Hello Cap, can you please do a video with F-35s armed with 2 x Quicksink internally which are 2000lb JDAMs with dual seekers for anti-ship role against a Chinese CSG? Also with F-18s carrying 4 x maritime 500lb PJDAMs with 300nmi range.
@@angryginger791 : I was giving him a compliment actually. That soothing British voice inducing relaxation as he walks you through step by step descriptions of mass destruction and warfare with a few comedic quips.
The "Big Stick" is also the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). You know, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." -- Source: Former nuclear reactor operator on the Big Stick.
As I have been told by USAF pilots, the way to beat exo-atmospheric missiles is to wait when they are at the top of the parabola, and then make a defensive maneuver. Without air over the control surfaces, they are pretty much ballistic. Now, if someone were to add an RCS (reaction control system), it could compensate for defensive maneuvering while the missile is exp-atmospheric…but we’re talking higher weight and complexity, and cost.
Cap, I love the nerdy, talky bits, so keep it up. I think you’re spot on with the use case. My only thought (which might make a decent wargame) occurred after reading a recent Warzone article on how B-2s were being given sensor (specifically including datalink targeting) and weapons capability upgrades. I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and worked out that they could likely carry two of these in each bay, which opens up a wide range of possibilities regarding their use.
@@grimreapers No one is perfect their first few times trying anything New! Still a great demonstration! I love the science you put into it, and is what makes your channel stand out! It be nice to see the Team play with these missiles a little when you feel ready...
Similar to the F-35. Has the F-15 flight model, which is spot-on FOR the F-15, but who knows what the 35 model should really be? At some point, if you want to play pretend and have fun you have to make some guesses and enjoy!
If they can do it with an SM-6, just wait until someone spots a B-52 rocking loaded hardpoint clusters of air launched SM-3s, (roughly the same dimensions, little wider, 3000 pounds vs 1500 pounds).
@@brandonbowerstx but even in this scenario sensors are the limiting factor right? 1200-1500 mile Air to Air launch sounds amazing but that's outside the range of data link so even if you have 5th gen stealth plane or awacs loitering how are you going to guide it in?
I’ve heard the AIM-174 can be guided by other off-board sensors such as AWACS or ground/ship based AGEIS maximizing its effective range while the PL-17 lacks this ability. This would force the PL-17 to be guided by the launch aircraft’s own radar longer until it reached its terminal phase.
Almost every modern missile in existence can be datalinked with an AWACS. That isn't a special capability. Linking with AEGIS, however, is a rather u issue capability.
There are times I rewatch old videos from you, over and over again and wonder "What would happen if xyz was slightly changed". This is why I love sims, and why I don't pick sides. It's a game at the end of the day, not real life. It's always so ducking cool to see this kinda stuff and I'll often times let these videos run in the background while doing other tasks.
I think part of what I love about this channel is the style. It often feels like a narrative or that there's experimentation going on. Oddly reminds me of Stampy Long Head.
Remember people, the real danger of the J20 is that its internal bay is large enough to fit these PL-21 misssiles. The original J20 main mission is not to take out other fighters/bombers but to be able to get within firing range of Awacs and Refuelers. Edit after doing some research, the J20-A's bay is to small for the PL-17, While the J20-B and J20-S have elongated spines, its not known if that translates in a larger weapons bay and or if those versions are capable of the PL-17.
@@willwozniak2826 Every stealth aircraft, no matter its RCS can be seen and tracked, stealth is never designed to not be seen, its designed to confuse operators if its really a threat (with more and more ai this becomes easier and easier) but more importantly to avoid whats called a weapons grade lock. There is a big difference between seeing and tracking, and beeing able to intercept it.
Boy the Americans caught everbody off guard with this one...👉🏻👉🏻 just heard The LRHW finally is passing tests....things getting interesting now... great comparisons Cap.
Anyone who was caught off guard by this didn't pay attention to the whole story of the F-15. America really doesn't like it when someone has better tech than them.
@@Remix2366 Except AIM-174B is more versatile as its a dual purpose long range air-to-air missile and anti-ship missile. So its like PL-17, R-37M, and Kinzhal combined.
@@johnsilver9338 yeah maybe it will be helpful as anti ship,but if the warhead is that strong, it probably means it's heavy and will have problems competing with dedicated area of denial air supremacy missiles. They should stop trying to MacGyver and make one themselves.
Haven't been to RIAT for ages, started going in the early seventies at Greenham common! Never seem to get around to it, must do it next year! My last airshow was MAKS, Zukhovski airfield, just outside of Moscow! It was the NUTS!
The difference, of course, is that US military technology performs as advertised. We're going to find out eventually that Chinese missile tech has been as trumped up as Soviet aviation.
Probably not significantly farther than an F-15. The missile loses a lot of boost to drag at hypersonic speeds, for which it relies on its motor. Any gains from aircraft initial speed would be marginal.
In the sim it would make no difference, the limiting factor of these missiles is the radar distance, rather than the kinematics of the firing planes. Weird I know...
Another part of the equation is the warhead size between the two missiles (especially in anti-ship). Not sure about the PL17 but the SM6 has a 140 pound warhead!
@@hughmungus2760 supposedly, but the AMRAAM was also labeled as an A2A missile as well. I believe the PL17 has GPS guidance too, which is odd for dedicated A2A.
The future is close range pure IR imaging and IR stealth engagements and dogfights using multiple smaller IR missiles. Far future fighters will only use passive detection for most of their operations meaning BVR engagements between 5th and 6th gen fighters will be extremely rare simply due to detection limits. 6th gen BVR will most probably be accompanied by very high altitude reconnaissance aircraft and space based IR detection and targeting assets that will be used for air dominance. The future of stealth combat is passive detection.
PL17 has dual impulse feature, it can ignite again near the end of its range and chase agile targets like fighters, making its non-escape range much longer than the American aim174. Aim174 is just a cheap and cut the corner solution because the US can't deliver their real air to air mile aim260 on time.
V-2 rocket Operational range 320 km (200 mi) Flight altitude 88 km (55 mi) maximum altitude on long-range trajectory 206 km (128 mi) maximum altitude if launched vertically en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
here's a fun scenario little macabre maybe, see if the ijn can turn the tide at coral sea/midway with the grim reapers flying baka bombs oh, you only get one chance at either or both scenario for obvious reason
It is interesting to consider what will the actual doctrines would be in this sort of ultra long range BVR fights in real life. My theories is that as the awacs are guiding the missiles, the launcher should go full cold immediately after the launch, down to the ground and slowly turn to a crank, then recommit with F-pole when the opposing missile is coming down to 'duck under' the incoming missile
I do wonder.... This might be waaay outside of what DCS can do, but either (a) a B-1B AIM-174B missile truck, or (b) an air-droppable Rapid Dragon style AIM-174B launcher?
I think they should make the B-21 capable of using the AIM-174B from the internal bay as an escort for high value assets!! 😂😂 Ever carrying eight of them would definitely be a force multiplier.
Those flight paths do not match your prediction about the amount of boost provided. The PL-17 would have to peak sooner if its motor was less powerful.
19:58 I believe the main target of such long-range air-to-air missiles should actually be the opponent's key air nodes, AWACS, Tankers, etc. To achieve such extreme ranges, they sacrifice too much maneuverability to reliably track and kill fighters anymore, so the difference a larger wing area makes isn't that significant.
24:29 I suspect that angle isn't too far off, while coming down steeper would have many, many advantages, there probably isn't enough air in the mid-course phase to get much more down vector, and diving down in the terminal phase would be too kinetically expensive. At least, that's my thoughts.
Something as bulky as the SM-6 I can see the F-15EX carrying one on the belly, giving it 3 missiles. AA is never carried there, but it’s something so bulky (like the fuel tank, GBU-28 and new GBU-72) so I can see it happening.
@92HazelMocha boo hoo. One pylon compatibility upgrade and it's a non issue. They're already even testing it out. It's kinda Lego, but with rivets and wires.
Cap, would you consider doing a sort of basic "how to get started with editing vehicles" series, just very high-level "you find these parameters in this file, those in this file etc" sort of thing? I'm not asking for how to code, just like where to look and maybe tips of tweeking values. Obviously understanding too that it wont work online and that modding original files will break things and may need reinstalling. Id love to see a little expansion on what you reviewed about the missle file, but just maybe a little more detail. I promise you wouldnt need to apologize, a lot of us would live that
The main problem I have is that I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm really a tinkerer, changing bits here and there. A proper HOW-TO vid would be much better coming from someone like CH who understands all of the factors completely.
The guy on Sub Brief says that the PL17 has no data link capability and relies only on the firing platforms radar. Only the the chinese anti ship missiles have data link capability.
28:20 I think it's just the altitude. The air pressure at 8k feet is so much higher than it is at 25k ft, it's probably just the drag that it has to deal with
Just heard that mako can be ship launched from vls like the lrasm. Would be a nice future scenario to see those used en masse and damn the costs - though there's a risk the money counter will overflow
i'm not sure a Saturn V engine would give a missile much of an edge :) Even the "tiny" ones in the upper stages. talking of which... Orbit would need about 8km/s. These missiles need a serious physics bug to achieve that :P
Presumably spending so much time at an altitude where it can't do mid-course correction means that it should be easier to evade if you can detect the launch.
This was great. I especially appreciate learning about the nuts and bolts of the sim. I personally think a fight between two high performance aircraft armed with extremely long range missiles is more interesting than a fight between stealth aircraft. It's too bad the F-14 was retired. Imagine what a super AIM-54 would've been like!
there was a program called Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AIM-152 AAAM) that was to be the successor to the phoenix. But the end of cold war killed that project and the super Tomcat .
I'm cool with the talkie part as well. A lot of the time, I listen while doing shit and if you start going crazy I'll pick up my phone and see what's happening.
There has to be a trade off on the size. It's difficult to see how the PL-17 will have all the same terminal numbers as the SM-6. Could the SM-6 perform better if you lower the weight from the required Explosive Payload to kill a plane down to similar of the PL-17? I think that could make a bigger difference. Additionally, I can see the battery for the SM-6 last longer than the PL-17. Maybe use Wedge AWACS which should give you more capabilities and farther range and shoot the SM-6 much earlier than the PL-17 using a higher parabola for the SM-6.
The AI pilots weren't smart at all in evading. The F15EX went over the water with nothing to hide behind and could have flown the other way to hide behind mountains. The J15 didn't get low enough and stay enough behind mountains.
This definitely isn’t an accurate comparison, I don’t think there’s anything the planes could’ve done to drive missiles out of orbit. Definitely DCS having an aneurysm, I’m also skeptical of AI tactics, two F-15s just decided to not drop altitude much and fly straight into the enemy missiles instead of dragging them to the deck. I think GS does a better comparison but it was still an interesting watch.
From the report of the first 2 F15EX in ANG units, they don't carry CFTs for now so it's closer to C/D than E, also the new FBW system make the high AoA performance much better than any eagle US had, both C/D and E. You can go search air demos with FBW f15s and see old 1970s designs flying the way that's never been imagined.s
It would be really nice if the f15’s could have the conformal fuel tanks could be taken off like in real life, since the power to weight, max speed and maneuverability gets significantly better even though it has a few less missiles and fuel which I believe won’t make much of a difference with these ranges and lethalities
It should be noted that the PL17 is not designed to be used against fighters. It's a tactical strike weapon to take out AWACs and tankers making sure that any aircraft sent out to attack the Chinese go blind and can't get home. Maybe they would loose the launching aircraft (1 or 2), but all enemies would be lost due to simple running out of fuel and not being able to return to their safe zone. Tactical and financial win
Have you tried setting up a head to head 2 guys with 2 A-wax. The object is to take out the other guys A-wax. So you ether protect you're A-wax or go after the enemies A-wax.
If you don't mind my saying, excellent video but the F-15s look like the E varient, not so much the EX. It's missing the GE engines, bulges around the canopy and the top pods on the vertical stabilizer should be identical on the EX but it's in its strike eagle configuration.
Since all the missles are set up pretty much the same way. There doesn't seem to be a way to differentiate between technological differences in various missiles. For instance, if the US missiles are much more advanced in seekers, etc. There isn't really a way to model that compared to say a Russian missile that isn't nearly advanced. Is that correct?
can you make a public Multiplayer server for the F-15EX and the SU-35 Flanker-E? I have the mods, but all the other multiplayer servers don't have them at all. I was hoping you could make one for new players to experiment and train with both plane mods. are you up for the task?
Does the AI fire when a Pk is at a certain %? It would be interesting to see what would be the outcome of Combatant A used a 50% Pk firing solution with Combatant B using defensive tactics, and Combatant B not firing until they have a 90%+ Pk solution (essentially a guaranteed kill). And then play with the % to see which set gives the best outcome. Combatant B could run A out of missiles and leave B with enough left to clear out A’s force. Or, the PKs merge quickly enough to give first firing jets the advantage?
Wouldn't the defensive strat against these super long range aa missiles be to climb? If the plane got higher after it was launched it would break the missiles ability to travel the full distance wouldn't it?
