How to beat US aircraft carrier

I have a way to beat a US aircraft carrier of a carrier strike group by a small air force:gun_smilie:

Is that cool?:D

 

Sorry, the text in the video is incorrect:doh:

The collect text:

 

Red:

40 x F-14s (Air to Air)

20 x Mig-21s (Air to Air)

20 x F-4s (Air to Air)

40 x Su-24s (Anti-ship strike)

 

Blue:

1 x Aircraft carrier

2 x Aegis warships

3 x Destroyers

1 x E-2D (AWACS)

8 x F/A-18s (CAP)

40 x F/A-18s (Reinforcement)

 

Now that deck crew has balls...

F-14s and F-4s attacking a carrier group in the Black Sea? That's a curious choice.

 

Now that deck crew has balls...

They're like the band on the Titanic. Just going to keep doing their jobs as the ship sinks around them :lol:

F-14s and F-4s attacking a carrier group in the Black Sea? That's a curious choice.

 

This is because sharing Miz files becomes convenient:thumbup:

how_to_beat_US_carrier.miz

The Iranians demonstrated a better way to do it. Encircle it with speedboats and fire RPGs at it. Like Indians firing arrows at surrounded settlers. :megalol:

 

The Iranians demonstrated a better way to do it. Encircle it with speedboats and fire RPGs at it. Like Indians firing arrows at surrounded settlers. :megalol:

 

 

 

I think someone forgot to set material condition zebra...was this thing commanded by the captain of the Stark?

It's been 3 years since I posted my first video (that video is no longer available as I deleted it a long time ago).
I created a similar mission again in early November of this year, and tried running it using the Open Beta version released on October 26th. Then I realized that the performance of the aircraft carrier's CIWS is now more highly regarded than before: it is now able to shoot down all anti-ship missiles of a saturation attack.

And I remembered that after posting the video three years ago, I found it strange that the structure of the US Navy CSG was reduced to only two guided missile destroyers escorting aircraft carriers. This is because, as you can see in the post above, at the time there was a heightened sense of crisis due to things like Iran's US aircraft carrier attack exercises.

However, I believe that the U.S. Navy recognized that a reduction in CSG composition was possible for the following reasons:
Even if it were attacked by a large number of attack aircraft and anti-ship missiles that exceeded the number that the Aegis ship's radar could simultaneously detect, the actual air defense performance of the CSG would not cause a fatal blow to the CSG.

I further considered attack methods on the October 26th ver. of DCS.
As a result, I realized the following:
Even though the CSG has an aircraft carrier protected by the air defense system including powerful CIWS and two missile destroyers, it is still possible to sink an aircraft carrier using a WWII era attack method using a large number of old-fashioned fighter jets armed with unguided-bombs--in other words, no matter how sophisticated the air defense system is, if it runs out of ammunition, it will become just a lump of metal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTjomT2TG6E

(Sorry, I was unable to embed the video)

I uploaded this video to X (old Twitter) on November 15th (that post no longer exists, including the account that posted it).
Then, in the latest Open Beta (November 22, 2023), the performance of CIWS had fallen to the same level as three years ago, and it was unable to prevent a saturation attack with anti-ship missiles.

What does that mean??

But in any case, it is not so difficult to sink a carrier of CSG depleted of anti-aircraft missiles, since it is now possible to bomb from high altitudes with laser-guided bombs.

How to beat a US carrier.miz

Edited November 26, 2023 by Fuujin
add youtube link

However, ``In the first place, DCS (which has much improved graphics due to MONEY-MAKING IDEOLOGY, BUT HAS A POORER SYSTEM THAN FALCON 4.0, WHICH WAS CREATED OVER 20 YEARS AGO!! ) was used to simulate real war". If you ask me, ``Is there any meaning in doing this?'', I would have no choice but to answer, ``THERE IS NO MEANING.''

4 hours ago, Fuujin said:

However, ``In the first place, DCS (which has much improved graphics due to MONEY-MAKING IDEOLOGY, BUT HAS A POORER SYSTEM THAN FALCON 4.0, WHICH WAS CREATED OVER 20 YEARS AGO!! ) was used to simulate real war". If you ask me, ``Is there any meaning in doing this?'', I would have no choice but to answer, ``THERE IS NO MEANING.''

If Falcon were really so good, then everyone would be flying it, instead of flying DCS … including you 

33 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

If Falcon were really so good, then everyone would be flying it, instead of flying DCS … including you 

Thank you for replying to my nonsense.
``Looking good on the outside (even if the inside is poor)'' has the effect of tricking people into thinking that something is worth more than it really is.
And today's world is full of such things.
Unfortunately, I was also one of those who fell for it.
On top of that, there's no denying that being able to fly a variety of aircraft is appealing.
No matter how poor the reality may be, if it looks good on the outside, the range of acceptable behavior will expand.
That's just it.

1 hour ago, Fuujin said:

``Looking good on the outside (even if the inside is poor)'' has the effect of tricking people into thinking that something is worth more than it really is.
...
No matter how poor the reality may be, if it looks good on the outside, the range of acceptable behavior will expand. That's just it.

 

That's kind of a shallow view of the world .. I fly DCS because I enjoy the flight experience it brings, not just because it may be "pretty" ... and yeah, being able to fly helicopters and warbirds sets it truly well apart from F4.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Rudel_chw
typo

What F4 had over DCS was a dynamic campaign. Its modeling of weapons, aircraft and systems was far behind. Which is because it had to run on computers of the day, at a time when nobody even dreamed of what 40 series cards or Ryzen CPUs would be capable of in just two decades. It made many simplifications, for example flak rounds were not simulated at all - the gun would fire, and then a black puff would appear near your aircraft. Even if you jinked away after seeing the flash. This is just one example of a bug I personally helped spot in the other sim, and was originally not a bug, but a necessary abstraction to make the sim run at all.

Claims that it simulated real war are farfetched. It did a good job simulating a specific type of conflict and giving the Vipers things to do. However, you can't claim that it simulated all the intricacies of real warfare, particularly anything that went on groundside. That part was extremely basic, and not simulated at all. Of course, DCS is not all that good at it, either, but in any case, the "boots on the ground" part of the war does not represent reality especially well.

Issue with simulating attack on carrier battlegroup is that even relatively wealthy medium sized country dont have resources to do this, even using large part of it's navy and entire airforce, how many countries really have triple digit air launched AShM's, another issue would be coordiantion of 100+ planes attack, and I m not going deeper into things like recon and maintainng targeting info during attack and so on. Weapons moddeling is just small part of this picture.

@Rudel_chw @Dragon1-1

I think what you guys say is correct.
The reason I wasn't satisfied with the F4 was because I couldn't fly the F-14 in a dedicated model.
I believed that DCS would make that dream come true.

However, the average person has no way of knowing how realistic the flight models and weapons used in DCS, F4, and other flight simulators are.
And when I looked at the trends of ED and module vendors, it seemed like they had a policy of making money more important than creating more realistic simulators.
The reason for this is that even though PC performance has improved so much, and even though it is a flight simulator that runs many objects in parallel, until recently DCS only ran on a single thread (therefore Dynamic campaigns were not possible).

On the other hand, it seems impossible to say that FalconBMS, which is completely free except for the base FALCON 4.0, is more realistically oriented than DCS.
Because FalconBMS focuses only on the F-16, and I think it's strange that the F-16 is an aircraft that was already completed in the last century, but the flight model is still being modified. It's from.
However, the F-16 has many variations and has been upgraded, so the flight model changes each time, so it may be necessary to modify it accordingly.

In any case, my personal impressions of DCS after playing it for several years are as follows:

• Regardless of whether this is realistic or not, the difficulty level was increased by making the module's operability more complex, thereby giving the player a sense of "reality."
• It comes with new modules, additional functions for missions and campaigns, and an easy mission creation function.
• However, overall it is a casual flight game that is an extension of Ace Combat.

Of course, even though DCS and other flight simulator games are like that, it doesn't mean it's bad, and I know that there are many people who are satisfied with it.
Furthermore, if a flight simulator game had a truly realistic flight model, it might not be possible for the average person without any training to fly it to their satisfaction, and appropriate difficulty adjustment may be unavoidable.
Similarly, it would be impossible to reproduce anything that has not been revealed by military secrets.

So, my dissatisfaction will be resolved by eliminating my personal expectations for existing flight simulators.

18 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Issue with simulating attack on carrier battlegroup is that even relatively wealthy medium sized country dont have resources to do this, even using large part of it's navy and entire airforce, how many countries really have triple digit air launched AShM's, another issue would be coordiantion of 100+ planes attack, and I m not going deeper into things like recon and maintainng targeting info during attack and so on. Weapons moddeling is just small part of this picture.

@Ramius007

To carry out this strategy, you need to collect and park a large number of aircraft somewhere.
Such a movement would make it easy for U.S. military reconnaissance satellites to detect it.
We will also need a lot of aerial refueling aircraft.

The U.S. military operated hundreds of aircraft at one time during the Gulf War, Afghanistan War, and Iraq War.
Is it possible or impossible? If you say so, it is possible.

Iran is said to be developing cruise missiles.
If they were given the ability to evade anti-aircraft missiles and CIWS bullets, and if they were able to assemble several hundred missiles, it would be possible to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier.

I believe that the problem of military resources can be solved by anti-American countries joining hands and cooperating, and in particular by Russia, the largest military state in the East, taking the initiative in providing military power.

If you really want to do it.

In FC3 last mission of Su-27 campaign is screening attack on Nimitz battlegroup, 2 AEGIS escorts, played this mission only once, but i was rather supprised that group of 15~ planes iirc (Su-34, Tu-22) was enaugh to sink it, but maybe thare was some mission scripting involved, I only saw in debrief that group was defending itself, so if anything I would assume carrier escort is too weak currently, but it was just one mission. What I wanted to say esarlier is that it's near impossible to simulate realistically attack on carrier battlegroup with combo of assets/maps we have in game involving realistic scenario, US carrier on Black Sea is not one of them

PG and Iran would be interesting, but as mentioned speedboats suicide assets or AShM ballistic missiles not in game and nobody have idea about effectivnes of such missiles currently if they get included

5 hours ago, Fuujin said:

Furthermore, if a flight simulator game had a truly realistic flight model, it might not be possible for the average person without any training to fly it to their satisfaction, and appropriate difficulty adjustment may be unavoidable.

This is far from true. The F-16 really is relatively easy to fly, I'd say easier than some GA aircraft. Flying itself isn't hard, and besides, you can't fly DCS modules "without any training". If you hop into the F-14 without doing the training missions first, you probably won't get it off the ground (or even start it up, unless you figure out it needs external air). Now, if you want to fly a DCS module well, then be prepared to study the aircraft in depth, fly hours of training to develop hand-eye coordination and an understanding of its behavior, then read up on real combat techniques and develop your tactics based on that. All this helps, particularly in serious multiplayer, which I can't imagine anyone could get good at without this knowledge.

DCS is not a casual flight game by any means. It lacks dynamic components needed to simulate regular day to day operations, but that's not the only thing you can do. Right now, it's something like a virtual museum, where you can experience flying vintage aircraft and some modern-ish ones in a series of fixed tactical scenarios. There are some cases where historical missions were recreated almost exactly, see Debden Eagles or Beware, Beware! campaigns by Reflected. These are WWII campaigns, modern conflicts would be hard to do this way on the maps we have, but the point is that realism of a given scenario is dependent on the scenario creator.

BTW, F4 was a single threaded application because computers in its time didn't have multiple cores. It had a dynamic campaign, no problem. Technical woes of DCS are not directly related to how good, or how faithful a simulation it is. DCS has some areas where the underlying engine is outdated, and ED is slowly improving this, but this has nothing to do with how flight modeling works.

5 hours ago, Fuujin said:

I believe that the problem of military resources can be solved by anti-American countries joining hands and cooperating, and in particular by Russia, the largest military state in the East, taking the initiative in providing military power.

I'm pretty sure you meant China, which is where the center of power is shifting to right now. Russia, right now, is not even capable of saturating relatively modest Ukrainian air defense, nevermind an Aegis-equipped CBG. Soviets might have had enough missiles to do this, but then, they'd probably have hit the CBG with a nuke or a nuclear torpedo, since any US-Soviet confrontation on this scale would likely have been nuclear. You don't need a direct hit or even one close enough to worry about CIWS. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Dragon1-1

@Fuujin

To add to what @Dragon1-1 has said, while you might be able to penetrate the defenses of a CSG, simply penetrating the defenses is by no means a guarantee of sinking even the escorts.

DCS' damage modelling for naval units is incomplete. For a good sense of what a carrier could withstand in WWII, I recommend researching USS FRANKLIN (CV-13). She was roughly a third of a modern carrier's tonnage, and lacked the modern design elements of modern-day warships, yet she withstood more than 3 1/2 hours of secondary explosions as her own ammunition and aircraft fuel supplies cooked off...more than 55 secondaries. She still returned to San Francisco under her own power from the coast of Japan. You cannot discount the value of the crew's damage control efforts.

I'd expect a modern US carrier to be still more survivable.

I recommend taking a look at the articles and scenarios presented at https://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/. Their Naval Sitrep magazine is a treasure trove of solid, technical and tactical detail.

Big ships are, in general, hard to sink. Unless you can explode a torpedo below it to break the ship in half, even wooden vessels can basically burn down to the waterline and still stay afloat. The superstructure is largely superfluous to the ship staying afloat, and the smaller the hole is in relation to the overall size of the ship, the more likely it is that the bilge pumps will basically be able to pump out anything that pours in. There were several cases where a ship was shot to pieces and, in calm seas, managed to get towed to port anyway. Even magazine and fuel explosions, as long as they're up top, will scatter bits of ship all over the water, but won't sink it. That would take an explosion deep within the ship's bowels, such as a battleship's shell magazine, or a fire in the oil bunker. Neither is a particular concern to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which carries its planes and their ordnance above the water.

Unless you're a submarine, there's a huge gap between sinking a carrier to the bottom of the sea and putting it out of action for the moment. Missile hits will punch holes, but those will be, at best, at the waterline, not below it. A freighter, such as Atlantic Conveyor, would sink, especially if the crew was evacuated (and thus not available to patch up the hole), but even that one only sunk under tow, long after it was hit. Sheffield only sank because the missile took out its fire protection systems, and it also foundered under tow. What a fire topside can do is force the crew to abandon ship, but as long as the crew can control them, the ship is going to take a while to go down.

58 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Sheffield only sank because the missile took out its fire protection systems, and it also foundered under tow. What a fire topside can do is force the crew to abandon ship, but as long as the crew can control them, the ship is going to take a while to go down.

70-80's era British ships were made from aluminium, very vulnurable to fire, OTOH we have USS Stark hit by 2 AShM in the 80's, menaged to survive and reenetered service, but steel hull.

That was a factor, too, but note that if it still stayed afloat for a long time. Stark was rather sturdier, modern warships in general can take multiple missile hits and survive, if not at full operational capacity. A carrier is very large, has powerful pumps and a large DC complement to fight the fires. All this translates into those ships being really hard to actually sink.

Of course, rough seas change everything. The Moskva encountered pretty severe weather after eating just two Ukrainian missiles, and it sank, despite being a big ship. A hole above the waterline can easily cause flooding if the waves get big enough, and large waves can also make it difficult to fight fires and repair damage. Rough seas also induce stresses on the damaged hull, which can cause further damage and more leaks to open up. If the ship is structurally compromised, it can be safer to abandon it when the weather gets bad.

14 hours ago, Fuujin said:

However, overall it is a casual flight game that is an extension of Ace Combat.

Nice provocation but look what it tells about you - wasted money on study sim and still can't see a difference vs arcade?

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If you hop into the F-14 without doing the training missions first, you probably won't get it off the ground (or even start it up, unless you figure out it needs external air).

True to a certain degree. First thing I initially did with the Hornet and then the Tomcat was to hop in a relevant mission and see if I could trap'em. I did. This was before I ever heard of Case-1 to be honest. So I just them down without breaking them. Now it is hard of course.

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

BTW, F4 was a single threaded application because computers in its time didn't have multiple cores.

Not true. I started up Falcon 4.0 the first time on W2K beta on a dual Pentium Pro for this exact reason. Of course I later ran the campaign on a second computer.

"Falcon 4.0 originally featured 3D graphics with multitexturing support. It was one of the first programs on the market which was designed multi-threaded to take advantage of dual-core x86 processors. The game used one thread for graphics and primary simulation and the other for the campaign engine."

Cheers! 

 

6 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

True to a certain degree. First thing I initially did with the Hornet and then the Tomcat was to hop in a relevant mission and see if I could trap'em. I did. This was before I ever heard of Case-1 to be honest. So I just them down without breaking them. Now it is hard of course.

You had to know what to do and you did it because of your previous flight experience. Of course early implementations were more forgiving without burble, gear damage or hook break&bounce.

You had to know what to do and you did it because of your previous flight experience. Of course early implementations were more forgiving without burble, gear damage or hook break&bounce.

That's true, but still felt a little easy. That's my point really, and we've all read about users on this and that forum who believe after flying sims, they could hop out into the real world and "do it". Honestly, it just shows how good and gqr this hobby has gotten and how addictive it is.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk