Sensor fusion and data link is a total cheat code lmao

F35's are a fantastic mini AWACS platform!

THIS, AMRAAM's can be used to target incoming missiles when programmed correctly.

Up up down down a b start

true but i doubt an amraam could hit a missile at mach 7

See HypOps

china wont be able to pull off such an attack anyway, that's quite hard to pull off

Tall order son.

​@@OscarZheng50You should have said that to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not here.

@@OscarZheng50 Get close enough to the chinese coast and its quite possible.

It’s the multiple launch from the Ohio class sub setting the top ten Chinese cities and bases into 10,000 degrees sun spots.

​@@Dirtyharry70585we don't need nukes to handle the Chinese. They aren't worth that much. Lol. A fleet of B-2's loaded with conventional munitions will turn the Chinese mainland into molten slag and cratered landscape.

same to the big us cities like nyc, la, and dc. Wake up! u r not the usa several decades ago. China is getting more and more lead on weapon technologies. Try to accept it and shake off ur ignorance and arrogance! This is a spam battle. It will not be like this is real battles.

Na just the AEGIS program crunching numbers

@@Dirtyharry70585nuclear war bad

From latest US wargames and simulations the US would win in the end but at the loss of at least 2 carriers

We made it through the cold war hopefully we can make it through this. The US and China are big trade partners so its in each other's interests to be chill. The US could potentially solve much of China's energy problems also. Basically we have to see what happens when leadership changes in both countries.

@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIALspeaking as someone who came from China and is still in contact with friends back home: almost no Chinese thinks the US wants a direct war with China, but will want to provoke a proxy war between China and one of China’s neighbors to force manufacturing industries to flee the destabilized Asia. Not saying whether this view is correct or not, but this is how we think. The very obvious counter to that is to bring America into the war no matter how far away should a proxy war occur in Asia, hence developing the non-nuclear means to hit even as far as Guam. The hope is that the US will be deterred from provoking proxy war.

If GR would have shown China winning. Then China would launch their attack....lol

@@thomaszhang3101 as long a China doesn’t attack Taiwan the US will keep to themselves

i mean its never been tried so this is at best conjecture.

@@islandwills2778 None of these simulations take into account terminal maneuvering, so they are treated as simple ballistic missiles.

@@megakedar Terminal maneuvering is not a thing in hypersonics. Hypersonics maneuver during the mid-course portion of the flight. But they go way too fast for terminal maneuvers. Some slower cruise missiles have terminal maneuvers but hypersonics do not. That's why hypersonics are much more susceptible to terminal interception than to mid-course interception.

@@megakedar yeah because they are? You cant maneuver while being hypersonic in lower atmosphere.

And now imagine Carrier Strike Group 5 at full potential, the Reagan, three Ticos and nine Burkes.

Designed, but not successfully tested

​@@federicorodriguez5705 wdym? Look at the test record, plenty of MRBM intercepts, amongst many other target types

@Corey Leander tested with conventional MRBM not glidning nor manuevering and with a salvor of 2 sm6s per missile, sounds NOT proven to me as those are not the actual threats.

@@federicorodriguez5705 There are no maneuverable or glide body missiles in service currently. They are all in the experimental stage, the chinese missiles in the video are ballistic ones, not glide bodies

@@nicholaslee5473chinese had glided hypersonic missiles for years

keep in mind hypersonic weapons aren't Just about speed but about maneuverability. Even doing some basic evasive maneuvers would drastically decrease PK on these missiles.

Also let’s not forget that we can shoot down a satellite using a naval vessel which is cool but Russia shot down a satellite with their newest AA system from the ground.

And also electronic jammer that is also classified capabilities

@@hughmungus2760 PHYSICS is the biggest issue for maneuvering hypersonic projectiles, they MIGHT have SOME "maneuverability" at super high altitudes where the air is thinner, but on terminal phase it would be negligible course correction maneuverability unless they slow down to Khinzal speeds which are clearly easy enough for a PAC-3 CRI to hit and they were never designed to hit hypersonic weapons. You can try to tell me China has some kind of "dark tech magic" that makes it possible but as a pilot I can tell you from practical experience physics does not give a shit about made up stats.

@@Spartan536 Yeah, wouldn't any attempt to make drastic maneuvers at that velocity tear the missile apart due to atmospheric friction?

The American weapons were pointier.

*bointy

Very Aladeen argument. I am Aladeenly convinced.

Definitely the US knows this their just not bragging about it

This is disregarding that the carrier would be scrambling its bugs/fat Amy's which with awacs would be capable of missile interception as well, particularly aim120ds and aim260s. And it's also ignoring submarines.

@@Velanestar literally zero chance a carrier is scrambling jets while under attack with hundreds if missiles popping around it + performing evasive manoeuvres. Only after the attack ( if it survived ) it would launch jets for a counter attack.

@@marinuslubbe3993 the carrier would turn and get behind the escort and scramble. And it wouldn't take that long honestly, the pilots would be readying for takeoff and by the time two or three were ready to launch it'd be safe for them to do so- the pilots would fly lower, and to the side of the sams as well.. If the scenario played out like this where they stood Still and the carrier stayed in the center yeah no kidding no pilots gonna give the sams a closer juicer target- but this entire scenario is far from realistic.

@@marinuslubbe3993unrealistic scenario, aircraft would be kept in the air at all times in such a situation irl

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 typically a small airwing would be airborne at all times bit they would mostly be equipped with an air to air loadoad with no antiship capabilities.

“黑障”通讯技术已经在中国神舟飞船返回仓上使用很久，有相关论文以及发射过程中无间断的飞船舱内画面说明，可以自行查阅，不过是中文的。

Changing the frequency of the radar I think. At the same time that is one hot glowing ball that will show up on every radar and IR

It's a threat based weapon. And as we've seen in real life, don't underestimate the country that is decades ahead of everyone else in missile tech

We have just recently seen what the super duper wunderwaffe hypersonic Kinczhal of the Russians, that was supposed to be impossible to intercept, did in real life when they launched 6 of them at the Patriot battery in Kiev.

If I had to guess, probably some type of command guidance from a satellite with INS.

Exactly this, they would never tell you if they ran a simulation and lost the battle.

I'm sure it was something akin to, "We ran *a scenario and won*..." Perhaps an EMP device just prior to the Hypersonic barrage?

@@ryanshannon6963 quite possible

I think all sides bias their test to some degree but according to the CSIS the best that America can hope for in a war in the South China Sea is a pyrrhic victory where it sustains enormous naval and air losses to damage Chinese military assets, but the problem with even that barely favorable outcome is that it relies on key factor that won't actually come into existence if this happens for real. That is Japanese involvement in the war, and the reason that won't happen is that China's public policy when it comes to nuclear weapons is a no first strike, with ONE exception and if you guessed that the exception involves Japan joining in a conflict against China you win the prize. The Japanese are well aware of this policy and that is why they will not join America in this foolish endeavor. If the American military was smart it wouldn't even consider venturing into China's back yard, instead it would simply keep China from pushing out past a certain parameter where the Chinese cannot bring their most formidable capabilities into the play. That is a band aid solution however as China will complete it's belt and road initiative and will no longer rely on maritime access to keep it's economy going, the truth is that China's rise as a super power cannot be contained or stopped, America is just going to have to learn how to accept the existence of an equal power that doesn't bow to it's dictates like the rest of the world.

Reminds me of a certain other Asian naval power in WWII. Fantastic planning and execution, but if one little thing went wrong, the Japanese navy fell apart. And they had some _extremely_ optimistic assumptions in many of their wargames, like the Battle of Midway where they assumed they wouldn't be spotted by American carriers or recon planes, and stuck with that assumption well beyond reasonable bounds. As in, the original battleplan was a go, even after American planes started bombing their decks.

This is important I find.

The Chinese don't have 8 Type 055 destroyers in the first place.

Be honest guys this is silly, can you imagine soldiers attacking a strong point one at a time?

​@@carrier-buff they do

@@timneaves519 Did you watch till the end, He had 9 ships launch all their missiles as fast as possible and it still only let 1 missile through. and the reason why they did it as one ship launches a volley is due to AI limitations. In addition, the Chinese wargaming they based it off of said the Chinese launched in 3 volleys. Lastly, it is doubtful that if they launch 3 salvo's as a group would be much different than each launching separately, they are already coming in fast as is and the slight vector offset is insignificant for weapon targeting.

@@hhll8408 they don't have 8, they are having 16 soon

if and its a big IF hypersonic can be intercepted its easy, just send drones, aka Geraniums, .. they cost 20k apiece.. put anti ship missile on them, .. and for one inteceptor missile that costs 1 million ..do the match.. for 1 billion USD you get carrier groupd destroyed 10000% .. while a carrier group costs up to 50 billion USD.. 1 billion USD gives you 50k drones.. seriosuly... carrier groupd literally has no such amount of missiles even if one missile hits and destroys a drone.. 4 destroyers -up to 200 missiles, so 800 missiles, and carrier up to 150 missiles, .. so that is what..good 1k missiles.. well too bad you got another 49 THOUSAND drones going after you.. and you can add up some hypersonic missiles now that carrier group is depleted. this gaming play OP does is lame..doesn't mean anything in real life

Does DCS even model all that?

@CheapSushi I'm hoping they can mod it if its not that hard.

And are fired out of a four pack of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. One four pack per cell so one module of the launcher could house as many as 32 ESSMs. And with Thrust Vector Control steering for the rocket motor, the missiles do not need to launch as high as a Standard Missile and then dive in on the target.

@@Geno-xj9vt You're right, and VLS is much more efficient than the old school which were and still upgrading Legacy Launchers to support ESSM. They want to be able to fire the Block 2 with the TVC, but is proving to be challenging since it's heavier and longer than Block 1 because of the TVC. The Launchers can barely support loading Block 1 cause of weight, but it works, just a pain for the sailors doing the evolution. There are designs on the drawing boards to replace these Launchers on the flat tops with something else simply because we are reaching design limits of 70s tech.

If Taiwan are attacked the west's best defence would be to bomb every Taiwanese factory to dust before the Chinese get their hands on them. I can't believe the west have managed to build up such a dependency on Taiwan - particularly as we put the technology and factories there in the first place (Well, Phillips did!)

@@LondonSteveLee Yes, the West should bomb TSMC, they will have to import their chips from Mainland instead of Taiwan

they cant turn like that once they are in the atmosphere

He just wants to test the YJ21. He is NOT testing a saturation attack with multiple different systems.

I think yes. But that likely applies for sea skimming missiles only.

IRL yes but I don’t think DCS could handle something like that. In general, US missile systems (especially USN’s AEGIS) and missiles themselves are all DataLinked, so they can detect targets collectively, hand off missile guidance to one another, and change targets as they see fit. I think Navy has had a similar capability for years now thanks to the AEGIS but a land-based example of that networking would be that now, thanks to IBCS, Patriot missiles not only are going to be able to be guided by different ground-based radars (they could do that for a while) but also by aircraft like the F-35.

Nope. I tested it out already. 2 Type 45 and 2 Type 26 vs 2 Type 055. All British ships got deleted from the YJ-21s I ran it 5 times 5/5 times the Type 055 won. Which basically tells you the real probability. Type 45 Destroyer is an old ship with old defense compared to the Type 055 and the Type 26 is made for anti-submarine warfare not for anti-air. It can still help but not vs hypersonic targets. However, It done well vs supersonic sea skimming missiles. The 2 Type 45 and the 2 Type 26 actually defeated 80 supersonic anti-ship missiles. None of them got through.

No shot. First of all consider that Type 45 has half of Burkes VLS cells, worse radar and a significantly less sophisticated combat management system. Also, Aster 15 is probably useless against this and Aster 30 far inferior to SM-6.

The Russians said the same for the Kinzhal vs Patriot, then Patriot swatted them out of the sky irl. Obv its a game of chances and statistically a 45 doesnt have as many chances as a burke, but I wouldnt count them out. Besides DCS can only go so far, and China is a notorious liar

The YJ-21 isn't a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's a ballistic missile. As such they only have very limited maneuverability, good enough for tracking a ship going evasive at 30 knots but nowhere near enough to evade a SAM (SM-3 in particular is capable of mach 10+.) Still an impressive piece of tech but not quite as capable as you seem to think.

Tye thing about evasion at high speed is that you cannot turn near as aggressive at high speeds due to the sheer amount of resistance the air provides. It's like when an aircraft turns hard and rips its wings off. Same thing but imagine 5x faster. The best you can get is a slight deviation in path since it still needs to correct to hit the target. Speed is what kills so no point in bleeding off speed

Yeah they made themselves as easy a target as possible by not changing heading or speed. But still only one at most getting through.

That's the issue with these simulation. It assumes a Carrier Strike group will be transiting so close to China and without maneuvers. Realistically the U.S has enough intelligence capabilities to detect a possible attack well in advanced. Just look at the war in Ukraine. U.S knew the invasion was going to happen months ahead and is able to provide Ukraine with possible effective targets. Never underestimate U.S logistical and intelligence capabilities. It's second to none.

The Chinese did put carrier sized target onto S shaped rails to simulate evasive maneuver at 30+ knot. How good is the accuracy? No one knows, maneuvering target is something they considered when testing the missiles.

@@thomaszhang3101 There is actually no proof the their DF-17 can hit a moving ship. They built the mock carrier in the desert, but nothing really came of it. I find it hard to image the CCP wouldn't brag about hitting a moving target with a DF-17 if they did it. China loves its propaganda and a video of a moving mock carrier being hit would be too good to pass.

Well... while active manoeuvring added on the fleet, think about the same ability and real speed(M10~15) back on those YJ21... I prefer not, this simulation is fine enough...

You'd have to have cheap hypersonic decoys. Radars can and do identify threats based on speed and altitudes. You'd be able to see which missile is which. Sure, you would still have to go for all of them. But you could designate which missiles are going for the hypersonic targets and which go for the slower ones. If you are going to build a hypersonic decoy....you might as well throw a fuse and some explosives in it too and just make it a legit missile.

Problem with cheap dummy missles is they aren't that cheap once the flight and guidance are factored and each still needs a expensive launch platform with its own logistical footprint.

@@mrspeigle1 Exactly my point. After spending that much to make a decoy...you aren't far off from just finishing it and making an actual weapon. Might as well just make the real thing.

Why do you think UA ran dry of AA missiles? Cheap drones. Any army whose leader have half a neuron or more would be taking notes and should be revising their strategies. The Ukraine war is the first large scale modern warfare in human history, where modern weaponry were matched against each other and against attrition.

@@dharmdevil I'm pretty sure the Iraqi Republican Guard (or rather what's left of it) would disagree

But how are they tracking their target?

@@kerbalairforce8802 by using wz-8

Ok so say they can, that would mean they would have to slow down a lot, which actually makes it easier to intercept them

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman no need slow down, don’t use american logic bcoz they didn’t have technology on control missile during plasma zone

@@Vincent-xz2bj I aint using American logic. Im using physics.

I shouldn't make a difference when we're talking about using missiles to defend. If you were talking about a turreted weapon [like CIWS] then it could matter as turret rotation speed and burst fire length .etc would have to be accounted for.

The patriot did not shoot down the kinzal... west media is bullshit

Can you give a link to the interview? its a big news if its just mach 3 as most ballistic missile is faster than that.

​@@xpk0228doubt there is a link, because it's false. If there is an actual interview, then it's full of lies lol.

@@xpk0228 ​​ @Mark Wilhelmsson It's one thing to travel mach 5 at 40 km altitude. It's quite another to fly mach 5 near the surface of the earth. Your missile WILL burn up, even if it was made of solid tungsten, it life of a missile at mach 5 could be counted in seconds. Not to mention the plasma would blind any guidance. It's also not what Russia OR China claims. They claim transit speeds. That being the TOP speed the missile travels to the target with. NOT striking speed. The amount of energy to maintain mach 5 below 40 km altitude is insane and usually requires a rocket the size of... well, space rockets to maintain. Only reason a Kinzhal can even reach mach 10 is because it is launched from the air and piggyback off of the launch vehicles speed and then it FALLS down to the target, it does NOT boost into the target. Otherwise, feel free to provide some sources claiming otherwise.

AFU didn't shoot down any kinzhal, the picture they showed with a man standing by it was of an empty 500 kg bunker buster bomb casing.

The missiles would fall into the ocean.

The Hypersonic misiles have little to 0 manoeuvrability, would make the sam even more effective likely

Something tells me a ship based radar is much more capable than a fighter based one. And no weapon f-35 carries can touch a hypersonic vehicle. So it would become reasonable either against slower threats, or with the advent of aircraft-based direct energy weapons, though again, a ship based DEW will be more capable than an aircraft based one.

Aim120ds and aim260s with awacs guidance could likely shoot down missiles. And if I were the pilot of the jet and it meant saving hundreds to thousands of lives....well....lay on the grenade so to speak.

Hypersonic means speed not manoeuvrability, if they were to try and manoeuvre at those speeds they would destroy themselves, that is physics

Technically, ballistic missiles with greater than around 300 km range are hypersonic. I think these are in hypersonic cruise mode, though, with the rocket providing continuous thrust most of the way to the target, and a much flatter trajectory.

Most long range ballistic missiles are hypersonic - that essentially what Kinzhal is - a 1970s ballistic missile turned on its side and launched from an aircraft. It's hopelessly inaccurate - but you only have to get lucky once!

@@LondonSteveLee Sure, but they don't have to be particularly long-range. The German V-2 could reach Mach 5 on the way down at its longest range of about 300 km. As ballistic missiles just get faster the longer range they have, _everything_ longer-ranged than a V-2 is hypersonic. As to _Kinzhal_ I think it depends on how advanced the tech used in the missile is. When the Russians use it as a terror-weapon against civilian targets - very V-2 like - they don't bother with much beyond the inertial platform. If they've got a worthwhile target, like a regimental HQ or a _Patriot_ battery, say, they'll unpack the Western electronics and let it use satellite nav and terminal homing. But that's expensive, and irreplaceable at the moment. Meanwhile we don't really know how accurate they are, since so few of them have reached worthwhile targets. The _Patriot_ launcher that was damaged last month seems to have been hit by debris from a late interception, and the Russians may have put all the optional extras in those.

He'll probably have them done by dinner😂

​@@05councilmemberlol he is the man!😆👍

@@Anarchy_420 fr

@@05councilmember I wonder how difficult it would be for CH to take Grim Reapers version of F-22 Raptor and Mod it into The Super Raptor! Through The NGAD program The Raptor is receiving a slew of upgrades, as its being used as a stop gap solution for The NGAD program! Upgrades-- GR already have AIM-260 JATM in DCS, HMD, Link 16, Functioning Thrust Vectoring Model, and Chrome Stealth Coating! Giving The Super Raptor moderate reduction of IR signature, slight reduction of RCS, faster acceleration, and top end speed not having to worry about melting the RAM off! Lol that's just what I've been able to research, I'm sure I may have missed something, lol and I'm sure there's more that is simply classified ;)

@anarchy4202 hmm interesting, did know this but I would live to see it

Is there a source that says it's terminal velocity? I'm curious.

@@Just_A_Random_Desk PLA published YJ-21 average cruise speed and terminal velocity a few months ago

@@The136th I'm sure they wouldn't lie or anything...

Consider US carriers ran away when ever 055 and 052D show up, I think it's trustworthy. I'll trust Chinese sources over the GAE any time.

cn ships got more missiles at base cause the ship is larger, i remember they did a test and both sides just fired all of their missiles and did no damage

fact is there will be no carriers left to shoot anything. There is no defence vs cruise type of hypersonic ... like df17 and df21

@@hkfoo3333 the YJ-21 are classed as hypersonics, and this simulation was partially realistic. There is a defence against them as all you have to do is intercept the misiles.

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman It is impossible to Intercept the YJ21 . It approaches the ships at hypesonic and terminal evading measures like zig zaging to its target. Today there is no defence. Fact is fact. China today can beat any US carrier group anywhere on earth once there are enough Type 055 carrying the yj21. China is building more and more. Know this there is no defence against China's df17, df21, yj21 and df26 hypersonic missile. It is like getting a 70 year old man running to try to stop an Olympic 100 meters champion esp when the champion runs in a zig zag manner. See my point?

When did we sign the contract to buy them? Still no movement as far as I can tell. The French got Brimstone - our part of the bargain upheld as usual.

CH is a modder who makes these modules for GR

@@qfinck can anyone download them or is just for the GR

Hitting decoys don't count. You know the Khinzal drops those right?

@@hughmungus2760 Weird if they only hit decoys how come we didn't see any kinzhal hits around that patriot system?

hugh mungus yes, with decoys, 90%, you do know that the patriot interceptor has anti countermeasure subroutines built into it's software right? It's designed to operate against aircraft that have jammers, chaff and flare dispensers and towed decoys and other countermeasures. From what we see, after the operators give the system the authorization to launch, the system allocates as many interceptors as needed to get a 90% pk solution then launches them without any futher human intervention until the targets are destroyed.

@@hughmungus2760 has anyone checked to see if they are still sending kinzhal's after the Kyiv battery?

@@pogo1140 stuff is still blowing up in Kyiv.

DCS unfortunately severely lags behind in modeling naval systems, as it's first and foremost a flight simulator. I would like to see the SLQ-32 modeled as well. It's kind of silly not having naval electronic warfare modeled at all.

@@surefresh8412 exactly. I am a CMO fan, and I run similar engagements testing different ROE and threat priorities, and it uses optimistic specs for Chinese weapons, but also attempts to model the SLQ-32 which is perhaps the most classified hardware in the US military, and can turn radar fidelity to hash for at least a short period of time, which is all you need. The Nulka has been successfully deployed against Houthi missiles fired on USS Mason and it decoyed them as expected. Presumably it can create false radar targets for a nearly blind hypersonic missile whose sensors are degraded by a massive pressure wave at the nose of the projectile. Chaff is a mixed bag, because it can also interfere with CIWS tracking, but a ballistic missile is not going to be engaged with CIWS, so Chaff would be generously deployed in these scenarios, creating dozens of false returns. There is a reason why the US Navy prefers slower sea skimmers. Missile speed and sensor performance and ability to course correct are inversely proportional. Fast missile sensors lose fidelity by increasingly dense heated air at sea level which creates friction and heating problems that radar transparent surfaces have problems with. Likewise, at hypersonic speeds at low altitude any minor air disturbance has the potential to steer the projectile off course by hundreds to thousands of meters in an instant.

You need 3-4 SM-6 to stop one

@@stealth7545 Ballistic Missiles are not Hyperonic Missiles since free fall at hypersonic speed doesn't count, you need to maneuver. Things like Pershing II are borderline case since the warhead do some maneuvering, but it's nowhere comparable to YJ-21(Skip glider) or DF-17(HDV)

Last part of the flight needs to be slow bc of the blackout doing hypersonic speeds .. They talks about it her in the midt to end part of the video .. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7V1Y5CksZbSgWg.html

@@rasmusmeng2363 that's not right,in the terminal phase,the missile don't need any guide from radio electromagnetic wave signal，they finds the target by themselves。

@@user-bi7ov3yx4q okay but then it cant hit moving targets lika a carrier only a static target

A maneouvreing hypersonic makes your notion that you suggest of intercepting them further out completely fruitless. Interceptors would be getting sent to false locations.

@@jamesrowlands8971 At the end of the day you just need to put *something* in the way of the missile. Difficult, but not impossible. And when you have the kind of budget America does it isn't a matter of "if" they'll find a way to counter, it's "when". This is ignoring the most obvious answer, a directed-energy system. And with the nuclear power of American Super-Carriers, there's no issues with making sure it has the energy to do its job. Also, remember. In a real-world scenario, China isn't getting more than one shot, because there's no way for them to defend their launchers from American airstrikes.

@@jamesrowlands8971 No one said it would be easy, but that is why the new satellite program is so important. They need to be able to track/lock exactly where it is or may be for the missile to also change course. Another aspect is that if these hypersonic missiles are moving at extreme speeds they will not be turning on a dime and will certainly slowdown everytime they maneuver. So, yes it will be difficult but not impossible. After they get the right systems in place they will likely start testing. They are already developing an upgrades SM-3/6 with extended range. I can also imagine they are devoping other classifed ways of defeating "hypersonics".

@@rickjames18 it's not a question of whether it's easy or not. It's a question of very basic geometry. It's just not possible and no amount of magical thinking makes it so.

@@RaptorJesus ok. So you're going to build and place a missile system more capable than Patriot over every 10 sq km of vulnerable territory? I mean you're technically correct (the best kind) that it's possible to put something in between a hypersonic and it's target but there's a point at which economic considerations come into play. Can you deploy 10,000 missiles over your territory to defend your 1,000 point targets against a barrage of 10 hypersonics? Assuming your missiles can hit and intercept every incoming target. Should you build this many systems to defend against so few? Or should you just learn to accept the fact that you can't defend everything all at once and adapt to the new reality?

Directed energy weapons are absolutely the future...my sense is that this is the reason the US is trailing in hypersonic weapons, because they are so much closer to Lasers being available. No missile will be a problem for weapons shooting beams traveling at the speed of LIGHT

Useless against hypersonics. They're already designed to withstand enormous temperatures.

@@BravoCheesecake … not the temperature of the pin point of a xxxxwatt laser.

Not the correct kind of target. BGVs and HCMs have massive amount of thermal shielding on the front and DEWs will have very short time on target.

​​@@jonathanpfeffer3716 Wouldn't the energy from the laser be additive to the already high heat the missiles are dealing with? There will be a max heat level the missiles can take. I imagine a small amount of damage to the heat shield could be catastrophic.

These are YJ-21 which are a significantly modified version of the DF-21. The DF-21D does not maneuver randomly in its terminal phase, it keeps a linear path but its maneuverability allows it to change direction to hit a moving target, that is it.

Gotta remind people where all the money goes sometimes

Don't spoil the kids fun ;)

Terminal speed of the missiles is much less than mach 10.

​@@gonavygonavy1193Actually the mach 10 is the terminal speed

anglocope

These games never nail it 100% correct with weapon systems. But they try their hearts out, thats for sure.

depending on the missile, the ability for beam riding missiles to switch targets in mid flight has been around since the late sixties. More modern missiles tend to use semi active guidance or a GPS/active homing system which reduces ships radio emmisions signature and defeats RWR systems until the missile goes active in the terminal phase of the attack. AEGIS has the capability to signal outgoing missiles to alter the flight profile of the GPS system to rearget the missile. You must remember that this is DCS and not real life, its a simulator on a small computer with limited capability. The fact that missiles do not reaquire new targets is down to the fact that it's not in the game.

this

I'm advertising my ignorance here but if they're ballistic missiles, can they maneuver? I thought the whole point of a ballistic missile is that it went straight at what you pointed them at?

@@joelrasdall7662 Ballistic missiles ar a category that use ballistic trajectory to reach destination. This does not exluce possibility for them to maneuver along the way. Some can do that....

@@Flankymanga Only these misiles are Hypersonic. Which means they travel so fast that if they were to try and manoeuvre they were destroy themselves

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman except that they have to because they are guided.... they have to compensate for the differrence in presure, temperature, wind... so they are guided and they do maneuver.

It decelerates significantly as it gets closer to the target

@Sturmgeschutze sure, but at what range is speed bled off? For that matter, why? If (as I understand), it's coming in from high enough, you reenter it at mach 21+ like an icbm MIRV, no explosives pure KE and not worry about how far the ship moves in the time it takes to travel 40,000 meters (

@@duanesamuelson2256 Well the YJ-21, obviously, is classified, but the reports on the Patriot systems tracking and engaging Khinzals state that the supposedly Mach 8(?) missiles were travelling at only m3.6 when they were engaged. The key thing to note here is that the reported top speed is the *top speed*, not the impact velocity. It’s usually only reached at incredibly high altitudes and lost by the time it’s near the target.

in the 'scenario' china was firing at the US from over 1000km away. Nothing the US has could find and reach these launchers in time. Which is one of the benefits hypersonics have.

@@hughmungus2760 How about F-35s armed with anti-ship missiles?

@@gonavygonavy1193 you'd have to scramble all of them and get them there first. All that takes alot longer than just firing a missile.

@@hughmungus2760 The us has waaay better sensors than china, there is no posobilty of china being able to launch a strike like this without being spotted before launch

@@einar8019 you're talking about destroyer and carrier sized targets, both sides can see each other long before either get within range. Stealth on surface warships is next non existant because both sides would have their radars on and alerting each other where each other are.

Lockheed got a contract to test 1 of them. And I highly doubt that the Navy is gonna actually deploy them.

A vertically launched LRASM was configured and tested as well. Didn’t end up happening.

@@gamm8939 The USN should deploy them, if for no other reason than to break Raytheon's near-monopoly over missiles launched from those VLS cells. Also, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see a Patriot battery just set up on an amphibious assault ship's deck sometime in the future, because that's just how the Marines roll.

@@mage3690 yeah let’s deploy a far inferior system just to mess with Raytheon. I have no clue what capability the PAC-3 is supposed to have that isn’t covered by SM-2, 3 and 6.

@@gamm8939 you know, I was assuming that the PAC-3 MSE missiles would be a lot cheaper than an SM-6, but it turns out they're not. SM-3s _are_ massively expensive, though, at double an SM-6 or PAC-3 MSE, which are roughly equal.

The Kinzhal and YJ-21 are just called hypersonic missiles for propaganda purposes. The Kinzhal is just an air launched version of the Iskander short range ballistic missile and the YJ-21 is just a ship launched version of the DF-21 medium range ballistic missile.

@@collinwood6573yeah that is exactly what I read. I wonder if GS / DCS could replicate a real hypersonic missile? They are basically testing a ballistic missile defense in this video.

@@armchairgeneral7557 they dont exist and even if they did they are just overhyped propragana pieces like the t-14 or Su 57

They also forget black zone, but dcs probably can't simulate it

they also dont use american fighters that can shot doown missiles, or use american ECM or use proper american tactics

they do not have defense systems?

@kimeli Of course they do. And they would shoot down many US planes before being overwhelmed. The carrier air wing has too much firepower for the destroyers to survive without other support.

@@thefourthquarter7429 so 1 carrier have enough air power to defeat 8 destroyers?

@kimeli I believe the scenario was 4 destroyers, so, yeah.

@@thefourthquarter7429 i watched it again it was actually 9. if it was just 4 it would not make sense, i mean why would only 4 destroyers attack a carrier battle group knowing they are outnumbered and out powered.

Exactly. It was a propaganda piece and that's it. The U.S Military does war games all the time, but rarely do you hear about the outcomes. The reason is because the U.S conducts war games to learn and improve not to pat themselves in the back. The U.S intentionally makes the scenarios extremely difficult.

Thats just what youd think but I read the article and it says the opposite. The simulation was conducted by researchers from North University from China and not the PLA. Their lead researcher Cao said The underlying principle of the war game was to be “lenient with the enemy and strict with oneself". They claimed several constraints were placed on the Chinese military in the simulation, such as a lack of access to spy satellites stationed in space and a limited number of hypersonic missiles. I think it would be naive to think China doesnt try to learn from war games similar to the US and merely rigs it to win everytime simply to make themselves feel good, they might have political intentions but Chinese arent stupid people.

​​@@FloofyMinariThats just what you WANT to believe, reality is China isnt much different from US in their mentality. Read the original article about the simulation, its obvious many people commenting here havent bothered reading it and making assumptions thinking theyre all right about it.