to time. They make some of the funner scenarios to watch, quite often.

Shoot an air burst nuke at the swarm. If you get a bunch of civilians, deal with it in court.

What he’s essentially done is taking a 1980s tactic and played it out on the Russian side while giving the Americans the advantage of knowing the tactic in advance, it’s not a realistic scenario in the slightest.

Larry Bond researched the battle scenes, and Tom Clancy wrote them based on Bond's research. This is spelled out clearly in the RSR wiki.

@@Valorius True , the two made a great team , but Clancy wove the narrative that held us captivated breathing believability & a realistic action into the story .

That's something odd I have noticed as well with CH's PAC-2/3 Patriot, and SM-2, SM-6, SM-3 missiles....they always arc way over the incoming missiles and then dive down on them making the intercept more difficult.

@@vegabond5362 Core game limitations are my understanding, they would not do this in real life.

Yes

Not to mention there's a good chance they don't have enough missiles to do it because they're using all of them in Ukraine.

US ran out of 155mm artillery too irl. So, nobody has unlimited anything including US

@@dexlab7539 When did that happen?

​@@SynthmilkNot entirely depleted, but down to bare minimum for our own use. This is old news, basically Ukraine and Russia fire thousands and thousands of artillery shells every single day so it's more of a global shortage than anything. Last I heard Russia was trying to talk the DPRK into giving them some of theirs before they run completely dry.

I somehow doubt the 'armored' part. Sure, they're probably build very sturdy to keep all that mass from folding in on itself at those speeds, but proper, actually useful Armor against SAMs / CIWS would be so heavy ...

Also note they are only capable of out of atmosphere interceptions.

The Tu-22's would be intercepted 400 miles out. The only way to make it happen like in the book is to make the Tu-22's invisible until the 0634Z point.

@@grimreapers A cool idea, possibly to throw at Kortana or similar, if she's still around, would be how to actually make this realisticly workable - it seems like her wheelhouse given previous videos by her design.

good luck jamming inertial guidance. there's no need for that shit. it's hypersonic. 100% will reach the target regardless of jamming. and no worries about the blast as it can carry nukes.

With SLQ-32 operating in the original scenario, the raid would have failed early on. Same here.

​​​@@riskinhosyeah except its because their hypersonic that so much as moving an inch or doing anything that throws or distracts them is often more than enough to make them miss. Also unless you want full scale nuclear war, you wouldnt risk your self arming them with nukes just for the sake of stopping a single carrier group, let alone using a significant chunk of your stockpile of nuclear warheads over a single fleet, you'd run out of nukes relatively quickly if so... as one nuke is enough but 2 nukes is overkill but due to the advent of them being intercepted your gonna have to waste hundreds of nukes that would overkill a target and get destroyed in the process...

@@riskinhosinertial guidance cannot hit moving targets. It can only navigate to a point in space…where the ship no longer is. It needs an active sensor to hit anything moving, and the fleet would be at 32 knots.

@@Echowhiskeyoneexactly. The system works so well that during Praying Mantis the US Navy relied only on jamming and decoys in several engagements.

Yup, too bad US can’t figure them out

@@dexlab7539 Hypersonic missiles are expensive, it would be highly optimistic for Russia to shoot 40 Kinzhals at a carrier group, much less 160 missiles. Not to mention Kinzhals are unlikely to achieve Mach 10 in real life.

I disagree, the Russians have been striking ukraine whenever and wherever they want with the tu95 firing cruise missiles, I see new videos daily.

Yep, of course if the enemy bomber force is destroyed in the process, the would have nothing to fear except submarines. They probably would have charged ahead relying on aircraft, CIWS, jamming, chaff and decoys to augment their defense. If the Backfires are largely destroyed, they can handle anything else they might encounter.

In real life Russia also doesnt even have 140 Kinzhals.

Either bugged or I'm doing something wrong.

Clancy abandoned a lot of his political views before he died

Perhaps, we all will do that.

I think he wanted to write a good (modern) war story. NATO and the US in the book are almost completely (unrealistically) unpolitical. And he took a very clear stand in support of female fighter pilots.

@@5Andysalive I think conservative meant something different in the 1980’s. Everything you wrote is true. But, that is not inconsistent with a secular philosophy that steered right of center that was typical of the day.

I see your point but "destroyed" is always better than "mission kill". Good luck trying to resupply a carrier that is sitting on the bottom.

@@Squirl513 It might be better but to conserve their planes they should fire from just outside the range and turn back sooner. All they have to do is force a reaction, most systems are automatic once the button is pushed. Put in a better battery so it can be fired farther and track a minute longer. The key is to then target the resupply ships from there on.

@@duanemckinley9353 You are making the assumption that there will be a replacement available and that they can be resupplied. What if neither is possible? The only time the Navy has a no retreat plan is in defense of the US coasts military bases.

@@gotafarmyet4691 you assume that they want to conserve their planes instead of winning a decisive victory. Have you read much about Russian doctrine?

@@duanemckinley9353 It's why I said they make a show of force to commit the US resources they launch at a longer range to save the bombers and the Escorts that should have been with them. Again with long range missiles. Then attack the resupply ships, as they travel to locations. Carriers only have about 3 days of fuel for flight Ops. It is pretty easy to run them dry without a resupply. Everyone is about the Group but it is the resupply that is key.

The backfires went around far outside AWACS detection range to attack from the south where there were no AWACS. There were two E-2’s in front of the group about 60 miles ahead of them, which is what cap got wrong with it because he thought there were AWACS towards the back, in the book there weren’t. They had zero idea that there was a second group until it was too late and then detected them soon after they realized. And before anyone brings up the fuel question, the backfires did a big aerial refueling operation before going around the group. It’s completely possible for this to happen.

Made for good - and plausible - scenario and great storyteling

The carrier group only had 48 tomcats, there is no way they could keep a CAP of 12-16 aircraft up 400-500 miles from the group. That's complete fantasy. If you read the book, they KNEW the attack was coming, and had every single fighter in the fleet up and waiting for them.

@@nomorerainbows exactly!

there are many reality issues with the plot. Some he just has to make to get it started (the russian plan is completely bananas to start with!) and some he uses to get the story moving. No US spies in Moscow who uncover the whole thing? But like in movies i can forgive some for a good story. And he's got that definitely covered. It's like the Martian, book and movie, where the plot starting storm is completely unrealistic, fully acknowledged by the author.

Yes it is.

Sidekick adapter allows F-35A and F-35C to carry six missiles internally (two instead of one AIM 120 -sized missile at internal weapons bay stations 4 and 8, or at least that was the info back in March).

Actually, if there’s one thing you can guarantee in Clancy’s writing things will always go the Americans way no matter what. In the actual dance of the vampires, the Ticonderoga expended all of her defensive missiles but luckily….. the Russians ran out as well so it didn’t matter that the fleet was basically defenseless the Russians couldn’t capitalize on it. If a single one of those Soviet bombers had fired 30 seconds later, they probably would have sank the Nimitz

Think of this as a proxy for the Chinese. Probably can get that many to fly, but US EAD is another matter. The US will optimize tactics, and we have no idea what that will be until it happens. And the real thing is never really simulatable as far as secret weapon performance from either side. Good fun to watch, and should probably be watched by the US congress, that will get the funding flowing.

Have they even made 160??

Well at least one Kinzhal destroyed a Patriot battery already. Not a good sign for US

@@dexlab7539 Patriot in Ukraine is in its 1980s variant has intercepted multiple Kinzhals. One Kinzhal lightly damaged a patriot launcher which was back in commission within two weeks. Idk how thats impressive by any stretch to you.

​@@dexlab7539the patriots in Ukraine are like 40 years old aren't they? What's impressive to me is that it is intercepting the modern stuff and the damage the one unit sustained was minor and it was back in service pretty quick. Yes I'm impressed, at how freaking amazing 40 year old US tech is and how inept modern Russian tech is

Yeah exactly

Yeh you have to use your imagination a bit lol.

visually impressed. I think most people struggle to be impressed by the real russian military these days. King Charles missiles or not.

We have treaties and NATO guidelines on when to use a nuke. If we were to use a nuke just because a large force was maneuvering offensively, the president and many others would be hunted down as war criminals.

LOL no. Unless they weren't a nuclear power and had no serious allies with nukes. Otherwise you just have a nuclear exchange. Which everyone has been trying to avoid since the 60s

Especially because JTAM isn't even in service yet, let alone integrated into any F35 variant. French Rafale's would be superior in this scenario.