Mark Felton's best quote ever: "Today, if Britain is attacked by nuclear weapons, the government will warn us via text message, which you can read as your phone melts in your hand" ...and it is for this reason why he is our lord and savior.
THAT is why the UK has a missile sub at sea ALL THE TIME. UK may get hit first, but it will hit last...and that should protect it from getting hit at all!!
@@flashgordon6670 I don't think 192 300 lb warheads is going to bring the country to its knees - assuming they all hit the target.. Looking at Russia performance un Ukraine ( assuming Russia has enough missiles left to use on us) they couldn't hit a barn door from 200 yards. By the time Russia have finished in Ukraine it won't have any missiles left - and with sanctions no way to pay for or manufacture any more. It is fair to assume some or all of the bombers would be shot down. You also have to wonder how many mechanical failures the Russian planes may have and with a 60% failure rate of missiles in Ukraine I am not going to lose any sleep over this video. I also believe the UK is using Norway or is negotiating with Norway to station some Typhoons there it is always possible none of the Russian planes or missiles get through at all . Without nuclear weapons you don't win a war from the air you have to get boots on the ground and we are so far away the Russians are never going to do that.
A few points: Firstly, if an imminent threat was bound for the U.K. mainland I am pretty sure intelligence would dictate assets were not deployed overseas. Second point, in addition to type 45 for air defence U.K. also has type 23 with sea Ceptor, this would contribute to negating Russian aviation or ships/submarines firing off cruise missiles. If a submarine did it would disclose its location, a ship would have a better chance but also this is to assume Russian naval vessels would be entirely offensive in projection and long range aviation would also be within SAM ranges. It is theoretically plausible for Russia to damage the U.K. with missiles as the ground based air defence network is non existent. Rapier is short range (which you forgot to mention) star streak isn’t really anti missile & only 24 sky sabre is not enough The U.K. need to collaborate with France and Italy for block 2 aster BMD. Mach 7.5 & 1,500km range. This can be couples with sky sabre and star streak for a more practical defensive suite. Russia’s only cruise missile threat to the U.K. is really from up north as the Black Sea would have to either traverse mainland Europe and NATO territory or the Mediterranean which is littered with NATO assets and U.K. has Cyprus RAF base and Gibraltar & therefore not practical for the Russians to attack this way. It could send ships around the Horn of Africa but given Russian woes logistically in Ukraine, overseas power projection isn’t their strong points. With a naval base in Portsmouth coming up south even vis submarines would be a bad move for the Russians. If the Russians came from north the U.K. could deploy 2 aircraft carriers with 12 f35 each, alongside helicopters including lynx and apache to hunt and kill ships and merlin for AEW & also anti submarine That alone would immediately put the Russian Navy on the defensive and wouldn’t be able to focus on launching cruise missiles as it would have a lot to contend with to stay afloat. The U.K. could also deploy amphibious assault ships with anti submarine warfare helicopters and every type 23/45 have their own helicopters. F35 would suppress Russian shipping even though the U.K. struggle with anti ship missiles. Martlet and brimstone would be suffice. Additionally, the astute class would be a horrific thorn in the Russian sides and also U.K. have 9 Poseidon anti ship, anti sub and reconnaissance aircraft. The carriers are built for command and control and could effectively track and engage Russian missile activity F35 and typhoon could in theory shoot down cruise missiles but would be a last resort. This video assumes we would have 1 ship or something defending north but the reality is the U.K. can effectively eliminate Russian strategic aviation by simply deploying an aircraft carrier The U.K. needs to expedite sky sabre into service ASAP, I know one is in Poland but we need more and more quickly. We need to try and expand aster with the French and Italians to build on the block1 NT as having no fixed sam system deployed nationwide is grossly negligent We need to increase r and d on lasers which will long term help negate missile effectiveness Lastly, the U.K. have announced that 26 more f35 will be bought to take the total to 74 as a minimum. Type 45 will all get an extra 26 missiles each and that will allow for more aster 30 Astute have had spear fish upgraded & this is all assuming the U.K. wouldn’t try and eliminate a Russian strike prior to them launching weather that’s offensively from GCHQ or us ourselves launching cruise missiles of which we have tomahawk and over 900 storm shawdow
Process thought: despawn the bomber planes the moment after they have launched everything to relieve server requirements (especially in this case with launch and forget systems)
That's an excellent point - despawning elements that are not part of the mission anymore really does help the overall performance of the remaining elements!
Be dumb to attack a nuclear plant Pretty much take the cranes down at ports Can’t make weapons Can’t eat Nuclear plants have a couple of feet of concrete So success is very uncertain
Random observation (awesome video, BTW): in the event of an actual detected launch / airborne imminent threat, Typhoons and Tornadoes are permitted to go supersonic from the moment they can get airborne. If it's a 500+ pound warhead striking a nuclear power plant, or 50 people sending an email to the local council about their windows being smashed, you know who wins! (the 50 people writing sternly worded emails to their local council XD )
when I was at school many many years ago the Raf were going supersonic all over the place but that was when concord could go supersonic over mainland britain.
For a bit of reassurance a 500 lb conventional warhead (as opposed to a bunker buster) isn't likely to break the containment of a reactor. After 9-11 at the savanna river site it was stated that crashing a jumbo jet into the reactor wouldn't break through. Note that savanna river is not a power plant however and has a different kind of reactor.
I used to deal with those complaints when I was in the RAF. One time a farmer complained that a Tornado scared her pigs and they attacked her. She had to kill one of them with a pitch fork and was demanding payment for the pig.
@@Definitelynotanalienoranything It wasn't out of Coningsby in the late 80s was it? I lived a few miles down the road when I was a nipper and used to regularly see Tornados come screaming over head then wait for the booom as they headed out to sea
Simple answer to your hypothesis: We don't wait until the attack has begun, we shoot down the Cruise attacking aircraft once they are airborne along the Norwegian coast, job done!
Few thoughts. All based on a gradual escalation as opposed to immediate surprise attack. 1. The E3s are indeed retired but are still flying, I believe the aim is to keep crews trained ready for the Wedgetails entering service. I would imagine they would be put back into service if things were escalating towards an attack on the UK mainland. 2. Could crows nest Merlins not be deployed to provide additional airborne early warning 3. Sky Sabre SAMs are now in service and are network enabled. Whilst the range is relatively short they could be placed on projected flight paths of cruise missiles or around high priority targets. 4. The type 23s could also be deployed to patrol the coast and carry Sea Ceotor which is the navalised version of Sky Sabre. 5. Starstreak batteries could be placed as last ditch point defence around high priority strategic targets - much the same as Rapier was used for the games in 2012. 6. The UK as a NATO member has access to the NATI early warning network so I doubt the bombers would get close enough to fire off missiles in the first place. No doubt more money is needed for defence, I believe that’s already been requested by the MOD (increase to 3% GDP) and swiftly rejected by the treasury which is not surprising given the state of the UK economy at present.
not to mention the likelihood of the americans stepping in to help, since a large majority of their aircraft in britain are based in the south east, which is simulated here
This is simply ALL" hope & may be" really you're just guessing. Well, sadly thats not enough. If you think the UK has ANY early warning system think again, it doesn't and wont have anything. So if you want to see those that you love simply vaporised or melt before your eyes, cary on and do nothing, they would in fact be the lucky ones. Those left would have to face the horrors of Nuclear Fallout. War is simply unimaginable horror, a Nuclear War is just Unimaginable ❗️☮️
If a Typhoon can carry 8 meteors (Beast mode 14) x 25 typhoons = 200 Meteors, and a Type 45 destroyer can carry 48 Asters x 2 = 96, that makes a total of 296 deployable air defence missiles?
The answer to this is simple, a mass pre-emptive strike on UK would be mostly devastating, HOWEVER we have the nuclear submarine capability to ensure all Russian cities were dust, in fact it is easier following the breakup of the Soviet union. So not a nice output for anyone but it would be MAD as was always the case with nukes. As for non-nuclear missiles how powerful do they think they are - yes they could do a lot of damage but there is only so much explosive warhead you can put on these...
I mean this whole scenario is hinged on no NATO support which I find highly unlikely. I would think somewhere in the North Sea or Baltic would be some NATO or US forces conducting patrols that would detect the Russian task force.
Great Britain 'may not have enough defensive capability on its own, however Great Britain is a NATO member, and that means Russia will be attacking every member country of NATO, and will be forced to defend from the same NATO countries. At least that is my understanding of NATO’s roll.
If there was enough time to get 2 type 45 into position then there was enough time to get a sky sabre system and 2 stormers to each target. The artillery regiment responsible for air defense is based on thorney island 8.5 miles east of Portsmouth. 3 Type 23s or other NATO warships would also be patroling the north sea. We would have early warning of a large bomber formation from Norway not to mention the Norwegian air force following the whole way. Crowsnest Merlin, boeing airseaker R1, and Poseidon P8 can all be used for long range missile detection. It was fun to watch but I'll still be sleeping very easily.
@@WANHandler If you think about it to be considered hypersonic it has to travel at speeds greater than 3000mph, a medium range ballistic missiles travels on average at 15,000mph. The russian iskander travels at about 4,500mph. The hypersonic thing is bogus & designed to scare people. They're just missiles 🤷🏼♂️ it's when they stick nukes on the end is when you worry
@@WANHandler The hypersonic missiles they've used in Ukraine are basically just an old Soviet-era ballistic missile modified to be launched from an aircraft. Ballistic missiles have been hypersonic for decades. And they reportedly have a very small handful of these - possibly less than 10.
this is absolutely correct and it doesnt even take into account that if Russia could even field those rusty old bombers the U.S. would alert your country to be on standby before they made cruise altitude. The U.S. watches every runway in russia 24/7 and we will never stop.
Well you're assuming the T45s haven't broken down again 2 is the absolute maximum that you could expect to be operational at any one time, similarly 3 T23s and it's extremely unlikely that the missiles would pass within their envelopes. It's certainly possible that there would be NATO ships in the North Sea but not guaranteed. Similarly I'm not sure stormer has any antimissile capability. I also have questions about crowsnest - it's been around since the 1980s so if people haven't worked it out by now and how to effectively jam it I'd be surprised. P8s and RC135s can detect the launch platforms and their electronic signatures but have no ability to detect the missiles themselves. As we've seen with the Russian army claiming that you have capabilities your military don't have does no favours long term. UKs military has been plagued by overspending and cutting programs from production early for decades (which are similarly related because if you spend lots developing something and then don't make many of them it makes them much more expensive).
The description of early warning defences isn't entirely accurate. We have better resources available which I have seen first hand, and they are quite impressive.
I live in Hartlepool and they have the huge golfballs next to the Seaton Carew nuclear power station just next to Middlesbrough, they may be able to detect an imminent attack and warn us but there's certainly no military presence or air defence systems in the area. It's just a case of 'yep were being attacked, good luck and God speed :/
@@rossanderson5815 Well as they would pretty much have to attempt the attack from the North then yes. The Norwegian station at Vardø for a start as that is way up North (Further North than Murmansk even) so would have coverage out into the Barents Sea to the North of Russia. Doubt it would work keeping further out to sea either since that would then put you close to Iceland or Greenland both of which likely also contain NATO radar systems of their own. As such the tracking information they could provide would almost certainly ensure that the incoming bombers would get a warm welcome from the Typhoon squadrons at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland that would be airborne and waiting for them.
I think there's a fundamental exaggeration of Russian capability. Despite seeing them in action for a few months now and get absolutely rinsed by the Ukrainians, we're still suggesting the Russians could pull off an attack like this. I would wager that less than half of their aircraft simulated here are flight capable and I would also wager they don't have anywhere near this amount of cruise missiles in working order. Not only this, but it completely ignores Sky Sabre, Rapier, Stormer HVM, any frigates (which have pretty capable S2A capabilities in their own right), the huge amount of USAF aircraft that are based in the UK, and you're probably more likely to have 4 T45s than 3. There are also only about 20/30 Typhoons deployed abroad, meaning that number is far closer to 70/80 in the UK. And then there's the 23 F-35s. Finally, all of RAF/RN aircraft would be up in the air and waiting for the, likely around 8 Russian aircraft before they even get into launch range because we'd know they were coming from our friends in NATO. As a bit of fun, this is OK. As anything remotely more serious, it's pretty absurd and Mark Felton has clearly lost his marbles.
Primarily, you're "spot on," but I would be cautious to compare the Ukrainian invasion with this scenario; they are totally different theatres. I would also add to this that the Russians would never commit their entire bomber fleet to Great Britian -- that is quite arrogant to even suggest. Six to ten, at most, and the rest of the offensive from land-based missiles, not, certainly not, this one-dimensional strategy. Finally, I would suggest that, [given the merits of this video,] Britian installs an over the horizon radar site to the far north, beyond the Orkneys -- wherever that is, as Russia would certainly use the Northern attack route, imho.
Agreed. Are all their bombers able to fly? Even if they did have the cruise missiles, how many would fail? This would be a war against NATO, so the US would move more Naval assets to the region, US aircraft based in UK would assist and the AWACS out of Germany would be on station for sure. Also I would think the bombers would have to get past the Finnish and Swedish air defenses.
I agree, but DCS with that many assets would probably just lag out the game. Also, the US currently has 2-3 carrier battle groups near there Baltics which could quickly dispatch a potential interceptor force, unless Sweden wanted to shoot down American planes overflying their territory.
T23s would be able to engage curise missiles that came within range, skysabre only if it was in position otherwise it's just too short ranged, stormers again have no anticruise missile capability - you might get lucky. Similarly the number of aircraft is likely to be fewer due to maintenance (roughly 1/3 would probably be acutally available)
This is a cool concept, but seems very unrealistic. It seems to rely on the UK enforcing a no fly zone on its own, which wouldn't happen. It also depends on Russian craft getting within range of Western Europe without anyone detecting them and warning the UK. Even flying over Scandinavia, that's not going to happen. They'll be detected as soon as they leave the deck and nations would scramble QRFs. And because of the NATO connection, even if the strike were to succeed, none of the Russian aircraft would make it back to base, making their strike pretty daft in the first place.
I havent watched the vid yet... so am at a disadvantage... however, on what you are saying.... russians often fly aircraft close to our territory as routine.. and we routinely escourt them away... so I guess one of them could start an attack... but i doubt they'd do it that way if they wanted to attack UK... plus they'd get one back...
Im losing respect for Cap. This is a ridiculously stupid scenario where he hobles one side so Russia can win. The other day he said the Slava class was his favorite ship and he thought it was invincible. England is a fortress! NATO makes sure of that. Britten has lots of anti aircraft defense. what a load of bullshit.
This omits the 7th Air Defence Brigade which has just replaced their Rapiers with Sky Sabre and Star Streak defensive missile systems. One regiment has gone to Poland but at least one would still be available for the South. Also four Type 23 Frigates are based in the South and while dedicate ASW they each have 32 CAMM surface to air missiles.
I think in a real life scenario british forces would prioritise key infrastructure to try to minimise damage. There’s no way we’d be able to take out every missile that comes in during a barrage on our own but I think the Norwegian forces would be launching their ships and aircraft too so we wouldn’t be completely on our own. Certainly France would too since the fallout from Sizewell would be a huge threat to them too.
If this was to be our real RAF with "im lagging", "I've forgotten what button does what", "should we turn on our missile radar".... we really are screwed! 😂 its like a comedy sketch 🤣
I can see Seaton Carew nuclear station from my window in Hartlepool... Every time I look out the window I get a shudder. I know 100% it will be one of the first places to get hit being on the east coast and half way up the country. Ever since I moved here from Edinburgh (not exactly a safer area), it's had a slightly ominous feel to the place just knowing if war kicks off we have no chance
@@davidforrest6730 In fairness taking a reactor containment building down would take a massive explosion not sure if these missiles would quite pull that off. It would likely take a weapon designed to take out fortified bunkers instead since that is pretty much what the containment buildings are. Probably would still get attacked though as disconnecting them from the grid and cutting off the electricity supply would be far easier than trying to destroy the reactors, the transformers and power lines are not fortified.
This may be a limitation of what's available in DCS, but the Royal Navy does operate some Type 23 Duke-class guided missile frigates in addition to the Type 45 Daring-class guided missile destroyers. I'm not saying they'd have turned the tide, but one or two of them operating in conjunction with the destroyers may have at least reduced the devastation.
We’d have no chance. 129 aircraft capable of fighting. 101 euro fighters and 28 F-35Bs. 9 reaper drones……That’s all we’ve got excluding trainers and logistics/transport planes. Our government thinks our trident subs will stop any attacks from hostile nations, but we have a no first strike policy, so what use are those subs if we are attacked with conventional weapons. Our naval fleet would have to be in the right place at the right time, which would be no use in a surprise attack. Although we do have a few nuclear powered subs that can retaliate with our own cruise missiles. Those subs are also capable of firing nuclear cruise missiles……But we don’t possess any and would have to rely on the USA to donate them to us. Our F-35B multirole jets are also nuclear capable, but we also don’t posses any nuclear tipped missiles for them………Just 4 trident subs with a grand total of 215 nukes with only 115 active is supposed to stop an idiot like Putler attacking us, when he’s sitting on over 4000 nukes with nearly 2000 active at any time 😂.
@@MrTangolizard CAMM is like 25-45km range, half of Patriot, maybe 1/3 of Arrow. The Land Sabre/CAMM system seems decent for what it is...but that's a medium range SAM, not a major defense asset. You'd use it to defend air bases and the like as a last resort before the MANPADS and point defense cannons. You want something BIG to cover large areas and start hitting things at long range to give fighters a chance to get in the air or get intercept vectors.
@@Acheron666 I think the UK needs to buy Patriot, Arrow, or a land-based version of the Standard missile the USN uses for fleet defense...and you guys need more Typhoons and F35Bs. What do I know, though.
In such a scenario I'd imagine most countries would struggle to defend against 200 missiles if such a scenario played out. I want you guys to do this one with more realistic conditions reflecting Russia's current abilities.
@Gorgeous George Complicated seeing the state of conventionnal forces in ukraine I've a doubt of the readynessof Russian arsenal. And UK +France who wil retaliate imediately it will be au suicide about 250+280 warheads will fly to Russia
If only 2 out of 6 cruise missiles hit Ukraine the other 4 are destroyed then I think we'll be okay lol Don't our carriers etc have ews? So a lot missed out
This an absolute loss loss scenario guys. I wish we just stop fking with Russia and pick up some mediocre middle eastern country instead. like the good old days. Boris needs a little spank in his bottom for even taking this such scenario.
To be honoust... I It is not a matter of survival in case of a russian attack, it's a matter of not accepting the Russians bullying the rest of the world. I respect the brittish answer to the war in Ukraine.
As an Italian I am worried: my country and many other NATO countries seems not even nearly ready to counter Russian cruise missile (see also the other Mark Felton video about the Ukrainian armed drone who felt in Croatia, after crossing undisturbed Romanian and Hungarian airspace). We really need to a SAM protection system like the one of Israel and Japan, to protect all of NATO airspace... The only positive note that I can say regarding my country, is that compared to UK Italy at the moment seems to have more military hardware to counter a cruise missile attac than the UK at the moment (I am referring in particular to the modern ships in service in our navy, and our 2 AEWR in service in our airforce)
cruise missiles are hard to kill, look at ukraine where they fly right over peoples head. There is only certain kind of radars that can spot them to begin with, and you got minutes to react. So if you dont have a asset inside a coouple miles it will probably be to late anyway. Thats one thing that russia has shown, cruise missiles are really effective. Only negative is the price, its quite expensive to send alot of them - bombers still have their use.
SAMs aren't the best for cruise missles and are meant for anti-air, you need ABMs. These however are much more expensive to build, deploy and maintain. The missles used in this video are flying too low for most SAMs to engage.
@@jmkhenka yeah you are right. Unfortunately NATO and western Europe in general didn't develop sufficient systems to counter this menace. Our best hope right now is that USA will provide Europe with sufficient AEWR to compensate the deficit of European nations, and that Russia will not launch many of them, considering how expensive they are. Also I hope that we could have a good chance to intercept Bomber aircrafts before they launch those cruise/ hypersonic missiles
@@Cazline ah ok thanks for the information. Yeah those systems would be pretty expensive for many NATO nations and not even affordable for many. Although I guess that we could increment NATO members can increase their capability of intercept those weapons with more economical solution. They might not be so effective as ABMs, but is always better than nothing
@@Cazline SAMs work against cruise missiles, they don't work well against balistic missiles hence the ABMs - Most ABMs though (there aren't many) are developments of SAM systems.
Great vid as always GR! Would the American squadrons based in Suffolk not join the fight as our NATO allies? Those F15’s and F16’s and a few F35a’s might make a difference in this scenario
This was really cool to see! Out of interest, with F35 being upgraded to also carry Meteor could we maybe also have the 24 x F35's taking off from QE in Pompy as well as the 25 x Typhoons scrambling from Conningsby? Also we'd possibly have a Type45 in Portsmouth/The Channel with it for a bit of extra Sea Sceptre. I'm by no means an expert but maybe that would add to the defence scenario :)
If an attack was on its way toward britain from north,you would be warned before they passed Murmansk …. Norwegian radarpost in Vardø 😉 besides we are on same team…so are Danmark…you are not alone
Seems so far fetched, as soon as a Russian plane is detected in European airspace all countries at notified. NATO on alert jets from multiple countries scrambled. Missile launch detected countries would engage. But UK do need SAM’s across the UK
The word "SURIVIVE" implies the missiles actually hit something. So it depends on how many are launched, how destructive each warhead is, what and where are they striking. But in most cases it's a resounding "NO". Now if you're talking about "STOPPING" a missile strike, that's completely different.
I've watched Mark's video and it was very well made and make some good points, but what he doesn't take into account is that great Britain is a NATO member and I am quite positive before they would even attempt to enforce a no-fly zone great Britain would be massively reinforced by United States Patriot missile batteries and air Force
Doesn't Menwith Hill have an EWR station operated by the USAF? Likewise, does the USAF have AWACS on alert in the UK? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to lend a helping hand to the RAF.
Watched Marks video and that worried me, this worries me even further. T45 dont patrol the coast I dont think so that most likely not available to help..
Thanks to progressive govts eating away at the mod budget. Such a shame that we could never give a priority to such things as defence, emergency services or the NHS. Never seen the MPs wages being slashed tho.
@@danieljerram7964 MP wages are hilariously low for what they do, and in the grand scheme of U.K. spending they mean nothing and would still mean nothing is doubled or halved.
@@paulharrison2325 furthermore, some suggest increasing the wages of politicians so that it would attract more people who would be able to do a better job. I think the idea is only the arrogant, those than game the system or truly dedicated would get into politics because of the stress of dealing with the media looking for click bait headlines and the abuse from voters of your opposition... It's just easier and more profitable to get a job in a normal job.
@@MarKeMu125 Agree. One of the biggest issues with British politics is how laughably low their wages are. Without meaning to be a braggart, I earn more than my MP does by a considerable margin; yet my job doesn't have anywhere near the levels of responsibility of theirs.
Biggest problem with this is the raptors on the queen Elizabeth class would launch and would help out...also the other 50 or so eurofighters would be over London etc in 30 minutes and the computer controlled eurofighters should have targeted to missiles first 👍😁
Great video. Id like to see this redone with the factor that a declaration of war on the uk means war with nato. This means american assets would defend the uk. Specifically the F15 fleet at raf lakenheath and the e3d screen from geilenkirchen germany
@@alexis1451 absolutely, I only referenced the F15's at Lakenheath as it would fit this model pretty easily and the F15 is a perfect jet for this type of mission.
Neat idea, hope you retry it. Scale it back to what the map allows though, that is just too much everything in that tiny area. Mark's stuff is great, but his scenario is a bit far-fetched. Doesn't matter though, as long as it makes a fun video for you guys to fly in.
Our nuclear powered submarines with trident nuclear missiles will soon attack back & the Russians would have a taste of destruction & the Russians know we have got them !!! Not to mention the US would in turn retaliate as a NATO member & common friend !!!
Russia probably has more satellites looking at it than anywhere else. As soon as they could see loads of bombers being loaded with munitions it would have stirred a hornet's nest, but even so, Britain is seriously under defended from airborne threats Super vid btw
Don't you have any clue on military strategy? They are always loading the bombers and flying towards unfriendly countries. It is a part of their daily/weekly activities. Not just russians but all militaries do that. They breach each others airspace just to see how long it takes to get a response. They fly towards others while they are conducting exercises, they fly towards their ships, enter through remotes areas, conduct missile tests which fly towards their foes but dip juat in time. Militaries are always doing provocative stuff just that it is not reported in the news.
@@KingOfZamunda They dont breach nations airspace. they always fly in international airspace. just look at Denmark and Sweden today sending for their respective Russian ambassadors to give them a right dressing down over a breach of their airspace. and we are part of Nato. so we won't be alone
Yes it would, the artillery regiment responsible for air defense is based on thorney island 8.5 miles east of Portsmouth, they operate sky sabre and Stormer.
Yes it would. Sky Sabre, Rapier (it's still in service), and Stormer would all have a say in the matter. There's also the small matter of a fair few frigates with decent S2A capabilities themselves too.
There was an air combat game around year 2000 called eurofighter typhoon, that involved a Russian war on the west. The plot was you manning a squadron of typhoons defending Iceland against waves of incoming Russian missiles, fighters, bombers then attempting to stop a ground invasion.
A better title would be 'Could Russia survive a flatulence strike from Johnson'? We should be far more worried about the threat from our own politicians.
Great video. i'm doubtful anything would happen given our geopolitics but I do think we should better defences against cruise missile strikes against our valuable targets like military bases and infrastructure. to be honest we should be developing something to respond against hypersonic cruise missiles not just normal ones.
Is it possible to try the WW2 trick (used against V-1s) of putting a wing under the cruise missile wing & flip it over? Also - the next simulation should be - UK was attacked, NATO article 5 is triggered, here is NATO response. In reality I think the Blackjacks would be taken out by Norway et al on the flight back.
Only a few minutes in but here's my question. Wouldn't the bombers have to fly over other NATO countries to get in range for the cruise missiles they carry? Also since you have no airborne EWR at the moment wouldn't NATO and USAF fill in for the time being?
@@kevinzeh3559 Looking at Flightradar right now, and NATO01 which is an E3A Sentry has been doing circles all evening over the Babadag region of Romania where they have some heavy military. Very close to the West of Ukraine. Second question answered? I don't know what they listen to or the range they can listen to but I'll bet I sleep sound tonight in Northampton - England. I do live on the "Daventry Corridor" which is used by the USAF at RAF Fairford as well as our own RAF at Brize Norton. Had a couple of Stratofortresses go over the other night....
No. They can come in over the ocean..or even over the icecap and come from the west. People tend to forget that Russia isn't landlocked since they don't have year around ports for the most part.
You forgot Lakenheath would've launched. Croughton would probably have detected them as well. btw.. Alconbury still has its runway, the second longest in the UK (Fairford is No:1) and would almost certainly be recommissioned if DEFCON tensions were raised high enough.
As it's the anniversary, any chance of you covering the Falklands war (1982)? I'd be fascinated to see what if the Argentine carrier managed to launch its A4s (in reality they didn't have enough wind) during "pincer movement" against RN taskforce
I have noticed in most of your simulations, Russian CIWS, RARELY miss incoming American cruise missiles and Russian cruise missiles almost always get to the target.
In reality its the total opposite, though. Russian CIWS and anti missile system are pretty bad vs Western era contemporaries, never mind modern variants.
@Gary Baldi now if you're talking about DCS, all of the attacks were simulated in excellent weather, so I honestly don't have any reason not to believe in Russian AA systems. And my second point is that the weather is interrupting the radar waves, not the weapons themselves, and since the Moskva and the Ticonderoga use the same radar frequencies, it is very possible that the Ticonderoga would preform just like the Moskva. And something else I wanted to include in my first reply was that the number of missiles fired at the ship was unknown, so they could've fired as many as 64 Neptunes (since it is estimated that 8 TEL vehicles are present in Odessa according to internet sources), and don't forget that they also used a TB-2 to get the attention of the ship. So this is why I think the sinking of the Moskva was only a matter of luck, not "Ukronazi superiority".
We in the USA would have something to say about that, and attack on brittin is an attack on the united States Russia would be turned into a parking lot.
This is all very cheerful news! Successive governments of both parties cutting our defence capabilities to the bone!! To think my home county and town of Woodbridge would be vapourized! Thanks Mr Johnson!!
With the GDP % requirements for NATO, along with a long established military, you're highlighting real world issues with our defenses. In the post-Glasnost Europe we all thought the former Soviet Union threat had gone, however, in the last 5-10 years being back on guard is a must.
@@fredcarr3550 carriers were mainly seen as for Far Eastern deployment as well as the far eastern side of the Med, not as a counter to a resurgent Soviet "era". Given the defence review of around 2000 post Gulf War etc. The focus had shifted elsewhere, away from Russia.
The UK has 4 nuclear-armed subs, at minimum one is at sea and ready to fire at all times, simple Putin fires at London and before his ICBMs hit there are SBCMs on the return journey. It is MAD to a nuclear attack the UK let alone our friends who also have nukes.
@@robdee81 they may have kit, but trained pilots don't just appear out of nowhere. They hardly get enough airtime training to get the basics, much less to face off against QRF pilots.
@@robdee81 yes they do, the Russian military is large and modern. The issue is that the large part is not modern and the modern part is not large. I think we can clearly see in ukraine that it has a lot of obsolete equipment, a lot of untrained soldiers and a lot of low tech weapons. We are certainly not seeing this scale of relatively high spec attack - and I doubt that’s because they have it just aren’t using it.
What a terrifying video for someone who lives in East Suffolk. Seeing all these places I drive past everyday getting obliterated by Russian cruise missiles! They close the Orwell Bridge occasionally for high winds, and then Britain's busiest port has to route all traffic through tiny single carriage roads, causes absolute carnage. Never thought of it as a military target though. Think Britain probably has more assets available to it then this video suggests though and obviously allies, we haven't burnt all our bridges yet!
Russia couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Russia would be immediately obliterated.Every corner of Russia has nukes positioned on them! I would not advise it Vlad.
All of this assumes that all of the Russian aircraft and missiles used here are in a usable state of service and they have enough adequately trained pilots to pull off such an attack...which, given what we know so far about their space program and military is a very, very generous assumption. Also that they can gather such a force without attracting enough attention to allow you to preposition naval units better.
@UNEDITED mmm hmmm. Tell me. Would they be launched from ships as fragile as the Moskva? England could just need send in a bunch of ninja monkeys with hand grenades.
@SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION aww are you salty you lost your flagship. Did you know you are now in the record books for being the only nation to lose their flagship to another country that doesn't even have an active navy. Why don't you admit how many people actually died on it? I'm sure they're families would like to know.
I think you give Russia too much credit. From what we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russian equipment is about 40% less likely to work than one would expect. Also, though certainly some Russians are very well trained, many seem to be less than adequately trained and or motivated and many of them do not want to be in the military at all and many that are in the military might seek to not carry out orders involved in invading or offending countries acting in defense of what can be considered “good”. Also, Britain is part of NATO and any attack on Britain would also be defended by France, Germany and others within the sphere, including Americans stationed in England.
US Intel for how ever one wishes to way their analysis assessed Russian air launched cruise missiles 20-60% failure rate in Ukraine all depending on the day. It is believed up to 50% of missile strikes and higher failure rate of all missiles failed. Unverified reports suggest a good deal fail to launch or fail to explode on impact. I read this several weeks ago. The only real cited evidence of an attack by air launched Russian cruise missiles was near the Polish border where officials stated a high rate of failures. A high rate stated by officials is usually anything around 20% or higher. So there is some cited evidence about the effectiveness of Russian Cruise Missiles. Other things can hamper such attacks. E-warfare, weather, terrain, bad intel and low training and maintenance. I have down graded my opinion on Russian equipment and forces even before Ukraine invasion and from what I have seen in Ukraine it feels Russia may have issue in the level of readiness if their forces. So yes on paper such success rate of Russian equipment looks high but in reality I don't think its as good as promoted. This scenario played out is just to unrealistic on many levels.
Wouldn't France and other near by Nato countries/ships assist in the defence once the missles would have been fired? Also as the russians would have gone past Norway they would have scrabled (probably Finland and Sweden as well considering the status of things) and Nato would have been on alert and ready to strike. The northen fighters would probably have been vectored south as the russians were tracked (after all combining the figthers and meeting head on was the winning strategy in the Battle for Britain so it's fair to say round two would be handled similar. This setup seem to be more valid for last year then now.
