Chinese Air Force vs Russian Air Force: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vHO94A7x6v8.html US Air Force vs Chinese Air Force ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ngXvWALKi1w.html US Air Force vs US Navy & Marine Corps: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OfThwhYC-WQ.html
@@flashgordon6670 well, if it's the Universe you're looking to for payback, I'd watch that plan. The bitch cooks her books, plus she's an actual witch.
what I think was happening was not only did F16s not carry enough missiles, but they were wasting them all on humans who were 'soaking up the aggro' by being very evasive directly under them.
I'd like to see this fight again but with the reserve forces split proportionally through all the aircraft types so there would be stealth aircraft from the start on both sides as I think this would better represent the two sides availability of the airframes. Given that stealth made such an impact mid-game, I think this would probably change the overall dynamic
That was incredibly entertaining!!! My favorite moment was when Super Cap caught a J-20, an F-22, and an F-35 all-in one-shot dancing around in close quarters!! Brilliant stuff!! Hats off to Brandon, aka the Flying Dutchman for the excellent tactical flying staying low and popping up, especially early on before all the stealth American aircraft were on the scene!!
@15:30 well if you’re on top of current status quo, game theory would have that person understate their capabilities to create confusion and uncertainty for runners-up. If you’re a challenger to the top position then it would behoove that group to overstate their capabilities to create worry for the top guy
You might say the server was Super Bugged down. What kind of server setup would you need in order to run the kind of complex game you'd want to? And is that something you might crowdsource?
Why hold the stealth fighters back? Seems like if you LED with the stealth fighters, we would have the advantage because the Chinese would have had no targets to shoot at?
I've run missions with over 3600 ground vehicles and it only functions at 1/4 speed or slower, and ground units use an order of magnitude less cpu to run.
This viewington declares a draw. If not; an American pyrrhic victory. Scale it down to 5% and add SAMs and AWACs. Go for a tactical battle and victory to see what side prevails.
Love watching the Raptors come in and have a good stomp! Was worried this was going to be a reupload of another fight I just saw yesterday, but then I saw the fuel tanks. Excellent fight guys!
In the previous run, the F-35s AIs all RTB'd before engaging. I think the tanks were added just to make the scenario work. I don't remember a similar problem with the J-20.
I dont think J20s running out of fuel was the problem. they carried too few missiles. Although in coming years its likely J20s will get an upgrade to increase their capacity to 8
The advanced antiair systems on each get are not modeled correctly and, to make matters worse, the AI is not modeled to evade correctly and do not adjust to the threats in real time (in regards to evasion). Further more, the F15EX new missile warning and evasion systems are not modeled correctly. The only models in this sim that stood a chance to make a difference (and it showed clearly) is the PL missiles and stealth aircrafts. And the AI does not know how to maximize the stealth capabilities.
I am sure this way made a much better video. The Raptors would punch a hole through, the 35s would be circling spawn, and by the time the 40% of 15/16s spawned, they would need to carry bombs.
B52's at least not for another 20 to 30 years. They're still suitable for their job so no reason to get rid of them. Also they don't cost that much to maintain given their payload capacity so we get a lot of bang for the buck. The A10 on the other hand might go away. I remember before the JSF project matured, one of the goals was for it to eventually replace the A10, but they also said that about the F16 and that didn't happen either. Tbh the A10 is overrated and the prevalence of PGM's have made a platform like the F15E plainly superior for CAS. I wouldn't be surprised to see the A10 go in the next decade, but I don't have any real evidence to support that.
15:18 Because inches>centimeters but we only brag in the pub or in semi-polite company. Lofted, it'll do about 140,000 cubits more than nameplate and the electrical supply is greater than needed for it's greatest conceivable range. Come on, we're the ones who turned retired artillery barrels into bunker Eff'you!s on the order of a few weeks, dropped tests (of one dummy and one filled with hate) and loaded the other two for the discontinuity-of-life for a few guys. Also, the world's second largest naval force (by tonnage) is our museum fleet and there are, at the least, 2.6 firearms for every man, woman and child (including undocumented aliens) in CONUS. We don't need to exaggerate. ;D
@@grimreapers It was 100% his pure deep-seated love and enthusiasm for the sport that made him the commentator he was - you could tell how much he loved watching the racing, loved the cars, knew the teams, knew the drivers - everything. F1 was never the same after he retired. I get the same impression of you with military aviation - you're doing what you love doing, and it shows.
You do realize none of us can read the scoreboard, right? It’s fucking tiny man. Can you make it bigger? I’m only 31 years old, my eyesight isn’t that bad….
Seeing this video it makes me wonder if those F16's that are about to be send to Ukraine will really make a difference? That airplane might be multi functional, but it's 70s tech. How will the F16 ever try to evade Russian SAM systems in occupied Ukraine?
Let’s put it this way. This match is essentially a representative of guys with M16s and other guys with AK-74s charging at each other head long while firing, i.e. not representative of anything real. Flankers are also 70’s tech mind you.
F16 won't change a thing. that's the only reason US is sending it. US is not trying to win the war. they are trying to draw it out because that would make Europe feel more vulnerable and so become more dependent on the US. if Ukraine really start to win, Russia face with the option of using nuke or collapsing will surely choose nuke. Ukraine is going to lose, it just a question of time.
So this is what a lot of analysts have said. Basically the F16's we're sending won't be a deciding factor outside of giving Ukraine more airframes to work with. It almost certainly won't change the dynamic on the larger battlefield.
@@cj64343 You would be surprised but yea I designed them spray Agent Orange on cocaine fields and blow up drug labs. Drug lords have Anti Aircraft systems it was designed to doge missiles. We did do dissimilar combat training because they also have fighter jets mostly Su-27. This plane is slow but is more maneuverable than any thing but a DR1 do NOT try and dogfight it. Its hard to Boom and zoom it too it can jink like nothing else in the world. The armor is CRAZY! way more than it needs. To date we have never lost a pilot.
Does having the pylons on the F-22 and F-35 affect the RCS of them? They can eejct them to ge their RCS back to the level they had before external stores/fuel tanks
yeah the main unrealistic thing about this is it acts like a video game: units spawning and going in one at a time. I don't know about the Chinese, but the Americans would send planes in as flights, form up and then send a large group in all at once, and then they would volley fire: it's a lot harder for the enemy to avoid a massive fight of incoming missiles at the same time (think 48 jets firing two missiles each at the same time)
@@lagrangewei No one is sneaking up on a US air base and getting bombed without warning. But the poster is correct, the US, NATO, and pretty much every AF in the world (I believe) operates on the basis of multiples of either 2 or 4 jets. It's always an even number unless there's a last minutes reason (or in the case of actual combat...losses) that force an odd number of jets in a flight. Basically, DCS just isn't programmed to use the real-world advantages the US has. The most stealthy jets, top-quality electronic warfare, amazing training quality, more flight hours than virtually every other country, more hours on realistic simulators, top-quality sesnors/datalink/satellite/radar using the F-35 as a flying computer/router. Not all forces are created equal, except in DCS.
@@jamison884 yep, and it doesn't't take into account tactics and doctrines. We would send in small groups of stealth planes first, knock out their airborne warning, then a large flight of planes firing multiple types of missiles from various ranges to mess up their formations, then a sneak attack flight of stealth aircraft right after that as the enemy reformed, then a last flight to achieve air superiority. With that last flight would come flights of HARM equipped planes and fighter bombers to go after air defenses and airfields, to get anything left on the ground, knock out there defenses and ability to respond. After that, focus would be on maintaining air superiority. No one does that better than us, thought the command and control aircraft we keep up. One of the sneakiest tactics we use is to volley off a flight of medium/long range missiles on passive mode. CC can vector the missiles in, enemy gets nothing on their warning sets. Last minute, they put the missile flight into active mode: the Chinese headsets would go ballistic with missile warning/missle lock, and the missiles would be at point blank range at this point (I serve AF '92-'98, saw things like this in action, pretty impressive)
China would do the same. But with tactics. They have stealth aircraft but not as much as US so they wouldn’t go head to head with all of their aircrafts
China has longer range missiles. longer range missiles allows for more kills on the initial wave which in tern reduces number of missiles wasted on soon to be dead targets for the second wave. it's a math thing. first kills make for a huge advantage in an equal RCS fight. the f16's with the small loadout should not have been the first to the fight.
I would just like to note that this is literally every modernized warplane the Chinese have vs just the USAF. It's not including the Navy or the Marines, and the Chinese are still outnumbered. Really puts things into perspective.
@@92HazelMocha I feel like he gave a pretty good rationale for omitting the J-8s and J-7s. They are basically modified MiG-21s. They do, technically, make up the numbers shortfall, but in a fight like this they wouldn't be able to do much. The Chinese mostly use them as trainers and expendable recon aircraft.
@@djzoodudeThey are *not* modified Mig21's. They're very very different aircraft, we're even getting a proper J8 module for DCS and the cockpit looks closer to an F16 than a Mig. And since they recently upgraded their J8 and JH7 inventory to be compatible with the SD10, they're far from trainer aircraft. Granted they'll eventually toss them in favor of J16's and J20's, but it would be like discounting Vipers just because we also have F35's.
In any fight like this, you should spawn in stealth first. They would get in, destroy aircraft at a high rate and reduce missile platforms. Thus the enemy can fire a lot fewer missiles at 4th Gen follow ons. This has a disproportionate effect on the outcome, as it should.
That was a fun one today, a great all out brawl. An idea for you: In the video "Army George Shows: What A Viable Chinese Invasion Of Taiwan Could Look Like (WarGames 148) | DCS" we see China successfully invade Taiwan and kill a carrier using its new missile tech and transports flying in behind in the wake. What would an American response look like? Lets say its a few weeks to a month or so later and fighting is continuing on Taiwan. The US wants to get in the fighting and start to squeeze China's economy. I think the next move would be the US shutting down the strait of Malacca and then a battle between the Chinese carrier and the small island bases it's made in the south China sea vs a much larger US force, probably consisting of 2+ carriers. Is that or something similar viable in DCS?
Yup, and a fair fight may even be the US Navy and USMC vs. the Chinese AF (without the USAF altogether). USN and USMC have roughly ~1,200 fighter capable aircraft, from F-35B/C, F-18C & E/F/G, AV-8. Once they have all of their F-35s delivered, they should have a combined 700+, granted that's awhile from now.
Because that would have made the disparity in the number of planes on each side too great. It would not have been interesting because the U.S. would have crushed China in about 20 minutes in this simulation.
Smarter to say your missiles have less range as war gaming they base it off that. Would rather the enemy think they have a 10 mile advantage when in reality they have a 15 mile loss. As is shown in the Ukraine war, Russia massively inflates their figures. Talk quietly but carry a big stick.
I'm not crazy, it's 2nd time you've done this? First time around F-35's ran out of fuel, right? And regarding Chineese advantage. If you look at the map, you can see, that Red's airports are closer to bullseye, and are lined up, meaning better concave. While Blue F-16's from one airport (most Eastern one )arrived faster, and had smaller numbers. It may have been factor, or not. Just spotting. Good battle. And that one F-22 deserves short.
I feel like something affecting the initial kills and losses before the stealth came in was the fact far more Americans were in the air than Chinese. There were far more Americans to kill than there were Chinese for them. Hence a lot of the AMRAAMs fired also went to waste and were concentrated on a few Chinese while there were far more people able to be killed for the Chinese.
Thanks Cap! For science reasons, I'd really like to know the list of changes you implemented or if any bugs were found since the first version of this fight. The AIM-120 more than doubled the PK rate from around 10% to 20%+ or was that due to all planes having the D3 versus a mix of D1 and D3? Then there were drop tanks added, AIM-9X added to additional fighters. I know you like to include your valued human boys in the videos to give them some fun, but I would TRULY, TRULY (!!) be interested in a day of pure DCS science (oxymoron?). Essentially, take this file into singleplayer and use fast forward, running it is several times with different variables changing. Perhaps you can make it interactive by throwing up some polls or making a post and people suggesting what types of variables to change. Personally, I'm really interested in seeing the stealth fighters entering the front early/first rather than 4th gen. I'm also curious as to why the F-16 performs so terrible in these fights. If you give the F-16 to actual human pilots, they perform much, much better than these AI F-16s. I know this is true for all jets when it comes to AI, but the F-16 in particular has shown to be absolutely amazing in the hands of a very skilled pilot. I don't know what your relationship or thoughts are concerning Growling Sidewinder and LongShot, but you give either of those guys (GS especially) an F-16 in either BVR or BFM and they will beat virtually any other jet 1v1 most of the time, or on a multiplayer server, just go and take out enemy jets over and over with landing and re-arming, then repeat. Anyway, I truly hope we can have a user-suggested science fair day where valued viewer suggestions are utilized to run some simulations and we can all learn a bit more as to how DCS works and also see for ourselves the type of variances involved when running a mission file numerous times with either the same or virtually the same variables and seeing how different the results are each time.
Suggestions for changing up variables. And to be clear, it doesn't have to be a battle quite this large and the number of jets can be evened up too. I think this battle just increased my interest in seeing tests being run. I saw someone else posting this exact suggestion as well - changing up the variables to see what happens. - Deployment of the AIM-260 - Switching sides of the map - Substituting a portion of the F-16 and/or F-15 with some USN super hornets - Realistic formations rather than jets taking off one-by-one via use of triggers spawning in multiples of 4 jets in combat formation at a time - US using AIM-120C7 only vs. PL-15 and then PL-12 to see an exaggerated difference in how range impacts everything - Guns only just for the fun of it - Unlimited fuel and no tanks to see what the results would be - IR-only (fox-2) loadouts - Pivoting the map and using spawn triggers, with each side taking a turn of fighting over/in the mountains and the other side having to come in directly over the water as they're engaged (no ground cover)
4 changes: - AIM-120D1 changed out for AIM-120D3 as the former wasn't working properly so unknown reasons. - Fuel added to F-35 and F-22 - J-10C FM nerfed to be in line with wiki etc. (finally got around to it). - Due to more missiles in air at once than last time, needed to phase the spawns. Otherwise no changes.
Why can you not reduce the number of CAP/DA aircraft. And start introducing EW, AWACS, SEAD and IADS components. Same size scale fight but with different mix of units. I understand that making the sims are labor intensive. Yet your Videos with Katana in control of IADS implementation are awesome. Just let Katana loose on designing the next version of this video.
Seeing the F-22s charging in got me thinking: since the detection range is the limiting factor against 5th gen aircraft, in a 5th gen v. 5th gen fight, wouldn’t a load out favoring Fox 2s provide equal attack range while being lighter, cheaper, and harder to evade?
In your first video you did on Grim Reapers 2, you said you weren't using AIM-120D3s because they are only in service in extremely small numbers. Why did you change it for this video? If using missiles that have only very recently entered service, it would have been fairer to use PL-17s too and not just update the American ones, since PL-17s entered service with the PLAAF in 2022 as well.
they got flamed by antis being triggered that the simulated Chinese basically fought the USAF to a draw. siting everything the human and AI pilots did in the video as rigged, and unrealistic. they wanted an absolute stomp; to brag that NOTHING rivals the USAF, to dumb down the enemy AI, while maxing out the USAF AI. as well as downgrade enemy hardware, while upgrading theirs.
PL17s are anti-AWACs/Tanker missiles that can only be carried on flankers, and they'd Severely limit the firepower on said flankers to probably 4 PL17 and 2 PL10 at best.
Cap, I got an idea but Idk if you will like it . Maybe do Grim reapers vs Growling Sidewinders or another channel that way if you have more humans in the fight the more accurate the results will be . Ik the history is a little bumpy but life is too short to dwell on the past. Either way because there isn't enough humans , you have stupid AI that shoot their missiles all at one target and after said target is destroyed the missiles de conflict and go dumb and it's a waste of ammunition. Great video as always !
Great video. I wonder if the outcome would be very different if you started the stealth fighters on both sides first, as would be standard practice and then unleashed the lower-tiered aircraft into the fray. Thoughts?
