FYI... When the RAF sank Tirpitz the reason it capsized was at least two tallboy bombs just missed direct hits on the ship, exploding in the shallow bottom and caving in the side of the battleship.... Sound familiar?
That’s kind of the same idea the US had when sinking the Yamato. Kept hitting one side with torpedoes till it capsized. We did because when trying to sink its sister ship the Musashi, we hit both sides and it took forever for it to sink
@acecarpenter502 I can imagine, because hitting it on both sides, would have countered and balanced any listing; but keep hitting one side, and it could roll over quicker as the weight of the water it's tsking on, is all on one side.
@@Leper_Messiah. Its in the book, Tirpitz, Lonely Queen of the North. Much better and more informative than a silly docco. Written by men who were there, on the ship.
@@jamison884 also training for the Forward Air Controllers on site in the stadium who have to time the mission to coincide exactly with a specific moment in the National Anthem.
Well done Cap. My view of the weapon is that it is for delivering knock out blows to large ships. Not sneaking in to kill one. Most anti-ship weapons have been questioned as to the ability to sink versus mission kill a large warship/carrier. They are precise and will take out aspects including its ability to strike back effectively/radars etc. The B2’s are to come along once the AD is knocked out and break the back of anything afloat. Best to use stealth so they can still evade long range detection and can be timed to ride in after the air wings aboard the carrier have delivered the sitting ducks 🦆
The fact that they used a B-2 to drop this bomb to me implies that this is a first round weapon. They want the Chinese to be worried about surprise bombs.
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
@@johnsilver9338 thanks for that haven’t seen it before. Certainly a weapon to use long range against armed ships, really blurring the lines between a bomb and a cruise missile isn’t it. The size of the quick sink and its close range still makes me think it’s for a coup de grace then a sneak stealth attack
Cap, to answer your question about sinking a ship with all hands on board...you sink the ship. The people don't matter. I was in the USN...you sink the ship because the enemy will not care how they sink you. Morality means nothing in a naval conflict. Weapons are built to destroy ships...if anyone survives, then you can pick them up. If not, the boat is dead anyway...mission accomplished. Yes it's cold...but I threw MK48 ADCAPs at subs...you kill the sub, then you fly back to mother and reload. End of story.
Exactly... Mercy can be shown if they surrender. China isn't going to hold back sinking a carrier and killing 5000 people, the only thing they are working about is how the united states is going to respond to such a loss of life.
that whole argument was strange, like saying you don't want to kill tank personal? or apc one? or guy who is only holding that rifle that will kill you?
Sub vet here. As far as the morality question, weapons like this and the mk 48 are rather unlikely to be used against merchant vessels. What ever they are used on will have teeth, at which point we are actively doing everything we can to reduce their odds of surviving to 0.
I don't know why people misinterpret the laws of war so often. There's nothing against targeting enemy personnel, sailors or otherwise, with any weapon save those that have been determined to cause "undue suffering" which are few and far between. It's like the myth that you can't target enemy combatants with a .50 cal so you have to "target the equipment he's wearing". None of that is true, and nothing about sinking a ship quickly to drown its crew would be against the laws of war. Consider this: do you avoid destroying subs for the same reason? Of course not.
Underwater Explosion Physics: 1. Direct pressure wave from the blast crushes the bottom of the ship's hull. 2. A large bubble forms from the high-pressure gasses of the blast. Since water has inertia, the bubble expands to significant size. 3. The pressure of the water pushing back against the bubble forces it to collapse. Since water at that depth has mass and now velocity, the bubble SLAMS shut under the ship, causing a massive pressure spike looking for somewhere to go. 4. The path of least resistance is straight up, into the guts of the now-opened hull of our victim. This jet of water is nearly as powerful as the original explosion and can absolutely wreck the guts of a ship. Woe to all who happen to be within the nasty-zone. These two major damaging events are the reason why the later battleships and aircraft carriers (WW2 build to present) have TRIPLE bottoms; Explosion defeats one, water jet defeats the second, but the third layer still holds. Hopefully...
Submariner here. You're mostly right but there are some areas that need substantial elaboration and correction. 1) The most intense part of the warhead's explosive shockwave travels through the water column, and approximately 70% of it is rapidly contained by the surrounding water. The remaining shockwave continues beyond the explosion but becomes wasted energy. While part of this energy is wasted through the formation and collapse of cavitation bubbles, the majority of it is wasted by launching the surrounding water into the air, forming extremely high-pressure jets of water that initially strike the hull, potentially causing some minor damage. However, this is much less significant compared to the overall explosion *(opposite of what you said).* 2) Due to the tremendous amount of energy released, the water immediately interacting with the shockwave is superheated and flash-steamed, creating a massive very-low-pressure cavity in the water column, consisting of essentially nothing but air and steam. By this point, most of the water surrounding the ship's keel has been forcefully evacuated into the air from the combination of the water jets and the formation of the low-pressure cavity. This leaves the ship temporarily suspended, like its floating in the air. This is when gravity takes over. 3) The ship then falls into the empty cavity until it encounters enough force to regain buoyancy, though this is by no means a soft landing. Upon impact, the ship is off-balance where its center of gravity is the exclusively focused on the keel. This forces the entire ship's weight against its own keel, snapping it like a twig while subsequently exposing it to a rapid spike in hydrostatic pressure. This basically doubles the force of the keel impact and amplifies the "snapping" effect. (By exposing the ship to its own weight, it essentially nullifies the positive effects of additional hull armor, as more armor causes the ship to weigh more, thus increasing the force on the keel as a result.) 4) That being said, the spike in hydrostatic pressure is driven by the surrounding water column rapidly falling, just like the ship, in order to fill the cavity. As it collapses and attempts to reach equilibrium, it forces it's way through any and every opening inside the ship that's obstructing it's flow. The water, now under relatively higher pressure in these openings, acts like a wedge, tearing the broken keel wider and wider until the pressure equalizes across the cavity and inside the flooded sections of the ship. 5) By this point, the compartments of the ship within the initial crumple zone are entirely flooded. This rapid ingest of water is what causes the ship to sink almost immediately due to the weight of the ingested water now causing the ship to exceed it's displacement value. If the crew did a poor job ensuring water tight integrity (which I'll touch on next), the water will continue to flow in and sink the ship faster and faster. For clarification, on point #3, when I mentioned that more armor would be nullified by an underwater detonation, I should say that it's not the armor that has the most success at reducing damage. It's actually effective efforts by the crew to maintain proper wartime containment when they know they'll be potentially attacked (In this case, dog zulu). Ensuring all unnecessary watertight doors are shut does considerably more toward the survival of the ship than any additional armor. This is where large ships like aircraft carriers and battleships have a substantial survival advantage because with more compartments and redundant systems available, they have a much easier time sealing off lower decks and mitigating what would be a potentially lethal strike on smaller units. While armor can *reduce* the extent to which the keel snaps, an effective strike, regardless of how armored the ship is, will result in a catastrophic loss of ship if the crew does not adequately maintain water tight integrity before the strike.
@@trick7039 Wow, your words have described every event that happens into a very slow motion imaging in my mind. And to think that this all takes place in a mere few moment in real time. I solute your Submarine service to our Country and sharing you knowledge with us. This comes from a Marine veteran who was a gunner on a tank in Vietnam. I am full aware of the aspects of being confined inside a moving potential tomb. God Bless.
The principle of exploiting the pressure wave through a medium other than air was exactly how Barnes Wallace arrived at the design of the Upkeep mine and the Tallboy and Grand Slam "earthquake" bombs in WW2.
The propeller sound effect at 8:45 as it hit the ship was out of the blue and I was expecting a shadow of a zero to appear on the side of the hull. It should have been screaming Tora! Tora! Tora!
@4:02 when you asked what is it doing. When the B-2 turns on the ground depending on the direction the split rudders open since the B-2 uses its rudder pedals to turn on the ground(if you didn't know). Now far as the flutter, I'm sure that's just a DCS thing.
6:19. the B2 flies out of Whiteman AFB located just South of Nob Noster, Missouri which is located 70 driving miles East of Kansas City Missouri on US highway 50 - where I live...
Excellent work, couldn't be more pleased with all the hard work to get this working. Shows that capital ships are very difficult to sink, even with out of the box thinking.
I'm glad you have morals Cap. The ship sinking moral dilema you mentioned is not new. In WW1 (& 2) there was much debate as to the legality of submarines if they didn't follow 'Cruiser Rules', the rules of commerce raiding (going back to the days of privateers) which said that unarmed ships may not be attacked without warning and the crew should be given time to evacuate the ship by lifeboat before it was attacked & sunk. In both wars the rules were followed by submarines initially, but were then abandoned. War is a horrible business. (After WW1 Britain tried to get submarines banned completely as part of the Washington Naval Treaty, but failed.)
Could you imagine being on deck of that ship? Bomb just misses you and you're like! "Yay!!!" Only for it detonate a second later breaking ships back. I'm an American and even I'm like, "that's kinda fucked up."
I think it’s perfect weapon for big supply ships sitting in port or anchored somewhere in queue. Minimum people damage. And maximum ship damage. Maybe ?
Cap, you're not the only one getting "soft". I find these days I like the "low collateral damage" weapons. Ones like the SDB, and the guided hydra rockets. The only real exception are the CBUs.
theres an argument made for precision because chucking low accuracy bombs and shells at the enemy is rarely effective unless theres a huge concentration of them. Reducing the logistics footprint. especially for the US which has to ship weapons half way around the world to use is important.
I think they made the quicksink to be deployed on the B-21 but because they can't test it at the moment with the B-21 so they did It with the more expensive option.
I once heard that the effect of exploding under the keel is actually creating a large cloud of gas bubbles, which creates an area that doesn't support the ship's weight. given that a ship is not built to support its own weight just from the ends, it will break its own keel. It seems more reasonable to me than the shockwave hypothesis, because the shockwave would be stronger the closer it will be, and most effective if it explodes inside the hull
4:59: The crew is essentially collateral damage. Its tragic, but they are a valid target. 6:39: I believe they took off from somewhere in Missouri (not Central America,) bombed Afghanistan, and landed on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. 7:21: Just an FYI, the B-2 has to be parked in AIR CONDITIONED hangars to prevent the degradation of its RAM coating. 7:30: Why don't you go ahead and try that. My money is on the literal wall of S-300s heading your way.
Certain vessels are "off limits", as are enemy warships under specific conditions, not methods of destroying vessels. It is considered a war crime to attack survivors in the water, lifeboats or Hospital ships.
I showed this to my uncle who used to work for Northrup. When he heard the discussion about the b2's rcs he started laughing and walked away. He refuses to explain other than, "let them think that"
I mean, you only need to (visually) look at it and see how how smooth and featureless the aircraft is from 40,000ft below to imagine how wildly stealthy it is
honestly im extremely surprised how good people involved in these projects are at keeping secrets. its frustrating lol. think of all the hundreds of thousands/millions of people who've worked on these projects as well as being submariners. very rare for one to speak about it.
Just sounds like empty bravado. It doesn't sound like he worked on the B2 at all, and even if he did, if he didn't directly work on the B2's stealth design he would have no idea what the RCS is. Even people working on other parts of the aircraft, like the engines or avionics, would have no idea what the RCS is. Such information would only be given to the few people who absolutely require it.
If the Quicksink can only be deployed from close up, it would be most useful for hitting an entire convoy of lightly defended cargo ships with one bomber. One could make the convoy lightly defended by using an F-35 to launch HARMs against an escort's radar before the bomber comes within detection range. Also I wonder if the jammers of an E/A-18G would be able to degrade a destroyer's search and/or targeting radar enough to allow a stealthy plane to come within range.
Given the USN "Carrier Air Wing of the Future" has 7 Growlers with Next Generation Jammer pods and 20x F-35C aircraft, each with their own very powerful radar and electronic warfare capabilities, and finally, 5 E-2D Hawkeyes, the invisible electronic war in a modern encounter is just insane. That is on top of each of the ships on both sides with masts fulls of sensors and powerful radars. Likely one of the least understood aspects of war per public knowledge.
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
The 2000Lb Mark 84 Warhead has 578kg of equivalent TNT - Mark 48 ADCAP has a 295kg warhead - not quite sure the exact TNT equivalent as the whole warhead contains more than just the explosive filler...nevertheless the 2000Lb will make a mess out of a ship. I wouldn't be surprised if they added the AGM-123 Skipper Missile assembly to it as that turned a bomb into a bomb/Missile hybrid that extended the bomb range with a rocket motor
Given the limitations of DCS, perhaps the easiest way to get a "close enough for GR" simulation of Quick Sink would be to code the JDAM to think it's a TV guided hit-to-kill bomb like Pave Way? DCS already has a couple TV guided weapons, so most of the work is already done for you too, compared to trying to make LGBs behave like a TV guided bomb. The Quick Sink kit is more or less an IR TV guidance kit anyways, so it wouldn't be that far off from reality, the main inaccuracy is that DCS can't simulate naval cavitation warheads.
Thanks for doing my requst, really impressed with how quickly you got it turned around! Not the result I was expecting, assumed the B2 would have a lower RCS so that at 40,000ft they wouldn't be able to get a lock, I thought the unknown factor would be how their missiles would fair against a saturation attack of cheap bombs as opposed to the missiles they are more commonly designed to hit. But its still good to see science in action. Maybe they used the B2 as a placeholder for the B21 as I assume the B21 is going to have a considerably lower RCS bith from being considerably smaller and from advances in stealth technologies.
With any modern "warship" including the Burkes or the T-45's, even though they aren't "armoured", if you hit and broke them in half (like with this or a modern torp) - they would still float. The front of the ship will be floating over here and the aft of the ship will be floating over there, but both will still be floating on their own. This is as long as they are ready for boom-boom and have all the internal hatches shut (like they should be) See any of the sink-ex stuff over the past 20-30 years where the ships internal doors have been closed.
Whenever you can find a number for a plane's radar cross section, take the lowest number and then cut in half. that might get you close enough to the real number. Also, you tend to lay out detection rings like it's two dimensional. It's three. At it is 8 miles high with a 30 mile detection range the plane is about a mile and a half further away due to the angle. not much but it helps. if the true detection range is half what you posted (I feel is likely) then the detection range becomes 15 miles which is the range of the weapon. Add in the angle range and it's 17 miles. So go to 14 miles horizontally. drop and turn. Then even if they pick it up, by the time they launch, the B-2 is outside detection range again. Read Ben Rich's book, Skunk Works and he describes some of the things they learned with the F-117 and stealth.
RTX/LockMart - "Boss, it took us 2 years and countless tests, but we finally have a bomb that will fire just off the ship, absolutely top of the line engineering!".... Cap 'n the Boys - "Set the laser off center by 30'."
Hey Cap, thanks for the video. One quick thought, and I'm NOT asking you to mod this in or re-test, but if the US were to use an extended range JDAM kit on the Quicksink, that would put it outside of the ~30 mile firing range of the ship. Then the ship would have the chance to shoot at the incoming glide bombs and likely hit them. And it would likely be a little bit less than optimal due to the angle of entry into the wider coming in at such a shallow angle versus the ideal vertical entry plunging down right on the side of the targetted ship. Either way, it is still a great little weapon and the most punch per dollar versus enemy ships in general.
Interesting. I think it is viewed as a way to take down large poorly defended targets at low cost. RORO ferries for example. High end area defence SAMs are always going to be a problem. Running it twice was good. Really shows that a laydown delivery like it was 1962 isn't going to cut it in the era of high powered AESA radars, bellringer lowband systems, and multi-static systems. Plus ARH LRSAMs. To get range you have to be high, and you will be seen. However, fit that Quicksink with a wing kit (Diamondback?) from 40k ft and you'd probably get ~40+Km standoff. Maybe enough to release before the HHQ-9s light off. But at that point probably better to carry SDB and swamp the defender with 4 times the munitions. Peace.
QuickSink is one of our better (yet obvious) ideas. Navy vessels can be surprisingly resilient. (Check most SINKEX videos on here). Yet you break her back, she's done. FFG-7's were constructed of a lot of aluminum, but you can see the amount of punishment USS Crommelin (one of my former homes) took before she went down.) :(
It would be interesting to see what RCS was necessary before the plane could complete the mission. Keep repeating with lower and lower numbers until success.
america rediscovers barnes-wallis bomb principles (bouncing bomb underwater detonation, earthquake bomb). morals in war: uboats stopped surfacing to sink ships and let the crew get into lifeboats because too many uboats got sunk in ww1. they didnt bother with warning each ship in ww2 just declared an exclusion zone in the entire atlantic.
There are no rules about how you can hit a ship or the crew, except if they are unarmed and in the water. Anything other than that, they are no different than a soldier in a trench.
The cost of the B2 was driven by its manufacturing facility that was set up for 132 aircraft. A's the USSR was collapsing, the Pentagon kept reducing the production of the B2 eventually settling on just 20 aircraft. But the cost incurred for the production rate and rate for 132 aircraft was the principal cause of the huge cost.
It's the Barnes Wallace technique. His bouncing bombs design that did for the German dams in WW2. Amazing how a dumb bomb becomes devastating with a tweak
Another theory, the aurora crashing and tsunami could have destabilized the island and made it start to fall apart. Or the reactor blowing up also causing destabilization
Confirms what many military observers thought--QUICKSINK is too short-range to be used against the more modern air defenses put out by near-peer nations, to wit, China and Russia. Conceivably it could be used with the aid of heavy jamming, decoys and cheap, non-stealthy anti-ship cruise missiles. Even then, it would be a very high-risk mission for the QUICKSINK bomber crew. It is only likely to be effective against severely depleted anti-air capabilities.
Yea I imagine a B2 can drop maybe a dozen 2000lb bombs really I don't know but 10-16 is my guess. But a sea wiz or equivalent you would think would make quick work of a dozen mild maneuver bombs
The majority of the ships involved in an invasion of Taiwan with either be large civillain vessels or lighter naval escorts and landing craft. The actual naval vessels would be targeted with LRASM, NSM, BLK4 Tomahawks, and ADCAP.
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
The only practical use of this weapon would be against targets that can't shoot back. Getting within JDAM range is pretty much not going to happen against a modern chinese destroyer and even assuming you're using some wonderweapon like the B21, the bombs themselves being non stealthy and unpowered are easy to hit
Central america describes the location of the countries from mexico down to the top of south america. The proper wording would be from the center of america or from the “mid west”
The B-2 took off from Minot, South Dakota where the wing is based. The crew change happen at the US base, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Just a bit of trivia for you Capt. 🫡
Re the attack on the Carrier Group, who removed all the EW capability of the attackers? Where did the HAARMs disappear to? Nobody is daft enough to launch B-2s without doing some prep work.
The PR/marketing of QUICKSINK is very misleading. Couldn't find the name of the ship which was sunk in the test & shown broken in half, but it is clearly not a warship. It looks like a (not very large) auxiliary or merchant ship. Warships may not be armoured any more, but they are still built much stronger than merchant ships. A single bomb will still do a lot of damage, but I doubt if it could break even a small frigate in two like that. The General Belgrano (an old ex-US WW2 era light cruiser) was hit by two torpedos in 1982. But didn't break up and sank slowly enough for the crew to have time to evacuate - the order to evacuate the ship was only given 20 minutes after the torpedoes struck. (The animated promo video for Quicksink distastefully shows it destroying a container ship, not a warship.)
killing the ship while safeguarding the crew would be detrimental to the war effort in general. you kill whatever you can. This ensures that the combat you are engaging in has a clear final outcome. Saving a crew means they can go and eventually get into another ship later. Think of that concept in WWII in Japan. We won that theater because we killed all of their good pilots and it wasn't sustainable by the Empire. What would've happened if we allowed everyone to go home instead?
Strange they didn't make it a glide bomb since it's not that much more expensive or complex than a jdam but gives more standoff which i suppose would be very useful when attacking vessels that can shoot at you
Let me ask a hypothetical question - do you think we'd have retired all of our F-117s before the f-35 was available, if the b-2 had an RCS 10-100x greater? That should be a pretty good way to think about how small the b-2 RCS is.
Why they use the B2 is that stealth matters when you are trying to get into bomb range with enemy ships with air defense. also it should only be used againest degraded enemy assets like a destroyer or carrier with disabled radar, so it's a clean up weapon.
Darpa is known to have technologies ten to twenty years in the future in their laboratories currently. Darpa developed technologies like stealth Or low observable aircraft Are basically mainstream now. We likely have newer technologies that would make all of these scenarios pointless. I'm particularly thinking about energy warfare lasers and directed energy weapons. I hope you have a great day.
Why would crew casualties be something you want to avoid, if you're launching a bomb designed to very quickly sink a ship, at the ship your enemy is occupying? I can't think of any regulations or treaties that call out that you must make an effort to prevent loss of life to a vessel's crew, or even be considerate of it. During a war, you would think that taking out an entire trained crew for one of the vessels your enemy fields would be an advantage, as it takes a lot of time to re-train that many sailors and bring them up to speed, and they'll all be short on any kind of experience.
The whole point of using B-2 is to send a message to the world's navies. That message is, "we can sink your ships from Missouri with cheap ass bombs, and you probably won't see us coming. Oh you think our aircraft carriers will be in play? Think again." That's why we used a B-2 to drop a cheap bomb that sunk a ship as well as a torpedo. War games are as much about diplomacy as they are testing and training. This was a message to China. We don't need to put our ships in harms way to sink you. We can do it from middle America. It's the same reason B-2s traveled 15,000 miles to attack the Taliban. Not because the Taliban had working S-400 sites. We did that just to show the world we could. B-52s could have and had been safely dropping that ordinance. When the B-2s get brought out, it's for our training, and to tell the rest of the world, "yeah...we can do that." Why? If B-2s get forward deployed, the world takes notice. Those missions are use saying, "oh you think because the B-2s aren't forward deployed, that we're not serious? Hold that thought..." Look as an American, I hate that we beat are chest about being free so much. It's silly. So many other countries are free and some even more than us. If there is a thing we should beat our cheats about it's, "fuck around and find out." I'm sorry world, but 99% of the time we're playing nice. I mean who are you really afraid of? A Russian turboprop bear long range bomber or a B-2 or B-21? Honestly, sometimes I'm thankful for Russian ballistic missiles. Without them plus the wrong US leader and we could have easily turned into real pieces of shit. Like way worse than you already think we are. Checks and balances matter even on a global scale.
We used the B-2 for the quicksink to demonstrate that it’s as destructive as a bolt of lightning. It strikes without notice and without detection, and now, can hit anything anywhere anytime
I'd rather my ship were snapped in half from the outside so I'm escaping water, than blown in half from the inside so I'm escaping..... you know, explosion.
That’s a great point cap. My grandad was a tanker. He got clobbered by a Stuka and had to bail out. The Germans took pot shots at him then stopped when he was fully out. Apparently that was the rule. Is there a maritime version of this rule? The main factor here is that it can’t be defended against. Torps, bombs etc could be dealt with in a manner. But this nothing.
B-2 has a smaller cross section than F-35..... Yes, your inforgraphic was the first return on Google from reddit, but it's pretty well agreed upon that its RCS is more similar to Raptor, so smaller than F-35, something like 0.001m^2. But its so much bigger...blah blah blah, flying wing.
Not useful against actual warships obviously, but perhaps it's intended for use against low-end targets like naval militia & logistical shipping within the coverage of A2AD networks by stealth aircraft. Like turning stealth aircraft into flying subs for sinking merchant ships to cut off supply lines, using JDAMS to sink supply ships is way cheaper than harpoons or LRASM and LRASM can be saved for anti-warship use.
HOw long until they start re-using artillery barrels - like the 1991 bunker busters - and have the just go straight through the deck and out the bottom?
Given the missions B2’s have flown against existing air defences, I find the estimates you used for the RCS of a B2… a little high. No, a lot high. Not that a Chinese carrier task force’s overlapping radars couldn’t detect and neutralise one, but to just pick it up at 30km and pick it off… I think we’d have seen more losses when they were used against conventional militaries on missions.
keep in mind the radars the B2s went up against were obsolete 60s and 70s era hardware at best. Chinese destroyers are equipped with state of the art radars
Not to get off the subject, buttttt...... I've been subscribed to your channel for a couple of yrs 4-5 and finally gotten the $ to get the equipment to TRY out DCS. To cut from the chase, I've got a 64 bit Comp. and the Saitek X35 needs a 32 Bit? And I've tried every avenue to get things going, your set up videos.... and even a guy hooked into my computer and tried to make things work!!! He left me like an ugly bride!!!! Help me if you can!!!!!!! A Hillbilly in Alabama!!!!!
I think people are missing the point when it comes to the morality issue. It's not about sinking the ship that's the problem. It's the fact that this is designed to split the hulls of ships which are not actually designed for combat. These are civilian ships it's designed to go up against. Not that I am saying it is wrong to target them. There are so many reasons why you have to target these ships. The problem with it is though you can sink a ship and still give them time to at least evacuate. This bomb, if you aren't aware of the difference between being hit by a bomb in a vehicle and dying instantly and being hit by one of these bombs inside a ship. only people in the immediate area will die, most the other crew will be stunned and very few would be relatively unaffected. In the span of less than 10 minutes the ship will be under water and due to physics, the air escaping creates a vacuum around the ship. You're not instantly killing about 80 people. You're condemning them to die inescapably over a period of time. That's the reason why maritime laws are very different to how it works on land. I'm not going to defend or argue why it should or shouldn't be allowed. It's just that people don't quite understand it's not the same as hitting a vehicle on land killing a truck filled with soldiers lol. It's more akin to bombing a power station then dropping napalm around it to make sure the workers can't survive...
FYI... When the RAF sank Tirpitz the reason it capsized was at least two tallboy bombs just missed direct hits on the ship, exploding in the shallow bottom and caving in the side of the battleship.... Sound familiar?
That’s kind of the same idea the US had when sinking the Yamato. Kept hitting one side with torpedoes till it capsized. We did because when trying to sink its sister ship the Musashi, we hit both sides and it took forever for it to sink
Buckling is a bitch
@acecarpenter502 I can imagine, because hitting it on both sides, would have countered and balanced any listing; but keep hitting one side, and it could roll over quicker as the weight of the water it's tsking on, is all on one side.
Is that in the Documentary with Tirpitz and Bismarck? I think it was on the History Channel.
@@Leper_Messiah. Its in the book, Tirpitz, Lonely Queen of the North. Much better and more informative than a silly docco. Written by men who were there, on the ship.
cap: an expensive way to drop one bomb.
usaf: sure we can do a flyover for a college football game.
To be fair, they count as training mission time. Jets and pilots can't sit idle or they waste away.
Not dropping a super expensive bomb at the game and the fuel cost is also probably way less than flying to another part of the worlds oceans
@@jamison884 also training for the Forward Air Controllers on site in the stadium who have to time the mission to coincide exactly with a specific moment in the National Anthem.
also also its a great recruitment for post grads to join the armed forces
@@Asethet and also for the Pilots to fly in formation and still get the ToT Right. so it is training for everyone
Well done Cap.
My view of the weapon is that it is for delivering knock out blows to large ships. Not sneaking in to kill one.
Most anti-ship weapons have been questioned as to the ability to sink versus mission kill a large warship/carrier. They are precise and will take out aspects including its ability to strike back effectively/radars etc.
The B2’s are to come along once the AD is knocked out and break the back of anything afloat.
Best to use stealth so they can still evade long range detection and can be timed to ride in after the air wings aboard the carrier have delivered the sitting ducks 🦆
The fact that they used a B-2 to drop this bomb to me implies that this is a first round weapon. They want the Chinese to be worried about surprise bombs.
@@mdsx01I think that’s exactly why they chose the B2.
😂 I hope china believes this data
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
@@johnsilver9338 thanks for that haven’t seen it before. Certainly a weapon to use long range against armed ships, really blurring the lines between a bomb and a cruise missile isn’t it.
The size of the quick sink and its close range still makes me think it’s for a coup de grace then a sneak stealth attack
Cap, to answer your question about sinking a ship with all hands on board...you sink the ship. The people don't matter. I was in the USN...you sink the ship because the enemy will not care how they sink you. Morality means nothing in a naval conflict. Weapons are built to destroy ships...if anyone survives, then you can pick them up. If not, the boat is dead anyway...mission accomplished. Yes it's cold...but I threw MK48 ADCAPs at subs...you kill the sub, then you fly back to mother and reload. End of story.
Exactly... Mercy can be shown if they surrender. China isn't going to hold back sinking a carrier and killing 5000 people, the only thing they are working about is how the united states is going to respond to such a loss of life.
100% Yes.
I know, I was thinking along those lines too when I heard morality brought up...
Slava Ukraine!
that whole argument was strange, like saying you don't want to kill tank personal? or apc one? or guy who is only holding that rifle that will kill you?
Sub vet here. As far as the morality question, weapons like this and the mk 48 are rather unlikely to be used against merchant vessels. What ever they are used on will have teeth, at which point we are actively doing everything we can to reduce their odds of surviving to 0.
I don't know why people misinterpret the laws of war so often. There's nothing against targeting enemy personnel, sailors or otherwise, with any weapon save those that have been determined to cause "undue suffering" which are few and far between. It's like the myth that you can't target enemy combatants with a .50 cal so you have to "target the equipment he's wearing". None of that is true, and nothing about sinking a ship quickly to drown its crew would be against the laws of war. Consider this: do you avoid destroying subs for the same reason? Of course not.
Underwater Explosion Physics:
1. Direct pressure wave from the blast crushes the bottom of the ship's hull.
2. A large bubble forms from the high-pressure gasses of the blast. Since water has inertia, the bubble expands to significant size.
3. The pressure of the water pushing back against the bubble forces it to collapse. Since water at that depth has mass and now velocity, the bubble SLAMS shut under the ship, causing a massive pressure spike looking for somewhere to go.
4. The path of least resistance is straight up, into the guts of the now-opened hull of our victim. This jet of water is nearly as powerful as the original explosion and can absolutely wreck the guts of a ship. Woe to all who happen to be within the nasty-zone.
These two major damaging events are the reason why the later battleships and aircraft carriers (WW2 build to present) have TRIPLE bottoms; Explosion defeats one, water jet defeats the second, but the third layer still holds. Hopefully...
Submariner here. You're mostly right but there are some areas that need substantial elaboration and correction.
1) The most intense part of the warhead's explosive shockwave travels through the water column, and approximately 70% of it is rapidly contained by the surrounding water. The remaining shockwave continues beyond the explosion but becomes wasted energy. While part of this energy is wasted through the formation and collapse of cavitation bubbles, the majority of it is wasted by launching the surrounding water into the air, forming extremely high-pressure jets of water that initially strike the hull, potentially causing some minor damage. However, this is much less significant compared to the overall explosion *(opposite of what you said).*
2) Due to the tremendous amount of energy released, the water immediately interacting with the shockwave is superheated and flash-steamed, creating a massive very-low-pressure cavity in the water column, consisting of essentially nothing but air and steam. By this point, most of the water surrounding the ship's keel has been forcefully evacuated into the air from the combination of the water jets and the formation of the low-pressure cavity. This leaves the ship temporarily suspended, like its floating in the air. This is when gravity takes over.
3) The ship then falls into the empty cavity until it encounters enough force to regain buoyancy, though this is by no means a soft landing. Upon impact, the ship is off-balance where its center of gravity is the exclusively focused on the keel. This forces the entire ship's weight against its own keel, snapping it like a twig while subsequently exposing it to a rapid spike in hydrostatic pressure. This basically doubles the force of the keel impact and amplifies the "snapping" effect. (By exposing the ship to its own weight, it essentially nullifies the positive effects of additional hull armor, as more armor causes the ship to weigh more, thus increasing the force on the keel as a result.)
4) That being said, the spike in hydrostatic pressure is driven by the surrounding water column rapidly falling, just like the ship, in order to fill the cavity. As it collapses and attempts to reach equilibrium, it forces it's way through any and every opening inside the ship that's obstructing it's flow. The water, now under relatively higher pressure in these openings, acts like a wedge, tearing the broken keel wider and wider until the pressure equalizes across the cavity and inside the flooded sections of the ship.
5) By this point, the compartments of the ship within the initial crumple zone are entirely flooded. This rapid ingest of water is what causes the ship to sink almost immediately due to the weight of the ingested water now causing the ship to exceed it's displacement value. If the crew did a poor job ensuring water tight integrity (which I'll touch on next), the water will continue to flow in and sink the ship faster and faster.
For clarification, on point #3, when I mentioned that more armor would be nullified by an underwater detonation, I should say that it's not the armor that has the most success at reducing damage. It's actually effective efforts by the crew to maintain proper wartime containment when they know they'll be potentially attacked (In this case, dog zulu). Ensuring all unnecessary watertight doors are shut does considerably more toward the survival of the ship than any additional armor. This is where large ships like aircraft carriers and battleships have a substantial survival advantage because with more compartments and redundant systems available, they have a much easier time sealing off lower decks and mitigating what would be a potentially lethal strike on smaller units. While armor can *reduce* the extent to which the keel snaps, an effective strike, regardless of how armored the ship is, will result in a catastrophic loss of ship if the crew does not adequately maintain water tight integrity before the strike.
@@trick7039 Wow, your words have described every event that happens into a very slow motion imaging in my mind. And to think that this all takes place in
a mere few moment in real time. I solute your Submarine service to our Country and sharing you knowledge with us. This comes from a Marine veteran who
was a gunner on a tank in Vietnam. I am full aware of the aspects of being confined inside a moving potential tomb. God Bless.
@@clarkeugene5727 You tank gunners are a different breed too. I couldn't do what y'all do, that's for sure, haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the comment!
@@trick7039 In brief: it breaks the keel of the ship.
@@_datapoint Snaps it like a toddler breaking a twig cuz he thinks he's the hulk.
The principle of exploiting the pressure wave through a medium other than air was exactly how Barnes Wallace arrived at the design of the Upkeep mine and the Tallboy and Grand Slam "earthquake" bombs in WW2.
The propeller sound effect at 8:45 as it hit the ship was out of the blue and I was expecting a shadow of a zero to appear on the side of the hull. It should have been screaming Tora! Tora! Tora!
@4:02 when you asked what is it doing. When the B-2 turns on the ground depending on the direction the split rudders open since the B-2 uses its rudder pedals to turn on the ground(if you didn't know). Now far as the flutter, I'm sure that's just a DCS thing.
In war time the "crew" are enemy combatants and fair game. They're going to shoot back if they're able.
Luck of the draw, a new video added exactly when I was looking for a good simulation!
6:19. the B2 flies out of Whiteman AFB located just South of Nob Noster, Missouri which is located 70 driving miles East of Kansas City Missouri on US highway 50 - where I live...
This is what I was waiting for. Each B2 can carry 20 I believe
20 sunk ships.
With that regard it would be the same as targeting a tank. Typically the crew isn't going to make it out.
Excellent work, couldn't be more pleased with all the hard work to get this working. Shows that capital ships are very difficult to sink, even with out of the box thinking.
They can probably could use teh JDAM-ER variant to extend the range out to 39 nmi to keep it out of the range of the carrier group missiles.
I'm glad you have morals Cap. The ship sinking moral dilema you mentioned is not new. In WW1 (& 2) there was much debate as to the legality of submarines if they didn't follow 'Cruiser Rules', the rules of commerce raiding (going back to the days of privateers) which said that unarmed ships may not be attacked without warning and the crew should be given time to evacuate the ship by lifeboat before it was attacked & sunk.
In both wars the rules were followed by submarines initially, but were then abandoned. War is a horrible business.
(After WW1 Britain tried to get submarines banned completely as part of the Washington Naval Treaty, but failed.)
and that is why the B-21 RCS is an order of magnitude better ;)
Could you imagine being on deck of that ship? Bomb just misses you and you're like! "Yay!!!" Only for it detonate a second later breaking ships back. I'm an American and even I'm like, "that's kinda fucked up."
I think it’s perfect weapon for big supply ships sitting in port or anchored somewhere in queue. Minimum people damage. And maximum ship damage. Maybe ?
Cap, you're not the only one getting "soft". I find these days I like the "low collateral damage" weapons. Ones like the SDB, and the guided hydra rockets. The only real exception are the CBUs.
theres an argument made for precision because chucking low accuracy bombs and shells at the enemy is rarely effective unless theres a huge concentration of them.
Reducing the logistics footprint. especially for the US which has to ship weapons half way around the world to use is important.
I think they made the quicksink to be deployed on the B-21 but because they can't test it at the moment with the B-21 so they did It with the more expensive option.
I once heard that the effect of exploding under the keel is actually creating a large cloud of gas bubbles, which creates an area that doesn't support the ship's weight. given that a ship is not built to support its own weight just from the ends, it will break its own keel.
It seems more reasonable to me than the shockwave hypothesis, because the shockwave would be stronger the closer it will be, and most effective if it explodes inside the hull
4:59: The crew is essentially collateral damage. Its tragic, but they are a valid target.
6:39: I believe they took off from somewhere in Missouri (not Central America,) bombed Afghanistan, and landed on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
7:21: Just an FYI, the B-2 has to be parked in AIR CONDITIONED hangars to prevent the degradation of its RAM coating.
7:30: Why don't you go ahead and try that. My money is on the literal wall of S-300s heading your way.
My jaw dropped at the sheer destruction of the Quicksink, i also have been interested in integrating my own weapon's in DCS.
Certain vessels are "off limits", as are enemy warships under specific conditions, not methods of destroying vessels. It is considered a war crime to attack survivors in the water, lifeboats or Hospital ships.
I showed this to my uncle who used to work for Northrup. When he heard the discussion about the b2's rcs he started laughing and walked away. He refuses to explain other than, "let them think that"
I mean, you only need to (visually) look at it and see how how smooth and featureless the aircraft is from 40,000ft below to imagine how wildly stealthy it is
In your name vb. As in Virginia beach?
honestly im extremely surprised how good people involved in these projects are at keeping secrets. its frustrating lol. think of all the hundreds of thousands/millions of people who've worked on these projects as well as being submariners. very rare for one to speak about it.
Just sounds like empty bravado. It doesn't sound like he worked on the B2 at all, and even if he did, if he didn't directly work on the B2's stealth design he would have no idea what the RCS is. Even people working on other parts of the aircraft, like the engines or avionics, would have no idea what the RCS is. Such information would only be given to the few people who absolutely require it.
@@cassius_eu5970 I have no idea if he worked on it or not, only what his reaction was. But if the 117 nighthawk has a lower RCS it makes you wonder
If the Quicksink can only be deployed from close up, it would be most useful for hitting an entire convoy of lightly defended cargo ships with one bomber.
One could make the convoy lightly defended by using an F-35 to launch HARMs against an escort's radar before the bomber comes within detection range.
Also I wonder if the jammers of an E/A-18G would be able to degrade a destroyer's search and/or targeting radar enough to allow a stealthy plane to come within range.
Given the USN "Carrier Air Wing of the Future" has 7 Growlers with Next Generation Jammer pods and 20x F-35C aircraft, each with their own very powerful radar and electronic warfare capabilities, and finally, 5 E-2D Hawkeyes, the invisible electronic war in a modern encounter is just insane. That is on top of each of the ships on both sides with masts fulls of sensors and powerful radars. Likely one of the least understood aspects of war per public knowledge.
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
The 2000Lb Mark 84 Warhead has 578kg of equivalent TNT - Mark 48 ADCAP has a 295kg warhead - not quite sure the exact TNT equivalent as the whole warhead contains more than just the explosive filler...nevertheless the 2000Lb will make a mess out of a ship. I wouldn't be surprised if they added the AGM-123 Skipper Missile assembly to it as that turned a bomb into a bomb/Missile hybrid that extended the bomb range with a rocket motor
I love you Cap, you’re one of my main sources of all things wise
4:03 “And I’m not sure why he’s doing that” lmao
Given the limitations of DCS, perhaps the easiest way to get a "close enough for GR" simulation of Quick Sink would be to code the JDAM to think it's a TV guided hit-to-kill bomb like Pave Way? DCS already has a couple TV guided weapons, so most of the work is already done for you too, compared to trying to make LGBs behave like a TV guided bomb. The Quick Sink kit is more or less an IR TV guidance kit anyways, so it wouldn't be that far off from reality, the main inaccuracy is that DCS can't simulate naval cavitation warheads.
Thanks for doing my requst, really impressed with how quickly you got it turned around! Not the result I was expecting, assumed the B2 would have a lower RCS so that at 40,000ft they wouldn't be able to get a lock, I thought the unknown factor would be how their missiles would fair against a saturation attack of cheap bombs as opposed to the missiles they are more commonly designed to hit. But its still good to see science in action.
Maybe they used the B2 as a placeholder for the B21 as I assume the B21 is going to have a considerably lower RCS bith from being considerably smaller and from advances in stealth technologies.
Extremely interesting vid Cap - well done!
With any modern "warship" including the Burkes or the T-45's, even though they aren't "armoured", if you hit and broke them in half (like with this or a modern torp) - they would still float. The front of the ship will be floating over here and the aft of the ship will be floating over there, but both will still be floating on their own.
This is as long as they are ready for boom-boom and have all the internal hatches shut (like they should be)
See any of the sink-ex stuff over the past 20-30 years where the ships internal doors have been closed.
Whenever you can find a number for a plane's radar cross section, take the lowest number and then cut in half. that might get you close enough to the real number. Also, you tend to lay out detection rings like it's two dimensional. It's three. At it is 8 miles high with a 30 mile detection range the plane is about a mile and a half further away due to the angle. not much but it helps. if the true detection range is half what you posted (I feel is likely) then the detection range becomes 15 miles which is the range of the weapon. Add in the angle range and it's 17 miles. So go to 14 miles horizontally. drop and turn. Then even if they pick it up, by the time they launch, the B-2 is outside detection range again. Read Ben Rich's book, Skunk Works and he describes some of the things they learned with the F-117 and stealth.
learned something new, good video 👍
RTX/LockMart - "Boss, it took us 2 years and countless tests, but we finally have a bomb that will fire just off the ship, absolutely top of the line engineering!".... Cap 'n the Boys - "Set the laser off center by 30'."
That's why we have B-21's
You need to test it against the Imperial Japanese Navy!
Hey Cap, thanks for the video. One quick thought, and I'm NOT asking you to mod this in or re-test, but if the US were to use an extended range JDAM kit on the Quicksink, that would put it outside of the ~30 mile firing range of the ship. Then the ship would have the chance to shoot at the incoming glide bombs and likely hit them. And it would likely be a little bit less than optimal due to the angle of entry into the wider coming in at such a shallow angle versus the ideal vertical entry plunging down right on the side of the targetted ship. Either way, it is still a great little weapon and the most punch per dollar versus enemy ships in general.
Long missions of the B2 is the reason they have a toilet and kitchen aboard.
Interesting.
I think it is viewed as a way to take down large poorly defended targets at low cost. RORO ferries for example. High end area defence SAMs are always going to be a problem.
Running it twice was good. Really shows that a laydown delivery like it was 1962 isn't going to cut it in the era of high powered AESA radars, bellringer lowband systems, and multi-static systems. Plus ARH LRSAMs. To get range you have to be high, and you will be seen. However, fit that Quicksink with a wing kit (Diamondback?) from 40k ft and you'd probably get ~40+Km standoff. Maybe enough to release before the HHQ-9s light off. But at that point probably better to carry SDB and swamp the defender with 4 times the munitions.
Peace.
QuickSink is one of our better (yet obvious) ideas. Navy vessels can be surprisingly resilient. (Check most SINKEX videos on here). Yet you break her back, she's done. FFG-7's were constructed of a lot of aluminum, but you can see the amount of punishment USS Crommelin (one of my former homes) took before she went down.) :(
Correct, modern torpedoes explode under the hull to break the spine of a ship
Now imagine if it had wings to extend its range
It would be interesting to see what RCS was necessary before the plane could complete the mission. Keep repeating with lower and lower numbers until success.
america rediscovers barnes-wallis bomb principles (bouncing bomb underwater detonation, earthquake bomb). morals in war: uboats stopped surfacing to sink ships and let the crew get into lifeboats because too many uboats got sunk in ww1. they didnt bother with warning each ship in ww2 just declared an exclusion zone in the entire atlantic.
There are no rules about how you can hit a ship or the crew, except if they are unarmed and in the water. Anything other than that, they are no different than a soldier in a trench.
The cost of the B2 was driven by its manufacturing facility that was set up for 132 aircraft. A's the USSR was collapsing, the Pentagon kept reducing the production of the B2 eventually settling on just 20 aircraft. But the cost incurred for the production rate and rate for 132 aircraft was the principal cause of the huge cost.
It's the Barnes Wallace technique. His bouncing bombs design that did for the German dams in WW2. Amazing how a dumb bomb becomes devastating with a tweak
Another theory, the aurora crashing and tsunami could have destabilized the island and made it start to fall apart. Or the reactor blowing up also causing destabilization
Maybe it's because I was born in the 80s, but I love the aesthetic of the flying wings.
As a former sailor this hits close to home and scares the crap out of me.
Thank you Capt!
Starting at about 04:00 in this video...
Those elevons were synced to the audio speaker onboard the _Boeing StarLiner_ space capsule...😉
Are you going to cover CH's new German and UK asset pack updates, or do you need to prepare them first for a video?
Why not run the same sim with f-35s and f-22s maybe even ngads
Confirms what many military observers thought--QUICKSINK is too short-range to be used against the more modern air defenses put out by near-peer nations, to wit, China and Russia. Conceivably it could be used with the aid of heavy jamming, decoys and cheap, non-stealthy anti-ship cruise missiles. Even then, it would be a very high-risk mission for the QUICKSINK bomber crew. It is only likely to be effective against severely depleted anti-air capabilities.
Yea I imagine a B2 can drop maybe a dozen 2000lb bombs really I don't know but 10-16 is my guess. But a sea wiz or equivalent you would think would make quick work of a dozen mild maneuver bombs
@@MK-Ultra-o7 Sixteen.
The majority of the ships involved in an invasion of Taiwan with either be large civillain vessels or lighter naval escorts and landing craft. The actual naval vessels would be targeted with LRASM, NSM, BLK4 Tomahawks, and ADCAP.
Their is also a longer range 300nmi maritime PJDAM on Boeing's website but only for 500lb bombs. At that standoff range, even 4th gen platforms can carry them. While Quicksink is for 2000lb bombs.
The B-2 base is in the Central United States. Central America is the region between Mexico and Colombia.
The only practical use of this weapon would be against targets that can't shoot back. Getting within JDAM range is pretty much not going to happen against a modern chinese destroyer and even assuming you're using some wonderweapon like the B21, the bombs themselves being non stealthy and unpowered are easy to hit
Central america describes the location of the countries from mexico down to the top of south america. The proper wording would be from the center of america or from the “mid west”
The B-2 took off from Minot, South Dakota where the wing is based. The crew change happen at the US base, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Just a bit of trivia for you Capt. 🫡
Surprised Cap could stomach using the Marianas map instead of Kola this time...
QuickSink / QuickSync - befitting Intel at this point in time.
Re the attack on the Carrier Group, who removed all the EW capability of the attackers? Where did the HAARMs disappear to? Nobody is daft enough to launch B-2s without doing some prep work.
Can you also use the JDAM-ER? The one with deployable wings. It can reach over 40 miles.
The PR/marketing of QUICKSINK is very misleading. Couldn't find the name of the ship which was sunk in the test & shown broken in half, but it is clearly not a warship. It looks like a (not very large) auxiliary or merchant ship.
Warships may not be armoured any more, but they are still built much stronger than merchant ships. A single bomb will still do a lot of damage, but I doubt if it could break even a small frigate in two like that.
The General Belgrano (an old ex-US WW2 era light cruiser) was hit by two torpedos in 1982. But didn't break up and sank slowly enough for the crew to have time to evacuate - the order to evacuate the ship was only given 20 minutes after the torpedoes struck.
(The animated promo video for Quicksink distastefully shows it destroying a container ship, not a warship.)
Try the AGM-141, in the Coordinated attack against China
killing the ship while safeguarding the crew would be detrimental to the war effort in general. you kill whatever you can. This ensures that the combat you are engaging in has a clear final outcome. Saving a crew means they can go and eventually get into another ship later. Think of that concept in WWII in Japan. We won that theater because we killed all of their good pilots and it wasn't sustainable by the Empire. What would've happened if we allowed everyone to go home instead?
It's more a thing of morals
Look up 'Cruiser Rules'.
Strange they didn't make it a glide bomb since it's not that much more expensive or complex than a jdam but gives more standoff which i suppose would be very useful when attacking vessels that can shoot at you
not sure on the actual numbers but the B2 has been described as having the same radar cross section of a UK Wood Pidgeon
Let me ask a hypothetical question - do you think we'd have retired all of our F-117s before the f-35 was available, if the b-2 had an RCS 10-100x greater? That should be a pretty good way to think about how small the b-2 RCS is.
Why they use the B2 is that stealth matters when you are trying to get into bomb range with enemy ships with air defense.
also it should only be used againest degraded enemy assets like a destroyer or carrier with disabled radar, so it's a clean up weapon.
CAP, why hasn't the UK version of DARPA not knocked on your door with a job offer?
Darpa is known to have technologies ten to twenty years in the future in their laboratories currently. Darpa developed technologies like stealth Or low observable aircraft Are basically mainstream now. We likely have newer technologies that would make all of these scenarios pointless. I'm particularly thinking about energy warfare lasers and directed energy weapons. I hope you have a great day.
May be cannon are better than laser.
Torpedoes have been designed to break ship spines for decades. No new ground being tread, relative to ship crew survivability.
SOLAS doesn't apply in these cases ... until you start rescuing the crew, which is hard from a plane
Wonder if a bunker buster could go through the ship and still detonate below it. That aside I’m more interested in the rapid dragon.
Why would crew casualties be something you want to avoid, if you're launching a bomb designed to very quickly sink a ship, at the ship your enemy is occupying? I can't think of any regulations or treaties that call out that you must make an effort to prevent loss of life to a vessel's crew, or even be considerate of it. During a war, you would think that taking out an entire trained crew for one of the vessels your enemy fields would be an advantage, as it takes a lot of time to re-train that many sailors and bring them up to speed, and they'll all be short on any kind of experience.
The physics behind this is actually very simple. Its called hydraulics.
@grimreapers >>> Great video...👍
The whole point of using B-2 is to send a message to the world's navies. That message is, "we can sink your ships from Missouri with cheap ass bombs, and you probably won't see us coming. Oh you think our aircraft carriers will be in play? Think again." That's why we used a B-2 to drop a cheap bomb that sunk a ship as well as a torpedo. War games are as much about diplomacy as they are testing and training. This was a message to China. We don't need to put our ships in harms way to sink you. We can do it from middle America. It's the same reason B-2s traveled 15,000 miles to attack the Taliban. Not because the Taliban had working S-400 sites. We did that just to show the world we could. B-52s could have and had been safely dropping that ordinance. When the B-2s get brought out, it's for our training, and to tell the rest of the world, "yeah...we can do that." Why? If B-2s get forward deployed, the world takes notice. Those missions are use saying, "oh you think because the B-2s aren't forward deployed, that we're not serious? Hold that thought..." Look as an American, I hate that we beat are chest about being free so much. It's silly. So many other countries are free and some even more than us. If there is a thing we should beat our cheats about it's, "fuck around and find out." I'm sorry world, but 99% of the time we're playing nice. I mean who are you really afraid of? A Russian turboprop bear long range bomber or a B-2 or B-21? Honestly, sometimes I'm thankful for Russian ballistic missiles. Without them plus the wrong US leader and we could have easily turned into real pieces of shit. Like way worse than you already think we are. Checks and balances matter even on a global scale.
We used the B-2 for the quicksink to demonstrate that it’s as destructive as a bolt of lightning. It strikes without notice and without detection, and now, can hit anything anywhere anytime
Damn.... very frightening
Crew are combatants, until they are in water or life-rafts
I'd rather my ship were snapped in half from the outside so I'm escaping water, than blown in half from the inside so I'm escaping..... you know, explosion.
I have been wondering if this could be done in DCS.
That’s a great point cap. My grandad was a tanker. He got clobbered by a Stuka and had to bail out. The Germans took pot shots at him then stopped when he was fully out. Apparently that was the rule. Is there a maritime version of this rule? The main factor here is that it can’t be defended against. Torps, bombs etc could be dealt with in a manner. But this nothing.
depends how dirty the war gets. If its anything like Ukraine and Russia or Israel and Gaza right now expect warcrimes left right and centre.
B-2 has a smaller cross section than F-35..... Yes, your inforgraphic was the first return on Google from reddit, but it's pretty well agreed upon that its RCS is more similar to Raptor, so smaller than F-35, something like 0.001m^2. But its so much bigger...blah blah blah, flying wing.
The real life QUICKSINK seeker head, is a MMW radar, with an IIR optic.
Not useful against actual warships obviously, but perhaps it's intended for use against low-end targets like naval militia & logistical shipping within the coverage of A2AD networks by stealth aircraft. Like turning stealth aircraft into flying subs for sinking merchant ships to cut off supply lines, using JDAMS to sink supply ships is way cheaper than harpoons or LRASM and LRASM can be saved for anti-warship use.
My thoughts exactly. Use SEAD, good missiles and or subs to strip the defense, B-2 rolls in to cleanup
HOw long until they start re-using artillery barrels - like the 1991 bunker busters - and have the just go straight through the deck and out the bottom?
Finally hydrostatics🎉
Given the missions B2’s have flown against existing air defences, I find the estimates you used for the RCS of a B2… a little high. No, a lot high.
Not that a Chinese carrier task force’s overlapping radars couldn’t detect and neutralise one, but to just pick it up at 30km and pick it off… I think we’d have seen more losses when they were used against conventional militaries on missions.
keep in mind the radars the B2s went up against were obsolete 60s and 70s era hardware at best. Chinese destroyers are equipped with state of the art radars
"No one likes seeing a broken Spirit" - Cap, 2024
What happens if the missle hits the ship instead of the water instead? Would it still be far less lethal? 🤔
"wars purpose is to kill people and break things. surrender or suffer we don't care about your feelings. " attributed attributed by bob311
Not to get off the subject, buttttt...... I've been subscribed to your channel for a couple of yrs 4-5 and finally gotten the $ to get the equipment to TRY out DCS. To cut from the chase, I've got a 64 bit Comp. and the Saitek X35 needs a 32 Bit? And I've tried every avenue to get things going, your set up videos.... and even a guy hooked into my computer and tried to make things work!!! He left me like an ugly bride!!!! Help me if you can!!!!!!! A Hillbilly in Alabama!!!!!
Is the b2 exhaust at 5:05 a visual bug? The way it messes with the HUD
I think people are missing the point when it comes to the morality issue. It's not about sinking the ship that's the problem. It's the fact that this is designed to split the hulls of ships which are not actually designed for combat. These are civilian ships it's designed to go up against. Not that I am saying it is wrong to target them. There are so many reasons why you have to target these ships.
The problem with it is though you can sink a ship and still give them time to at least evacuate. This bomb, if you aren't aware of the difference between being hit by a bomb in a vehicle and dying instantly and being hit by one of these bombs inside a ship. only people in the immediate area will die, most the other crew will be stunned and very few would be relatively unaffected. In the span of less than 10 minutes the ship will be under water and due to physics, the air escaping creates a vacuum around the ship. You're not instantly killing about 80 people. You're condemning them to die inescapably over a period of time. That's the reason why maritime laws are very different to how it works on land.
I'm not going to defend or argue why it should or shouldn't be allowed. It's just that people don't quite understand it's not the same as hitting a vehicle on land killing a truck filled with soldiers lol. It's more akin to bombing a power station then dropping napalm around it to make sure the workers can't survive...