Little sad that we could not see the aster block 2 missile system. I think the royal navy use it as their abm missile though the french got a ground variant of the abm system.
C!A ENG!NES GAMES PR0PAG4NDA!!! US M!LL!TARY EQU!PMENT FULLY C0RRUPT!0NS, HYPER MARK UP!!! EVEN US PATR!0T M!SS!LES FA!LED T0 INTERCEPTS CHEAPS H0UTI M!SS!LES!!!
in the words of nero....."fire everything!!!" every cruise missile,every ballistic missile,every ship launch based missile,every torpedo,every tupolev bomber every kamikaze pilot.......to the sound of overture 1812......hundreds and thousands of fighters bombers,rockets,torpedos,missiles,smart bombs,dumb bombs nuclear and non nuclear tipped will blanket europe.
A true nuclear attack would probably start with one nuclear weapon ,probably hypersonic and it would detonate in a way to act as a emp ,electric magnetic pulse weapon to basically try to disable any radar and air defence systems, I think these are usually air bombs ,not ground level ,then the main launch will come in behind this with the militaries eyes and ears ,radars and scanners incapacitated by the first blast
@@brianmurray1395 The patriot of the 90's is a far cry from what it is today, or do you think the military just sits on it's hands and never upgrades it's technology?
Rapier does not alarm on anything flying over Mach 1. That is because when they were designed there was no aircraft that could drop ordnance above Mach 1. Rapier is an air defence system. If you are flying over Mach 1 then there is no need to engage. It could be effective against a sub sonic cruise missile. Also note there is only one launcher per optical tracker and tracker radar.
Another thing to remember is that Nukes are programmed to go off while way above ground, to cause the most damage. So the intercept needs to be above a certain altitude or its useless to even fire.
even the north koreans know how to make nukes explode.....look at the design of fatman,more than simple just a bunch of refined radioactive material and a bunch of high explosives around it, designed to compress the material i guess and set off a chain reaction,a reaction faster than the speed of light and to the naked eye is just a moment of silence and the sound of a vacuum sucking in like in a hollywood movie and a brilliant flash.
@@jasonbourne6694 The key part is Glide vehicles, they maneuver and can take evasive action, which makes them incredibly hard to intercept. They are not simple ballistic MIRV's, which are difficult enough as it is. The reason is simple, at Mach 15, a small maneuver can change the impact point by thousands of km. Completely negating any defensive measures which may have been queued up. These glide vehicles can also do an atmospheric skip (imagine a jet boat bouncing over water) that also increases the difficulty of intercept. To be clear the last few tests of the SM6 system against non maneuvering Hypersonic ballistic targets resulted in only 1 of 3 reentry vehicles killed. Of 6 interceptors, only 1 target was hit... leaving the possibility that 5 of 6 interceptors *missed* To say the state of defensive measures against even ballistic Hypersonic reentry vehicles is in its infancy is no understatement. Then add in the glide vehicles ability to evade via maneuvering... and you can project just how effective they will be, perhaps not 100%, but probably well into the 90s. The age of the offensive missile is well and truely upon us.
@@martinpalmer6203 That's very interesting, but the point is neither Sarmat nor it's gliding blocks do exist in the real world as a ready-to-use unit. It's being tested for years, and would be tested further. I doubt it would be produced numerously due to sanctions and lack of their own technologies (unlike USSR). And you should not overestimate the significance of russian combat propaganda, particularly about specification and capabilities of their weaponary. Actually it's not so good as they want us to consider, believe me. E.g. their allegedly modern cruise missiles mishit targets by hundreds of meters, sometimes even kilometers.
@@yuriy-od-ua all modern cruise missiles miss by a long way when shot down. However the Houthi attack on the Saudi oil facility proves just how prolific the technology is to target accurately within 1m. Who do you think helped Iran develop the technology that was given to the Houthi rebels to carry out that strike? The rest of your post is wishful thinking. Whenever there is demand for something, someone will either invent supply,or supply it. China isn't about to miss the opportunity & even Israel is likely to see benefits supporting Russia.. besides the obvious domestically produced semiconductors which have been used for decades in military equipment. just as elsewhere that has an arms industry, they dont use critical parts made in foreign nations. despite what propaganda might try to say.
@@martinpalmer6203I was talking about undamaged rockets, not the shot ones. China is decreasing supply of smartphones and PCs to Russia right now :) And Russia don't have their own modern semiconductor or microcontroller production. They used European or Taiwanese electronic components in their new weaponary - as far as we can see from captured samples. You are overestimating russians again. They are far less independent and capable than USSR.
Regarding the inadvertent nuke detonation during interception, due to the physical construction of nukes it would be nigh on impossible for it to occur. There will always be those who want to argue this point, but the way the components have to be combined in a highly precise symmetrical 'explosive lens' makes any destruction from the outside of the weapon render this impossible.
Two considerations, the guidance and programmed altitude for detonating is all electronic. An EMP from any nuclear explosion will most likely render the incoming inert. Second, if impacted it will rain highly toxic debris rendering a large location non usable. Either interception is bad.
It still makes that intercepted warhead a dirty bomb, contaminating an area with nuclear fision material. And ofcourse its a way better scenario then a thermonuclear blast of that same warhead.
Very true. Implosion types and gun type weapons depend on very small tolerances in timing and shape. Thermonuclear devices still need an initial fission based reaction to gain the energy to generate the fusion process. If you were in a city with an a bomb and wanted to save as many lives as possible smashing the thing with a bat would be as effective as anything else. Hypothetically there could be other types of nuclear weapon that are classified or not common knowledge but I couldn't comment on that. One of the reasons that the major powers accrued so many weapons was because they werent sure how many would actually work, even before taking into account interception.
@@michaelvangundy226 while interception would most definitely cause radioactive material to be dispersed over a large area, which would definitely not be good. The radiological effects would pale in comparison to an actual detonation. In a detonation, especially one close to or on the ground, the nuclear chain reaction of a detonation actually creates more radioactive material than is in the warhead through the bombardment of surrounding material. So it would definitely be better to shoot the missiles down. (By no means do I think you're implying letting them through would be better, or even that you didn't already know this.) A great example of this is the idea of so called "salted bombs" which surround the warhead with inert cobalt or other materials which are transformed into a highly radioactive material, making a smaller warhead much more radioactively potent. You have to wonder what humanity was collectively smoking during the cold war.
I was a patriot missile operator for 10 years each patriot battalion has 4 battery's a,b,c,d battery's each battery has 8 launchers and each laucher has 4 missiles (pac 2) but the new system is a pac 3 launcher which has 4 canisters and each canister holds 4 missiles so that's 16 missiles per launcher 8 launchers per battery and 4 battery's per battalion and 4 to 5 battalions per brigade
I served in a Patriot battery PAC2 and PAC2+ 1992-1996. Dude, I wouldn't want to be in the Missle reload squad in the launcher platoon with all of those empty canisters!!!!
Thank you guys for your service. These pretty pictures are wonderful but that's really all they are. London would not be the only target. In fact London has very little actual legitimate military targets and if Russia hit us they wouldn't mess about. All this does is give false hope. Any of you guys see that old movie Threads? it's very dated and the special effects look like they were done by children but the story and outcome are still chilling. I don't think I'd want to survive. I haven't heard one single politition call for peace? They have failed us terribly.
Yeah and T45 is capable of tracking ballistic missiles but doesnt have the ammunition for long range interception (would have had a higher rate of fire than in sim though).
Great work Cap! My dad was Martin Marietta (Littleton, CO) and got to stand in for a laser demonstration that cut an orange in half. From that moment we stopped fearing the citrus 🍊 threat and ruled supreme. 'Merica!
Sarmat would be able to lob a war payload to Britain with its booster stage alone. Likely if the Russians wanted to use a Sarmat against the UK, they'd have to send it into a FROBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) trajectory just to use up the second stage and MIRV bus. Sarmat is made for attacking the US, the the launch vehicle is total overkill for attacking Western Europe.
@@touristguy87 Sarmat of overpowered for that trajectory, it has to go around. For a classical ballistic trajectory from the Russian missile fields, they'd need to bypass the 2nd stage, and cut the first stage off early.
You guys know that the flip side of this is that the Russian anti missile systems work really well right? And, the Russian navy has a work around to our SAMs... they have massive nuclear torpedoes that they have designed to fire onto enemy coastlines and literally cause a "nuclear tsunami". Some are cobalt jacketed to cause maximum radiation too. It's not a great situation.
Defending against a nuke strike would be difficult but the thing people do not realize is that is that a nuke does not have to actually hit its target to cause damage or even be close, the US did testing with them long ago to find the optimal detonation height to cause maximum physical damage, but they also tested the optimal height for maximum EMP damage and they found that at the max physical damage height the EMP effects where minimal and blocked by hills and the curvature of the earth, however a single detonation in low earth orbit far above any interception capability would rain down an unimpeded EMP that would blanket cover most or all of a small country. This would effectively shut down a country by instantly tanking out country wide civilian infrastructure, peoples cars / trucks / phones / Computers ETC would also be rendered non functional shutting down communications and more importantly the distribution of food to shops
The other side of that is how well would the Russian systems actually work in real life. Are they really in as poor a state as they seem from their attack on Ukraine or are they somehow trying to fool the world into thinking they are still a power to be reckons with. Not that I want to se missiles flying but I have doubts about their capability to launch as many as they say.
@@Thurgosh_OG The thing is they only need like 2-3% of them to work to end humanity. Realistically, the US can only shoot down a few ICBMs high enough to not spread radioactive material all over.
You likely wouldn't have a nuke going off when hit by an anti missile. Nukes aren't like conventional explosives. They don't go off from shock. Nukes rely on shaped conventional explosives carefully timed to implode the first stage fission core perfectly from all sides at once. If not perfectly compressed you won't get anything or at most only a fizzle where just a part of the fission fuel explodes which would only be a very small fission explosion. Since that would happen far up in the atmosphere (Air burst) you wouldn't have any long lasting radiation and the explosion would be too far up to affect the ground. Most ICBMs are fusion. The conventional small fission device compresses the fusion fuel to create a secondary hydrogen reaction. This takes enormous pressures, heat and release of neutrons. With only a fizzle conventional explosion the pressure and heat won't be enough to set off the hydrogen reaction. Your greatest danger would be the plutonium debris of the first stage fission fuel falling down in inhabited regions. If intercepted over water you wouldn't have that.
" Nukes aren't like conventional explosives. They don't go off from shock. Nukes rely on shaped conventional explosives " ...drink your milk and go to bed, young'n.
@@touristguy87 He's right though explained it poorly. For a nuke, lets say a simple fission bomb, to work you need a certain mass of U235 to be close enough together. It's basically in two parts that get smashed together by a primary charge. Once enough U235 is in a ball, boom. If it gets hit and explodes into random pieces, nothing will happen. Hydrogen bombs work very differently and more in line with the shaped charged comment, but the same idea. Nuclear bombs basically have separated masses of fissionable materials that get smooshed together to make it work. busting a n. bomb apart is very unlikely to make it explode.
@@kylethompson1379 "usting a n. bomb apart is very unlikely to make it explode." You're talking apples and oranges. The question is whether detonating an explosive, shelled or otherwise, near a fission device would cause it to fail when triggered to detonate. There's no simple answer to this question as it would depend on the design of the fission device.
@@kylethompson1379 "For a nuke, lets say a simple fission bomb, to work you need a certain mass of U235 to be close enough together. It's basically in two parts that get smashed together by a primary charge. Once enough U235 is in a ball, boom. If it gets hit and explodes into random pieces, nothing will happen. " ...again, wrong. The condition for fission is "supercritical mass" "An assembly that supports a sustained nuclear chain reaction is called a critical assembly or, if the assembly is almost entirely made of a nuclear fuel, a critical mass. The word "critical" refers to a cusp in the behavior of the differential equation that governs the number of free neutrons present in the fuel: if less than a critical mass is present, then the amount of neutrons is determined by radioactive decay, but if a critical mass or more is present, then the amount of neutrons is controlled instead by the physics of the chain reaction. The actual mass of a critical mass of nuclear fuel depends strongly on the geometry and surrounding materials." "Supercritical mass" depends on density, increase the density enough and the fissionable material will go supercritical. If it goes supercritical the resulting fission explosion will initiate a fusion reaction in any fusionable material in the proper thermal and pressure environment for sustained fusion. Your comment is just plain and simply wrong as it assumes that neither of these two conditions would be met if the fissionable material is "hit and blown into random pieces". If enough fission material is present in the original device, the likelhood that at least some of it will go into fission is...anyone's guess. But if it does and there's enough of a hydrogen or lithium/lead blanket that is exposed to high enough temperatures and pressures from the fission reaction then it also will go into fusion. The whole problem here is that exactly what do you have as a basis for your opinion? Have you ever seen any group ever successfully detonate an explosive material near a nuclear device and have it fail to detonate when prompted or even fail to go nuclear on its own? Has that ever actually been tested? Did they call you when they got the test results? You know, even in WW2 with the V2 rocket once the rocket ascended high enough and reached a high-enough speed, nothing was going to stop it from crashing down on or near target and exploding. They only reached sub-orbital heights and velocities. Russia has been developing these things since they backed out of the ABM treaty. You honestly think they have spent 20+ years developing ICBMs with MIRVS that could easily be tracked and destroyed? www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/hiroshima,-nagasaki,-and-subsequent-weapons-testin.aspx#:~:text=About%2064%20kilograms%20of%20highly,city%2C%20on%206%20August%201945. About 64 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium was used in the (Hiroshima) bomb which had a 16 kiloton yield (i.e. it was equivalent to 16,000 tonnes of TNT). So what's the multiplier? 4:1 converting from kg to tons of TNT yield. So if you want a MT yield, you need 4Mg of u235, which is about 4 tons of u235. Per IRV. I'd guess that you can cut that weight in half (total SATAN-2 weight is about 220 tons carrying 15 IRVs so they are probably closer to a ton each, of u235, which is among the most dense material known to man) with a boosted fission bomb (a "hydrogen bomb"), as you get more energy with say lithium and lead then you'd get with u235, unless you replace the lead with more u235 and make a 3-stage device (which would then fission all of the u235 not just the u238 in it). You would then need to detect, acquire, target and intercept this device while it's hurtling through space, and increasingly-dense atmosphere, at Mach...20, or there-abouts. With active evasion. With 14 of its buddy IRVs doing the same thing. Per SARMAT-2 missile. Yeah sure, we'll just hit them all with a massive TNT blast and disable them. All of them. So simple. Wonder why the Russians didn't think of it?
Yeah, this is basically intercepting SCUDs. We see this in action in Ukraine quite frequently with Russians intercepting Ukrainian Tochka-U missiles. Its the best the game can do, but these are several times slower than actual reentry velocity of ICBM warheads. Also the Sarmat has a higher throw weight than the original Satan.. comes with 10-15 MIRVs and a buttload of countermeasure decoys. Any terminal intercept ABM site would effectively be overwhelmed with a single missile. There is good reason why the US ABM efforts, after leaving the ABM treaty, focus on mid-course interception, not terminal. Another aspect is that an initial missile might be used to cause a disruptive EMP event with a high altitude detonation, further increasing the odds of the following warheads to penetrate defenses. Anyhow, as it stands - UK doesnt actually have any defense against an ICBM strike.
Actually a sarmat is a 200 ton missile which has 10 mirv and 40 decoys, means 1 missile 50 targets. US defence systems are set to have 27% kill probability against ballistic targets which is pretty good but still it will require 4 missiles for 100% kill probability of 1 target, hence 200 missiles for 50 targets/ 1 sarmat missile. These numbers could get worse as these are machines if some fail it would be too late. Now, UK is not capable of that at all because only 5 countries US, Russia, China, India and Israel have proven Anti satellite and ballistic missile defence. Uk , France, Italy and Iran claim but not proved as these systems are still in testing phase. Truth is no country is fully safe against ballistic missile with hypersonic re-entry vehicle and mirv. But when you have something it's better.
Especially when the British can't fire a single Missile via its SUBS, Without the official Command Codes from the US State Department. And physically banned from acting Unilaterally by ourselves, unlike every other similar Class System. The UK are basically irrelevant Without America. No matter our so called independence. 👌
Sky sabre won't do anything against hypersonic missile or the sarmat ballistic missiles. Also multiple warhead ballistic missiles are made to saturate any missile defense systems. That's why any war with Russia is insane, and peace talks must happen soon as possible before escalation to Armageddon.
The U.S. keeps special arleigh burkes in Rota Spain armed with sm3 anti ballistic missiles for this reason. So the ones modeled in game while being able to take some out are not as potent as the special mission burkes out of Spain.
@Milo Jones for all I am able to say is yes. Our good tech is completely built and functional. And gets put on a shelf. The enemy cannot build a weapon against a weapon they do not know about. For all the impressive stuff we have. There is stuff equally as scary. Its unfortunate but its there. Most military weapons and vehicles. Are 30+ years old because there is no need to update them as they are good enough. Yes new stuff gets sprinkled in here and there. But if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I see other comments have told you how unlikely nuclear detonation is with a defensive intercept. It is possible for the attacking missile to calculate an intercept & set off nuclear detonation before it is hit. Considering Russia's level of sophistication this isn't likely. The sequence of nuclear detonation is just too complicated to go off from impact.
The Scud missile you're using in this simulation mostly breaks up into multiple parts upon reentry & it is very difficult for the ABM to distinguish between the warhead & debris.
That was the Iraqi Al Hussein missiles that broke up. Iraq cut Scuds in half, added an extra section, then welded it all back together, to give more fuel capacity and a longer range. They broke up at the weld places, confusing the Patriot missiles.
Aegis Ashore which is used as ABM defence in Europe - effectively the radar & fire control from a US Navy Aegis system on a building, with a VLS launching SM-3 or SM-6
irrelevant when each ICBM carries multiple nukes with countermeasures. even if some will get destroyed 1 nuke is more powerful than 20 hiroshima bombs. it's irrelevant. it's always a lose-lose game
@Gary Baldi no the reason we've never invested in abms is 1, we're too cheap/don't have the money 2, it's pretty irrelevant as anyone likely to fire balistic missiles at us has far far more balistic missiles than we could ever hope to shoot down, they would then get smashed up by Trident in return though....
@Gary Baldi So how many "reality" events have you experienced? You're talking like you've seen it all and have every answer. Know-it-all Jackwagon Detected
IRL the Arleigh Burke has SM3 BLOCK II IA to deal with Ballistic missiles ( there's a video of them intercepting a (out of atmosphere) test ballistic missile
The ones with the SM-3 Block IIA can intercept everything up to and including ICBMs. But the majority of Aegis BMD ships have not been upgraded with it yet.
@@willwozniak2826 They can launch a SM3 but the aegis ships are not capable to track the target themselves (during the mid course phase). They are reliant on shore based radars. The only ships that can detect and track the missiles in the mid course phase are the Dutch zeven provinciën class frigates with their SMART-MM radars. However they do not have SM 3’S
Don't you love the way Russia "forgets" that nukes are a two-way street? This isn't 1945, when the US (sorry, not really, Russia/USSR) had a nuclear monopoly.
14:20: That's physically impossible. Nukes are fragile and if they are damaged in the slightest, they fail to achieve prompt supercriticality and fail to detonate. 18:38: So, these Russian rebels managed to steal a BC is what you're saying, right? 23:50: So ironically, Project Excalibur, the Star Wars laser, was an x-ray laser that functioned by using a nuclear warhead as a flash bulb. A nuke used to make a laser to kill a nuke.
Warheads are designed to withstand high temperatures, and high pressure while travelling in the atmosphere at 18000-20000 km/h. It is easy to damage the whole missile during the boost stage, but to track, and destroy WH is much more difficult.
What if one nuke is planned to go off in the air, just to electromagnetically jam the defenses? "Physically impossible" if hit, might be true, but if it is planned that way....
@Milo Jones you first have to track it (not just see a blimp in your radar/optical device). Then - based on tracking - you have to develop firing solutions (just like in this video), calculating possible interception trajectories (if at all possible considering your interceptor characteristics). Then comes the hard part, most modern nuclear missiles can maneuver during terminal phase (changing trajectory in a random manner, like Iskander), so your firing solution can be thrown in the trash. So in reality, the only reliable defence against the imminent effects of a nuclear attack is big territory, where you can hide and maybe last until radiation eventually decrease to survivable level. Nuclear attacks - unfortunately in a nuclear war - will be primarily directed on military and real economical targets, which tend to be not far from population centers. So the bigger a country (with more scarce populatio), the higher its chance of survivability is...
@@Nr15121 I seem to remember some acoustic detection system that detected a sub hitting the deck from across the entire length of the pacific. Sorry, not just detected - actually successfully triangulated it's position.
A few comments here. First off, great job simulating this within the limitations of DCS. I realize the video is intended for entertainment purposes but I'd like to state some facts for anyone watching who cares. MIRV warheads reenter the atmosphere at over Mach 20, meaning the time they can be detected by one of these ballistic missile defense systems vs impact is less than 20 seconds. The only missile system that have been proven to be able to intercept ICBM MIRV warheads in their mid-course phase is the ground-based midcourse defense system. There's like 40 interceptors based in Alaska and 4 in California with like 20 more being built. The Navy has the Aegis missile defense system which can use SM-3 and SM-6 missiles to intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles in their boost phase. There's also land-based Aegis launchers in Eastern Europe. These have not been tested against MIRVs in their decent phase. THAAD is probably the most promising development. the US has 7 batteries in the pacific (that we know of) and it uses a kinetic "kill-vehicle" to hit the MIRV at high speed. These have a promising track record and can intercept the MIRV in the atmosphere or in space. The Patriot PAC-3 is capable of intercepting short and medium range ballistic missiles (like SCUDs) but has not been tested on MIRVs which travel much MUCH faster and have a very much lower radar cross-section. There are other plans like there's always been, about developing a space-born "Star-Wars" style satellite net of laser-armed interceptors to kill missiles in their boost phase. If this ever gets deployed I doubt we'd hear about it. Also plans to equip F-35 fighters with interceptor lasers, which may not be feasible. The short of it is that all of the US missile defense systems are designed to stop a limited or "rogue" missile attack from North Korea or Iran. Nothing is designed or able to stop a full-out missile strike by Russia or China. Any nuclear attack by Russia on the UK would be met with an equal or much stronger nuclear strike to take out their submarines, missile silos, air defenses, and command structure (ie, Moscow). Basically nuclear war, WW3, etc. for more information you can visit this site: www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense
@@grimreapers also bears mentioning that the 4 British Vanguard subs each carry 16 Trident II missiles with 8 warheads each. That’s potentially 512 MIRVs that can re-enter russian airspace at Mach 24.
hey don't the usa also now officially now have the fully opratable switchblade multi intercept kinetic kill impact missile drone! this drone is just a drone that's also a kinetic kill missile that is just a unmanned version of a kamikaze plane! but its a drone thats is also a multi purpose missile at the same time! but it's meant to take down a lot of enemy equipment such as planes, missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, icbms, ships, tanks, and other stuff as well!
@@ashtiboy I mean, it’s basically a remote control flying hand grenade. Can’t really take out main battle tanks or cruise missiles, just soft targets like grounded aircraft, light armored vehicles and artillery positions.
@@cshader2488 In UK service, the UGM-133 is usually loaded with a mixed loadout of RVs. Some post-boost vehicles will have a small number of RVs for a limited strike while others have eight or 10 RVs for a full effort second strike.
Will you make the response video? GB has four Vanguard class nuclear missile subs with 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles carrying 8 475kt warheads. Doing the math, that's 512 nuclear warheads raining down on Russia at mach 24+. Even if NATO and the USA sit this one out, I'd like to know how many bottles of vodka would be destroyed,
Awesome and fascinating video (as always)! Surely, the really important question is not whether British defences could neutralise 10 approaching MIRVs but whether 10 MIRVs could prevent a sufficiently deterring British retaliatory strike?
Britain no longer has any land based nuclear forces for this reason - the nuclear deterant is continuously at sea and therefore the answer is - no it couldn't :-)!
Does DCS have THAAD or Aegis or Aegis Ashore ABM (yet)? I assume DCS still lacks ASW capability to take out the sub. When it does sic @Kortana on it. ASW is an "art".
Imagine how amazingly entertaining it would be to run scenarios on state of the art defense simulators with the best possible variables for all military systems in operation worldwide. : ) Despite the details of the results, I think it's agreed nearly any nuclear power with a couple MIRV-enabled ballistic missiles will get through any defense. For isolated launch instances, I believe it makes sense Russia has the best capability. However, I also believe the massive investment for Russia to upkeep so many more nukes than they require to obliterate all targets, in addition to focusing so many resources for many decades into advanced SAM systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, is quite a waste. The US is also wasting resources on this, with the difference being they're simply able to afford those projects while funding everything else too. After the "Star Wars" program, I believe it's safe to say the US pivoted somewhat towards more conventional capabilities. Then with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many US weapons programs were terminated. Desert Storm sustained military strength along with Kosovo to an extent, the 9/11 attacks kickstarted huge growth in both conventional capabilities (and modernization programs being initiated as those wars played out), while also vastly increasing the size of special operations forces and capabilities. For example, estimates of total US special forces command personnel (support and HQ companies included I think) went from 40k in 2001 to an 80k peak in the late 2010's, to around 70k at present given the end of Afghanistan. With so many hypersonic weapons programs in development in multiple countries, I believe SAM systems as a whole will improve, but again, I don't see the US or any country developing a system capable of defeating hundreds to thousands of simultaneous launches. The only effective means of realistically and reliably doing so would be developing the capability to hijack or destroy satellite systems which enable the communications, guidance, tracking, and detection of ballistic missiles. Interestingly enough, the US apparently launched prototype satellites with anti-satellite capabilities over a decade ago (per rumor/speculation admittedly), but their capability of shooting down a satellite with an SM series missile was made public when they wanted to ensure a US satellite in a decaying orbit didn't hit land with its volatile onboard chemicals/materials. Cheers.
@@mikegarwood8680 C-RAM is for very short distances as far as I know. a 20mm Phalanx CIWS for example. The Iron Dome system is a missile based C-RAM, also considered short range.
@@mikegarwood8680 There are systems not modeled in DCS, perhaps up to five more for the US alone (PAC3 missiles as Cap mentioned, the THAAD missile defense system, "Aegis Ashore" likely has notably better radar capabilities with installations in Romania and Poland at a minimum, then there's updates to the SM series of missiles on the Arleigh Burke (I highly doubt the Aegis system is accurately modeled too, all of that is classified so I'm not sure how DCS knows it's accurate), and another program in the US is "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense." However, it always comes back to such system capabilities being unknown to the public and therefore not being modeled in a sim like DCS. As soon as you start implementing wildly inaccurate models into DCS, it devalues the other (much more) accurately modeled assets. This is why user-mods are counter productive in so many cases, as the planes are just set to completely unrealistic performance measures.
Don't forget that nukes does not require to detonate on impact to the ground. More damage can be done by detonating at higher altitudes. One more thing to be consider that one nuclear blast in the atmosphere will cause an EMP witch will destroy all electronics of the defender therefore Air defense units will not work.
@@scottfay3553 no Scott not true. We used two on Japan, detonated thousands above ground, underground, in the atmosphere, really we nuked the world over and over and over and over. You've been conditioned to believe nuclear war will be all out. It won't. It will be tactical, and highly efficient for the Russians. It is why they are running push logistics, and not using there GPS.....this is how an army operates in a nuclear theatre. Hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm right. God bless
Patriots missiles are meant for shorter range interceptions which is why they were deployed later when incoming enemies’ missiles are closer to their target. THAAD will easily take them out long before that!
The only way a Tor is going to intercept a ballistic missile is if the target happened to be right adjacent to the Tor where the solution wouldn't change much.
12:20 they can't go accidentally off. A nuclear bomb is very hard to trigger, and if anything doesn't work, it just is a inefficient dirty bomb. So the biggest problem is the radiation and fragmentation from those interceptions.
not sure who made you an expert on Russian strategic nuclear weapons, but it isn't a question of how hard it is to defeat or disable these weapons, it's a question of whethre we CAN defeat or disable these weapons. Pretty-sure that a hand-grenade going off as a RV goes by isn't going to do the job.
@Milo Jones I remember hearing that, during the Cold War, one field-expedient method of disabling nuclear warheads (in order to prevent them from falling into enemy hands due to ground invasion) was to literally *shoot* them with a pistol! The idea was to smash apart the precisely calculated arrangement of the shaped charge explosives, derailing any nuclear chain-reaction.
Nice job, but one tidbit for nukes. For a nuke to go off properly, there needs to be an internal sequence of finely tuned explosions to trigger the reaction. So if you shoot down the rocket, their nuclear warhead will be rendered mostly harmless. it'll still detonate but the explosion will be much smaller than intended. Think of a Moab or less.
Mach 8.5 is the speed listed for the S-300. Truly Hypersonic but it don't maneuver like the supposed Super Duper Missiles that China and Russia have now.
He forgets, the UK has land all over the world, and just as many Brits living abroad as they do living in mainland UK. Attacking the UK won't end anything, it will only be the start
It will certainly be the end for a lot of us in the UK. It will not be without consequence. I for one, do not want to be used as an example to the world.
Just to say... SS-X-30 "Sarmat" deploys a MIRV warhead with 14 (some say up to 20) single vehicles of which some are decoys and all of them deploy countermeasures and actually steer their trajectory to the target with "evasiveness" at 24.000 km/h. Considering multiple missiles would be used in a large scale attack (no sense in a small scale one just to get retaliated) that means a SHIT SHOWER of nuclear bombs coming down like lightning and doing things to avoid interception. In all the simulations the Pentagon has done in the last decades THEIR state-of-the-art air defences succeeded in stopping at best 1 out of 3. So just stop fooling around and dreaming.
Very important to determine what block of the Aegis anti-missiles are being modeled. Current SM-3 models have a range and ceiling well over 1000 km and a speed of Mach 13. THAAD uses the same missile, maybe a generation older.
No Western ABM is capable of stopping a Russian hypersonic nuke!! 😙😙 The Pentagon; The UK MoD, and NATO know this, and are hoping that both The British & NATO nations' public are either too distracted, or too stupid to notice!!
This is why we needed star wars and I am willing to bet they have ground and space based DEW's not sure what type but that is the only way to assure survival. Lets hope we never have an actual existential threat that requires such weapons
@@thetrooper9236 Humm I thought lower grade Hyper sonics are already being used in Ukraine. Confirmed by the US. Wake up-- take the blinders off. Hypersonic age is already here!!! I sure hope that they are not used with Nukes against any nation.
@@thetrooper9236 a Nuke ICBM was tested about a month ago. what are you talking about Hypersonic, Nukes, or Hypersonic Nuke ? you are all over the place...
I apologize if this becomes a page of text but this is something I am well versed in. You are using the best that DCS can give you here but its a far cry from what would actually happen. The Scud is a very slow missile in comparison to a real ICBM of the class the Russians are talking about. They were specifically talking about land based, silo launched missiles. The speeds of these things are incredible. They are enough to put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit with ease. Ground Based interceptor missiles, an SM-3 from a Tico cruiser, or perhaps those SA-23 Giants might be able to do it. If the Russians don't launch a missile with lots of decoys in the warhead package. The Rapier and Tor had no chance. They just can't keep up with the speed of even the Scud.
well this was fun, as a game! in reality 1- you need to hit them before reaching your air space (it’s not like there will nuclear detonation only on target) 2- even then we are doomed, as at that point we have already fired back and regardless the nuclear fallout goes around the earth
A DDG-51's (and Ticonderoga's for that matter) ability to defend against ballistic missiles will depend on its current radar set and what is sitting in the tubes. For the radar set it depends on if the ship has received the Aegis BMD upgrade. This is an upgrade to both the AN/SPY-1 primary radar system as well the AN/APG-62 FCS radars. For ships without the upgrade they can still engage ballistic targets but are not as efficient and cannot do so at greater ranges. Ships with the upgrade meanwhile are able to engage at much greater distances and can provide more accurate guidance at higher angles (IE missile coming down on your carrier task force). As for the missiles the primary ABM weapons are the: RIM-174 (SM-6)- Essentially a modified AMRAAM seeker on a VLS RIM-67 (RIM-156) and an additional booster motor and RIM-161 (SM-3)- current form is the largest SAM in the US arsenal other than the GBI and is capable of engaging targets in low earth orbit including missiles still in their boost or midcourse phase of flight. To my knowledge the missiles carried by the Burke and Tico in DCS are RIM-66 (SM-2) which are SARH missiles reliant on the AN/APG-62 radars (3 per ship) to provide illumination. Without the BMD mod this is... challenging. Furthermore the RIM-66 is not meant for the BMD role and is simply too small and slow for the task hence the other missiles. It is by no means a guarantee that any given destroyer in peacetime will have either of the appropriate weapons aboard much less in suitable quantities. People with actual naval experience would be better than myself at confirming this but in general most Burke's are tomahawk heavy while the Ticonderoga's handle fleet air defense more directly although both ships can perform either role. TL:DR: in DCS the Arleigh burke class is not setup to deal with ballistic targets but managed to do pretty darn well in this scenario anyway
The answer is no and neither could Russia from the inevitable counter attack. Mutually assured destruction is a real thing or at least real enough to give even Vladimir Putin a reason for caution.
I think the type 45 is much better than modelled on DCS. Baring in mind the radar and armourment is pretty potent and definitely better than an Arleigh Burke class.
No the answer is this island would be completely destroyed, and millions would die first from the nuclear blast and after from the huge wave that would swallow most of the low areas.
When the systems don’t shoot, it’s usually a combination of range and target speed. The short range of a Rapier makes it impossible to reach and intercept before that enemy missile hits its target. Also, if the UK asks Biden for PAC-2s, he will most likely send a few quarts of his favorite ice cream.
dont forget that nukes deployed from ICBMs and bombers are designed to air burst at a certain altitude they dont hit the ground. The altitude a megaton range warhead is detonated would be too high to get a chance to intercept for most of the surface to air missile systems used in this video. The Pac-2 and S300 might get lucky but its doubtful. You need dedicated anti ballistic missile defense systems.
yea weapons from Biden are reserved for blood thirsty terrorist organizations like the Taliban or countries with politicians that help his drug addict son make money like Ukraine
Because the US hasn’t supplied and resupplied and deployed tons of jets, troops and assets to Europe and England already? I’m no Biden fan myself but get a grip. You insult all of us with your snarky BS.
Hadn't heard of DCS till I saw some GR videos a few weeks back; really enjoying them, thanks Cap et al. Couldn't help wondering here though if there were a few Meteor equipped Typhoons up would that stand a chance of intercepting ballistic missiles?
@@hicm1of124 it's cute you think we don't have constant CAP's around our own borders.... there's _always_ Typhoons in the air. Same as the F-35's we have as part of the JSF, always ready to go on our carriers 😙😙😙
@@SA80TAGE - Typhoons & 1960s Trident missile technology are simply NO DEFENCE against hypersonic "SATAN" ICBMs!! As for those "Flying Dustbins" (F35s) as they have been colloquially christened for good reason, and so-called "state of the art" aircraft carriers - which low & behold don't even have any planes to carry....the less said the better coz it would be almost beyond embarrassing!!! 😳😳😳
Well, that's MAD! We all know that if anyone develops an effective defensive umbrella system then it WILL be considered a first-strike weapon. Any PURELY defensive missile system, is _(quite correctly)_ considered a 'first-strike weapon' under the treaty - as it *permits* a country to launch a nuclear strike. Some nations may, therefore, have some very "hush hush" defensive capabilities. Any adequate defence, under the treaty, is an illegal offensive capability : /
Basically the defence of his country will be Boris getting driven through London at high speed, running down any serf that gets in the way as he gets to the VIP bunker, whilst the rest of us get a radioactive suntan.
@@ephemeral.793 I dont mind that this was tested for fun in DCS because heck, why not. That's what this video series is all about! But if the conclusion is that these systems can intercept an ICBM, especially a modern one with decoys too, well .. doubtful. Although having said that, there are more dedicated systems for anti ICBM duty, but these aren't very effective either. Certainly the west has gone mad with anti Russian sentiment, somewhat justifiably but also quite blindly and hypocritically, given the west has started many wars, has pushed it's forces and weapons to encircle Russia for a long time and has engaged in most of what they've accused Russia of doing. Leaving aside the politics which, frankly, is what it is and can't be changed in any case, I like this video but I don't believe it is realistic in terms of our chances of stopping Russian nukes. Best if nuclear war is avoided!
there are more Britons emigrating to other countries because of your insane inflation, 1000 percent increase of emigration read it on your media. Than a likely hood of Russia defragmenting, many before you wished that even at its weakest point during the fall of the USSR and yet it still stands against the wolves who dress in sheep's clothing wishing for its destruction and ready to gobble up its enormous commodities and resources. The West have already failed with the sanctions many companies are already back in Russia working as usual lol my friends tell me that, the ruble is strengthening with out capital controls being implemented anymore and its interest rate is now at 14 percent almost back to 10 percent before the start of operations. GDP is a false indicator of economy readout, commodity and resources things not just the west needs but the global south who continue and increase purchase of Russian resources. Only time, will all of you wake up your just shooting yourselves in the foot
one additional thing to remember, for a fire solution from Russia to England, they also have to fly over Poland Germany and depending on exact launch / flight path the Netherlands Belgium or France; or over Finland Sweden and Norway. Each country has anti missile defense as well and would take fire solutions at them. Firing a (nuclear) missile over someones soil is a big no no.
Those people that responded to you sounded like they just woke up. 😆 They were not ready for this serious of a conversation. Kinda put them on the spot I think.
The only thing is sarmat 2 is land based and travel hypersonic at terminal phase so need to hit it before but would be nice to have patriots and thaad.
Excellent simulation with the goal to assist USA military industry in ramming their junk into English throats! Russian missiles don't fly on predictable paths, their courses are erratic and CANNOT be subjected to computations in order to intercept them.
It would be cool to add the THAAD, patriot pac 3, and GBI interceptors as well as give ticonderiga cruisers and arleigh burke destroyers sm 6 multi role missiles, and sm 3 anti ballistic missiles
With an ICBM, does the intercepting missile really need a warhead? From the numbers, it sounds like you could get a kinetic kill with practically any mass.
My thoughts also, but I think that defense type missle that are made to intercept missles rely on getting close and blowing up in front. Sort of like a shotgun blast because intercepting these missles is EXTREMELY difficult
I would be interested in the return attack on the Russian Submarines as well and how effective the Anti-submarine helo's, ships and allied submarines fared.
No russian missile sub is on patrol. Their combined patrol time per year can be measured with a stopwatch. And if they ever leave port, they'll have an american hunter-killer sub within firing range, ready to sink it at the first sound related to missile launches.
@@AllanFolm Yep. Russian nukes are a joke. First sign of an ICBM launch Boris Johnson would put on his Superman custume, fly over and grap it and shove it up Putins ass.
@@AllanFolm Russian subs don't need to leave their port to fire their missiles, they can launch from the pier and from sitting on the surface. Also Russian subs from the delta 4 onwards, so anything from the 80s is as loud as a 688. Even Russian Sierra subs are as quite as a seawolf not to mention the Yasen, so writing off Russian current Submarine capabilities is just plain ignorant. Russia submarine fleet is the most finance in Russian armed services, saying they don't leave their port is just disinformation at its best. Nuclear threat from Russia is real, and anyone who dismissed it isn't a full quid.
@@Phanindra_Bhupathi_Raju_ people should of learned to defend themselves,we had to and got to be said back when we started ,going to new worlds not known before was like going to the moon these days ,so we did well to be fair .
By the time this tech improves to the point that it could ever be mass produced and integrated at an affordable price, by that time nukes will be much more sophisticated and new challenges will exist rendering the new system already redundant. Nuclear war is never an option because no one survives - anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. That said, I enjoyed this video and found it interesting.
Hey GR, there is one thing that makes you different from any other Western DCS channel. It’s your unbiasedness. I love how you try your best to remain unpolitical whilst bring the the most fashionably interesting videos. 🙏
Ukraine-Russia Series:
Fulcrum/Flanker vs Foxbat/Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/BhXfxc94JAU/видео.html
NASAMS vs Russian Cruise Missiles: ruclips.net/video/pJI_b95jzpk/видео.html
Russian KH-47M2 vs Polish Air Force: ruclips.net/video/cnrVxqL5q9w/видео.html
Su-27 & Drone vs Snake Island: ruclips.net/video/T_oRoU2Ayfo/видео.html
Su-25s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/ryV65bUJzrw/видео.html
NATO Eurofighters vs Crimean AWACS: ruclips.net/video/EiJ2dFRh95g/видео.html
Patriot, Gepard & Gripen vs KH-65: ruclips.net/video/ZhxdrNjig1g/видео.html
A-10s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/B0tZoo0uLh4/видео.html
USN Tomahawk Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/0vpi8xBygV8/видео.html
USAF Stealth Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/IJbf9Bcxnw0/видео.html
Ukrainian Jets Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/I8FumuZReB4/видео.html
F-22 Raptors vs Russian Fighters: ruclips.net/video/ComRcmrwJWk/видео.html
Raptor/Eagle vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/keqYmuSEo-8/видео.html
USAF Bombers vs Mariupol Defenses: ruclips.net/video/aCsboOG0QU4/видео.html
Ukraine Bombs Snake Island: ruclips.net/video/BX696MKdkb8/видео.html
Stealth Fighters vs Russian Bombers: ruclips.net/video/rym90jnQDsA/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #3: ruclips.net/video/NIjoyIieOzY/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #2: ruclips.net/video/snjfbj_EwW4/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #1: ruclips.net/video/Bxwh6MGLJNc/видео.html
Russia Nukes Britain: ruclips.net/video/rzk45RFQwA8/видео.html
Ukraine Uses Danish F-16s: ruclips.net/video/17Pikrp0QaY/видео.html
Ukraine Uses Polish Mig-29s: ruclips.net/video/zCi4tAIzuOU/видео.html
Russian-Britain Missile Attack: ruclips.net/video/zwIGfabvzHA/видео.html
Ghost Of Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/Yrct8V4n1-U/видео.html
Belgorod Raid: ruclips.net/video/mQykTxt6ftw/видео.html
Eurofighter/Fulcrum vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/MPyIipEhgR0/видео.html
US Strike vs Odessa ruclips.net/video/KeiOHgzic6Y/видео.html
Russian Helo Rocket Lob: ruclips.net/video/118GgGnP_sM/видео.html
Russian Su-25 vs US Patriot SAM: ruclips.net/video/asp69ZD_tO0/видео.html
Understanding Russian SAMs: ruclips.net/video/R4xTxLNZXcw/видео.html
Ukrainian Jets Road Operations: ruclips.net/video/hBpzQhinPbw/видео.html
Russian 40 Mile Convoy: ruclips.net/video/Vr_-2FLblBk/видео.html
Flanker vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/VOAuOFLJGk4/видео.html
Honestly mate 75% of the world wants to see london nuked
I wouldnt presume UK will be on the same side as anybody. Its a weird world. For example Germany and USA are pissed at each other right now.
Little sad that we could not see the aster block 2 missile system. I think the royal navy use it as their abm missile though the french got a ground variant of the abm system.
‘While britian is a small island’ yeah a small island richer than backwards ‘massive’ russia.
C!A ENG!NES GAMES PR0PAG4NDA!!!
US M!LL!TARY EQU!PMENT FULLY C0RRUPT!0NS, HYPER MARK UP!!!
EVEN US PATR!0T M!SS!LES FA!LED T0 INTERCEPTS CHEAPS H0UTI M!SS!LES!!!
It’s also very likely that a true attack would also consist of a large number of decoy warheads.
in the words of nero....."fire everything!!!" every cruise missile,every ballistic missile,every ship launch based missile,every torpedo,every tupolev bomber every kamikaze pilot.......to the sound of overture 1812......hundreds and thousands of fighters bombers,rockets,torpedos,missiles,smart bombs,dumb bombs nuclear and non nuclear tipped will blanket europe.
Decoys are a standard operating procedure.
would you get nuclear fallout as well?
A true nuclear attack would probably start with one nuclear weapon ,probably hypersonic and it would detonate in a way to act as a emp ,electric magnetic pulse weapon to basically try to disable any radar and air defence systems, I think these are usually air bombs ,not ground level ,then the main launch will come in behind this with the militaries eyes and ears ,radars and scanners incapacitated by the first blast
Right ! Decoy warheads mixed with real warheads. It will exhaust your defenses. Or warheads with chemical weapons mixed nukes warheads.
Extra bonus: if the Patriot sites are crewed by Americans, it can retain full readiness during Eurovision and even the World Cup.
🤔🕯⁉️☢‼️🆗️🆒️😃💡🪄🔮🪛✅🔌📡🛰🔫💣🚀🛸💥🎆💤🪆👍🪕🎸🦾🍔🍿🎫🇺🇲🏈⚾️🍻🏏🏉🇬🇧👨👩👧👦🍾🥂🌎🌍🗺#️⃣1️⃣🏆🎖🥇🍸🚬🍼👶❣✌
A Patriot CANT EVEN knock out a SCUD! Don’t be fooled.
@@brianmurray1395 The patriot of the 90's is a far cry from what it is today, or do you think the military just sits on it's hands and never upgrades it's technology?
@@brianmurray1395quit taking facts from the 90s patriot has been upgraded and improved many times since then
@@brianmurray1395 your Russian intel is out of date XD
Rapier does not alarm on anything flying over Mach 1. That is because when they were designed there was no aircraft that could drop ordnance above Mach 1. Rapier is an air defence system. If you are flying over Mach 1 then there is no need to engage. It could be effective against a sub sonic cruise missile. Also note there is only one launcher per optical tracker and tracker radar.
Another thing to remember is that Nukes are programmed to go off while way above ground, to cause the most damage. So the intercept needs to be above a certain altitude or its useless to even fire.
Nukes don’t explode when hit. They have to go through nuclear reaction. Which doesn’t occur in an explosion
Well it accures becouse becouse of an explotion but yes
If it has a fuel source used for propulsion it will explode.
@@bradw3485 naaaaaaaaah
possibly
even the north koreans know how to make nukes explode.....look at the design of fatman,more than simple just a bunch of refined radioactive material and a bunch of high explosives around it, designed to compress the material i guess and set off a chain reaction,a reaction faster than the speed of light and to the naked eye is just a moment of silence and the sound of a vacuum sucking in like in a hollywood movie and a brilliant flash.
@@bradw3485 no fuel left by that point chief.
1 SARMAT carries 10-15 Hypersonic Glide Re-entry Vehicles, nasty piece of work
@@jasonbourne6694 That’s just not true.
@@jasonbourne6694 The key part is Glide vehicles, they maneuver and can take evasive action, which makes them incredibly hard to intercept. They are not simple ballistic MIRV's, which are difficult enough as it is.
The reason is simple, at Mach 15, a small maneuver can change the impact point by thousands of km. Completely negating any defensive measures which may have been queued up.
These glide vehicles can also do an atmospheric skip (imagine a jet boat bouncing over water) that also increases the difficulty of intercept.
To be clear the last few tests of the SM6 system against non maneuvering Hypersonic ballistic targets resulted in only 1 of 3 reentry vehicles killed. Of 6 interceptors, only 1 target was hit... leaving the possibility that 5 of 6 interceptors *missed*
To say the state of defensive measures against even ballistic Hypersonic reentry vehicles is in its infancy is no understatement. Then add in the glide vehicles ability to evade via maneuvering... and you can project just how effective they will be, perhaps not 100%, but probably well into the 90s.
The age of the offensive missile is well and truely upon us.
@@martinpalmer6203 That's very interesting, but the point is neither Sarmat nor it's gliding blocks do exist in the real world as a ready-to-use unit. It's being tested for years, and would be tested further. I doubt it would be produced numerously due to sanctions and lack of their own technologies (unlike USSR). And you should not overestimate the significance of russian combat propaganda, particularly about specification and capabilities of their weaponary. Actually it's not so good as they want us to consider, believe me. E.g. their allegedly modern cruise missiles mishit targets by hundreds of meters, sometimes even kilometers.
@@yuriy-od-ua all modern cruise missiles miss by a long way when shot down. However the Houthi attack on the Saudi oil facility proves just how prolific the technology is to target accurately within 1m. Who do you think helped Iran develop the technology that was given to the Houthi rebels to carry out that strike?
The rest of your post is wishful thinking. Whenever there is demand for something, someone will either invent supply,or supply it. China isn't about to miss the opportunity & even Israel is likely to see benefits supporting Russia.. besides the obvious domestically produced semiconductors which have been used for decades in military equipment.
just as elsewhere that has an arms industry, they dont use critical parts made in foreign nations. despite what propaganda might try to say.
@@martinpalmer6203I was talking about undamaged rockets, not the shot ones. China is decreasing supply of smartphones and PCs to Russia right now :) And Russia don't have their own modern semiconductor or microcontroller production. They used European or Taiwanese electronic components in their new weaponary - as far as we can see from captured samples. You are overestimating russians again. They are far less independent and capable than USSR.
Regarding the inadvertent nuke detonation during interception, due to the physical construction of nukes it would be nigh on impossible for it to occur. There will always be those who want to argue this point, but the way the components have to be combined in a highly precise symmetrical 'explosive lens' makes any destruction from the outside of the weapon render this impossible.
Two considerations, the guidance and programmed altitude for detonating is all electronic. An EMP from any nuclear explosion will most likely render the incoming inert. Second, if impacted it will rain highly toxic debris rendering a large location non usable. Either interception is bad.
It still makes that intercepted warhead a dirty bomb, contaminating an area with nuclear fision material.
And ofcourse its a way better scenario then a thermonuclear blast of that same warhead.
Very true. Implosion types and gun type weapons depend on very small tolerances in timing and shape. Thermonuclear devices still need an initial fission based reaction to gain the energy to generate the fusion process. If you were in a city with an a bomb and wanted to save as many lives as possible smashing the thing with a bat would be as effective as anything else. Hypothetically there could be other types of nuclear weapon that are classified or not common knowledge but I couldn't comment on that. One of the reasons that the major powers accrued so many weapons was because they werent sure how many would actually work, even before taking into account interception.
Yes! If you destroy a nuke in flkight, you get a dirty bomb, not a nuke
@@michaelvangundy226 while interception would most definitely cause radioactive material to be dispersed over a large area, which would definitely not be good. The radiological effects would pale in comparison to an actual detonation.
In a detonation, especially one close to or on the ground, the nuclear chain reaction of a detonation actually creates more radioactive material than is in the warhead through the bombardment of surrounding material. So it would definitely be better to shoot the missiles down. (By no means do I think you're implying letting them through would be better, or even that you didn't already know this.)
A great example of this is the idea of so called "salted bombs" which surround the warhead with inert cobalt or other materials which are transformed into a highly radioactive material, making a smaller warhead much more radioactively potent.
You have to wonder what humanity was collectively smoking during the cold war.
I was a patriot missile operator for 10 years each patriot battalion has 4 battery's a,b,c,d battery's each battery has 8 launchers and each laucher has 4 missiles (pac 2) but the new system is a pac 3 launcher which has 4 canisters and each canister holds 4 missiles so that's 16 missiles per launcher 8 launchers per battery and 4 battery's per battalion and 4 to 5 battalions per brigade
I served in a Patriot battery PAC2 and PAC2+ 1992-1996. Dude, I wouldn't want to be in the Missle reload squad in the launcher platoon with all of those empty canisters!!!!
I was in the 69th 32 and 11th brigades from November 2001 to November 2010
Thank you guys for your service.
These pretty pictures are wonderful but that's really all they are. London would not be the only target. In fact London has very little actual legitimate military targets and if Russia hit us they wouldn't mess about.
All this does is give false hope.
Any of you guys see that old movie Threads? it's very dated and the special effects look like they were done by children but the story and outcome are still chilling. I don't think I'd want to survive.
I haven't heard one single politition call for peace? They have failed us terribly.
@@HockeyFan1972 Thanks for serving Allan Larmour and you too Michael Josey!
Patriot cannot intercept ICBMS
Rapier is a close air defence missile, certainly not designed to engage ballistic missiles.
Yeah and T45 is capable of tracking ballistic missiles but doesnt have the ammunition for long range interception (would have had a higher rate of fire than in sim though).
I love this guys enthusiasm! He loves explosions.. my kind of guy
Great work Cap! My dad was Martin Marietta (Littleton, CO) and got to stand in for a laser demonstration that cut an orange in half. From that moment we stopped fearing the citrus 🍊 threat and ruled supreme. 'Merica!
Sarmat would be able to lob a war payload to Britain with its booster stage alone. Likely if the Russians wanted to use a Sarmat against the UK, they'd have to send it into a FROBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) trajectory just to use up the second stage and MIRV bus. Sarmat is made for attacking the US, the the launch vehicle is total overkill for attacking Western Europe.
Overkill has to be one big understatement.
Russian ICBMs were never made to attack western Europe, the target of Russian nukes was always north America.
@@georgeantabi6025 Exactly. However if for some reason Russia wanted to use an ICBM, they can with the FROBS option of Sarmat.
unless they don't launch it on the shortest possible route
@@touristguy87 Sarmat of overpowered for that trajectory, it has to go around. For a classical ballistic trajectory from the Russian missile fields, they'd need to bypass the 2nd stage, and cut the first stage off early.
I love how the launch scene is from cold waters
I hope at some point Combined ARms will turn full Arma, WITH naval assets.
Well spotted.
loved that little detail
You guys know that the flip side of this is that the Russian anti missile systems work really well right?
And, the Russian navy has a work around to our SAMs... they have massive nuclear torpedoes that they have designed to fire onto enemy coastlines and literally cause a "nuclear tsunami". Some are cobalt jacketed to cause maximum radiation too.
It's not a great situation.
@@ianmedford4855 nothing in Russia works really well
Defending against a nuke strike would be difficult but the thing people do not realize is that is that a nuke does not have to actually hit its target to cause damage or even be close, the US did testing with them long ago to find the optimal detonation height to cause maximum physical damage, but they also tested the optimal height for maximum EMP damage and they found that at the max physical damage height the EMP effects where minimal and blocked by hills and the curvature of the earth, however a single detonation in low earth orbit far above any interception capability would rain down an unimpeded EMP that would blanket cover most or all of a small country. This would effectively shut down a country by instantly tanking out country wide civilian infrastructure, peoples cars / trucks / phones / Computers ETC would also be rendered non functional shutting down communications and more importantly the distribution of food to shops
Thanks!
The real answer is no, no matter what a sim shows. Not even the US with its superior defenses and geographic location can defend a full scale attack.
Superior defenses where ? Saudi Arabian oilfield ? what a joke !
The other side of that is how well would the Russian systems actually work in real life. Are they really in as poor a state as they seem from their attack on Ukraine or are they somehow trying to fool the world into thinking they are still a power to be reckons with. Not that I want to se missiles flying but I have doubts about their capability to launch as many as they say.
@@Thurgosh_OG it actually doesn’t really matter since they will win the K/D/A
@@Thurgosh_OG The thing is they only need like 2-3% of them to work to end humanity. Realistically, the US can only shoot down a few ICBMs high enough to not spread radioactive material all over.
@@megachaloub759 no
You likely wouldn't have a nuke going off when hit by an anti missile. Nukes aren't like conventional explosives. They don't go off from shock. Nukes rely on shaped conventional explosives carefully timed to implode the first stage fission core perfectly from all sides at once. If not perfectly compressed you won't get anything or at most only a fizzle where just a part of the fission fuel explodes which would only be a very small fission explosion. Since that would happen far up in the atmosphere (Air burst) you wouldn't have any long lasting radiation and the explosion would be too far up to affect the ground.
Most ICBMs are fusion. The conventional small fission device compresses the fusion fuel to create a secondary hydrogen reaction. This takes enormous pressures, heat and release of neutrons. With only a fizzle conventional explosion the pressure and heat won't be enough to set off the hydrogen reaction. Your greatest danger would be the plutonium debris of the first stage fission fuel falling down in inhabited regions. If intercepted over water you wouldn't have that.
" Nukes aren't like conventional explosives. They don't go off from shock. Nukes rely on shaped conventional explosives "
...drink your milk and go to bed, young'n.
@@touristguy87 He's right though explained it poorly. For a nuke, lets say a simple fission bomb, to work you need a certain mass of U235 to be close enough together. It's basically in two parts that get smashed together by a primary charge. Once enough U235 is in a ball, boom. If it gets hit and explodes into random pieces, nothing will happen. Hydrogen bombs work very differently and more in line with the shaped charged comment, but the same idea. Nuclear bombs basically have separated masses of fissionable materials that get smooshed together to make it work. busting a n. bomb apart is very unlikely to make it explode.
@@kylethompson1379 "Hydrogen bombs work very differently "
No, they don't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
@@kylethompson1379 "usting a n. bomb apart is very unlikely to make it explode."
You're talking apples and oranges.
The question is whether detonating an explosive, shelled or otherwise, near a fission device would cause it to fail when triggered to detonate. There's no simple answer to this question as it would depend on the design of the fission device.
@@kylethompson1379 "For a nuke, lets say a simple fission bomb, to work you need a certain mass of U235 to be close enough together. It's basically in two parts that get smashed together by a primary charge. Once enough U235 is in a ball, boom. If it gets hit and explodes into random pieces, nothing will happen. "
...again, wrong. The condition for fission is "supercritical mass"
"An assembly that supports a sustained nuclear chain reaction is called a critical assembly or, if the assembly is almost entirely made of a nuclear fuel, a critical mass. The word "critical" refers to a cusp in the behavior of the differential equation that governs the number of free neutrons present in the fuel: if less than a critical mass is present, then the amount of neutrons is determined by radioactive decay, but if a critical mass or more is present, then the amount of neutrons is controlled instead by the physics of the chain reaction. The actual mass of a critical mass of nuclear fuel depends strongly on the geometry and surrounding materials."
"Supercritical mass" depends on density, increase the density enough and the fissionable material will go supercritical. If it goes supercritical the resulting fission explosion will initiate a fusion reaction in any fusionable material in the proper thermal and pressure environment for sustained fusion. Your comment is just plain and simply wrong as it assumes that neither of these two conditions would be met if the fissionable material is "hit and blown into random pieces". If enough fission material is present in the original device, the likelhood that at least some of it will go into fission is...anyone's guess. But if it does and there's enough of a hydrogen or lithium/lead blanket that is exposed to high enough temperatures and pressures from the fission reaction then it also will go into fusion.
The whole problem here is that exactly what do you have as a basis for your opinion? Have you ever seen any group ever successfully detonate an explosive material near a nuclear device and have it fail to detonate when prompted or even fail to go nuclear on its own? Has that ever actually been tested? Did they call you when they got the test results?
You know, even in WW2 with the V2 rocket once the rocket ascended high enough and reached a high-enough speed, nothing was going to stop it from crashing down on or near target and exploding. They only reached sub-orbital heights and velocities. Russia has been developing these things since they backed out of the ABM treaty. You honestly think they have spent 20+ years developing ICBMs with MIRVS that could easily be tracked and destroyed?
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/hiroshima,-nagasaki,-and-subsequent-weapons-testin.aspx#:~:text=About%2064%20kilograms%20of%20highly,city%2C%20on%206%20August%201945.
About 64 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium was used in the (Hiroshima) bomb which had a 16 kiloton yield (i.e. it was equivalent to 16,000 tonnes of TNT).
So what's the multiplier? 4:1 converting from kg to tons of TNT yield. So if you want a MT yield, you need 4Mg of u235, which is about 4 tons of u235. Per IRV.
I'd guess that you can cut that weight in half (total SATAN-2 weight is about 220 tons carrying 15 IRVs so they are probably closer to a ton each, of u235, which is among the most dense material known to man) with a boosted fission bomb (a "hydrogen bomb"), as you get more energy with say lithium and lead then you'd get with u235, unless you replace the lead with more u235 and make a 3-stage device (which would then fission all of the u235 not just the u238 in it). You would then need to detect, acquire, target and intercept this device while it's hurtling through space, and increasingly-dense atmosphere, at Mach...20, or there-abouts. With active evasion.
With 14 of its buddy IRVs doing the same thing.
Per SARMAT-2 missile.
Yeah sure, we'll just hit them all with a massive TNT blast and disable them. All of them. So simple. Wonder why the Russians didn't think of it?
Yeah, this is basically intercepting SCUDs. We see this in action in Ukraine quite frequently with Russians intercepting Ukrainian Tochka-U missiles. Its the best the game can do, but these are several times slower than actual reentry velocity of ICBM warheads. Also the Sarmat has a higher throw weight than the original Satan.. comes with 10-15 MIRVs and a buttload of countermeasure decoys. Any terminal intercept ABM site would effectively be overwhelmed with a single missile. There is good reason why the US ABM efforts, after leaving the ABM treaty, focus on mid-course interception, not terminal.
Another aspect is that an initial missile might be used to cause a disruptive EMP event with a high altitude detonation, further increasing the odds of the following warheads to penetrate defenses. Anyhow, as it stands - UK doesnt actually have any defense against an ICBM strike.
How tf do you know?
@@unelectedbureaucrat2003 Know what?
I feel like having a ballistic missile interceptor should be a priority for uk and all the eu states
They only have one. They spent the money on fast cars, superyachts' and London mansions.
They best start doing it now. Now or never. We need to protect our cou try ffs and the money goes ..God knows where.
Actually a sarmat is a 200 ton missile which has 10 mirv and 40 decoys, means 1 missile 50 targets. US defence systems are set to have 27% kill probability against ballistic targets which is pretty good but still it will require 4 missiles for 100% kill probability of 1 target, hence 200 missiles for 50 targets/ 1 sarmat missile. These numbers could get worse as these are machines if some fail it would be too late. Now, UK is not capable of that at all because only 5 countries US, Russia, China, India and Israel have proven Anti satellite and ballistic missile defence. Uk , France, Italy and Iran claim but not proved as these systems are still in testing phase. Truth is no country is fully safe against ballistic missile with hypersonic re-entry vehicle and mirv. But when you have something it's better.
Well said
So its safe to asume that the best options for citizens is to go to the deepest metro station in case of an attack?
@@testingstudionideas3620 best option is to leave Europe and go to somewhere safe in Southern hemisphere
you really think that you can just add all probabilities and get 100%?
@@sticksjke the thing is simple if you don't agree with me then don't waste time commenting back to me😏
The UK's best defence is it's four Vanguard submarines. I guess they are not in this game.
Especially when the British can't fire a single Missile via its SUBS, Without the official Command Codes from the US State Department. And physically banned from acting Unilaterally by ourselves, unlike every other similar Class System. The UK are basically irrelevant Without America. No matter our so called independence. 👌
The sky sabre would deal with these
I served on rapier in the late 70s ,early 80s . My old regiment are currently in Poland with their brand new Sky Sabre system.
Cool
Sky sabre won't do anything against hypersonic missile or the sarmat ballistic missiles.
Also multiple warhead ballistic missiles are made to saturate any missile defense systems.
That's why any war with Russia is insane, and peace talks must happen soon as possible before escalation to Armageddon.
Let hope they don't have to use it
@@mattt525 Why not, are you scared to die for mother England?
Yeah I seen the sky saver in the news,how good are they supposed to be,could they protect a big city like London or Glasgow from nukes.
The U.S. keeps special arleigh burkes in Rota Spain armed with sm3 anti ballistic missiles for this reason. So the ones modeled in game while being able to take some out are not as potent as the special mission burkes out of Spain.
SM-3's in Romania as well👍
In all reality there is much more that we don't know about too
@BroncoBob reality is we are all fu ked
they can't intercept it
@Milo Jones for all I am able to say is yes. Our good tech is completely built and functional. And gets put on a shelf. The enemy cannot build a weapon against a weapon they do not know about. For all the impressive stuff we have. There is stuff equally as scary. Its unfortunate but its there. Most military weapons and vehicles. Are 30+ years old because there is no need to update them as they are good enough. Yes new stuff gets sprinkled in here and there. But if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I see other comments have told you how unlikely nuclear detonation is with a defensive intercept. It is possible for the attacking missile to calculate an intercept & set off nuclear detonation before it is hit. Considering Russia's level of sophistication this isn't likely. The sequence of nuclear detonation is just too complicated to go off from impact.
I would really like to have seen how a THAAD system would have handled the incoming missiles.
These sims only guess right? Rapier could shoot them down for all we know right?
We need a video of attack over EU with NATO air defences
The Scud missile you're using in this simulation mostly breaks up into multiple parts upon reentry & it is very difficult for the ABM to distinguish between the warhead & debris.
That was the Iraqi Al Hussein missiles that broke up. Iraq cut Scuds in half, added an extra section, then welded it all back together, to give more fuel capacity and a longer range. They broke up at the weld places, confusing the Patriot missiles.
@@matthewnewell4517 yes patriot's failed against the scud
Aegis Ashore which is used as ABM defence in Europe - effectively the radar & fire control from a US Navy Aegis system on a building, with a VLS launching SM-3 or SM-6
irrelevant when each ICBM carries multiple nukes with countermeasures. even if some will get destroyed 1 nuke is more powerful than 20 hiroshima bombs. it's irrelevant. it's always a lose-lose game
@Gary Baldi Aegis BMD has a very good hit rate.
@Gary Baldi no the reason we've never invested in abms is 1, we're too cheap/don't have the money 2, it's pretty irrelevant as anyone likely to fire balistic missiles at us has far far more balistic missiles than we could ever hope to shoot down, they would then get smashed up by Trident in return though....
@Gary Baldi So how many "reality" events have you experienced? You're talking like you've seen it all and have every answer. Know-it-all Jackwagon Detected
IRL the Arleigh Burke has SM3 BLOCK II IA to deal with Ballistic missiles ( there's a video of them intercepting a (out of atmosphere) test ballistic missile
also used as a satellite killer.
@@willwozniak2826 Yep
The ones with the SM-3 Block IIA can intercept everything up to and including ICBMs. But the majority of Aegis BMD ships have not been upgraded with it yet.
@@thedausthed They just did a test on this back in 2020. They shot er down.
@@willwozniak2826 They can launch a SM3 but the aegis ships are not capable to track the target themselves (during the mid course phase). They are reliant on shore based radars. The only ships that can detect and track the missiles in the mid course phase are the Dutch zeven provinciën class frigates with their SMART-MM radars. However they do not have SM 3’S
You have to hit Russian Nuclear Ballistic Missiles when they are the closest to space..
Don't you love the way Russia "forgets" that nukes are a two-way street?
This isn't 1945, when the US (sorry, not really, Russia/USSR) had a nuclear monopoly.
Russian nukes is like Armata tank or Moskva cruiser "the killer of carriers". Sounds scary.
14:20: That's physically impossible. Nukes are fragile and if they are damaged in the slightest, they fail to achieve prompt supercriticality and fail to detonate.
18:38: So, these Russian rebels managed to steal a BC is what you're saying, right?
23:50: So ironically, Project Excalibur, the Star Wars laser, was an x-ray laser that functioned by using a nuclear warhead as a flash bulb. A nuke used to make a laser to kill a nuke.
Warheads are designed to withstand high temperatures, and high pressure while travelling in the atmosphere at 18000-20000 km/h. It is easy to damage the whole missile during the boost stage, but to track, and destroy WH is much more difficult.
Not all "nukes" are bad nukes.
EDIT: referring to your 23:50 note.
Just like nuclear energy 😁 depends on how you use it 🤷🏼♂️
You need to see the hypersonic missiles first - they can't be seen by radar very well. By the time you see them it's too late.
What if one nuke is planned to go off in the air, just to electromagnetically jam the defenses? "Physically impossible" if hit, might be true, but if it is planned that way....
@Milo Jones you first have to track it (not just see a blimp in your radar/optical device). Then - based on tracking - you have to develop firing solutions (just like in this video), calculating possible interception trajectories (if at all possible considering your interceptor characteristics). Then comes the hard part, most modern nuclear missiles can maneuver during terminal phase (changing trajectory in a random manner, like Iskander), so your firing solution can be thrown in the trash.
So in reality, the only reliable defence against the imminent effects of a nuclear attack is big territory, where you can hide and maybe last until radiation eventually decrease to survivable level. Nuclear attacks - unfortunately in a nuclear war - will be primarily directed on military and real economical targets, which tend to be not far from population centers. So the bigger a country (with more scarce populatio), the higher its chance of survivability is...
Remember the US have 3 to 4 line of defense against ICBM. Patriot being the lowest ones, than thaad and than SM3 from aegis systems.
If radar detect on intercontinental hypersonic missiles, it already hit Target's before anybody reacts.
@@andrehunter1295 the government monitors adversarial icbm launchers now that doesn’t include subs it includes a lot of the enemy fleet
@@Nr15121 I seem to remember some acoustic detection system that detected a sub hitting the deck from across the entire length of the pacific. Sorry, not just detected - actually successfully triangulated it's position.
@@Nr15121 attack subs have always watched Russian boomers
In a full nuclear exchange the US would only be able to intercept a small percentage of ICBM's.
A few comments here. First off, great job simulating this within the limitations of DCS. I realize the video is intended for entertainment purposes but I'd like to state some facts for anyone watching who cares. MIRV warheads reenter the atmosphere at over Mach 20, meaning the time they can be detected by one of these ballistic missile defense systems vs impact is less than 20 seconds.
The only missile system that have been proven to be able to intercept ICBM MIRV warheads in their mid-course phase is the ground-based midcourse defense system. There's like 40 interceptors based in Alaska and 4 in California with like 20 more being built.
The Navy has the Aegis missile defense system which can use SM-3 and SM-6 missiles to intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles in their boost phase. There's also land-based Aegis launchers in Eastern Europe. These have not been tested against MIRVs in their decent phase.
THAAD is probably the most promising development. the US has 7 batteries in the pacific (that we know of) and it uses a kinetic "kill-vehicle" to hit the MIRV at high speed. These have a promising track record and can intercept the MIRV in the atmosphere or in space.
The Patriot PAC-3 is capable of intercepting short and medium range ballistic missiles (like SCUDs) but has not been tested on MIRVs which travel much MUCH faster and have a very much lower radar cross-section.
There are other plans like there's always been, about developing a space-born "Star-Wars" style satellite net of laser-armed interceptors to kill missiles in their boost phase. If this ever gets deployed I doubt we'd hear about it. Also plans to equip F-35 fighters with interceptor lasers, which may not be feasible.
The short of it is that all of the US missile defense systems are designed to stop a limited or "rogue" missile attack from North Korea or Iran. Nothing is designed or able to stop a full-out missile strike by Russia or China. Any nuclear attack by Russia on the UK would be met with an equal or much stronger nuclear strike to take out their submarines, missile silos, air defenses, and command structure (ie, Moscow). Basically nuclear war, WW3, etc.
for more information you can visit this site: www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense
Thanks for all this info :)
@@grimreapers also bears mentioning that the 4 British Vanguard subs each carry 16 Trident II missiles with 8 warheads each. That’s potentially 512 MIRVs that can re-enter russian airspace at Mach 24.
hey don't the usa also now officially now have the fully opratable switchblade multi intercept kinetic kill impact missile drone! this drone is just a drone that's also a kinetic kill missile that is just a unmanned version of a kamikaze plane! but its a drone thats is also a multi purpose missile at the same time! but it's meant to take down a lot of enemy equipment such as planes, missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, icbms, ships, tanks, and other stuff as well!
@@ashtiboy I mean, it’s basically a remote control flying hand grenade. Can’t really take out main battle tanks or cruise missiles, just soft targets like grounded aircraft, light armored vehicles and artillery positions.
@@cshader2488
In UK service, the UGM-133 is usually loaded with a mixed loadout of RVs. Some post-boost vehicles will have a small number of RVs for a limited strike while others have eight or 10 RVs for a full effort second strike.
Will you make the response video? GB has four Vanguard class nuclear missile subs with 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles carrying 8 475kt warheads. Doing the math, that's 512 nuclear warheads raining down on Russia at mach 24+. Even if NATO and the USA sit this one out, I'd like to know how many bottles of vodka would be destroyed,
Good video but I am confused about which scenarios Britain has existing capability for and which are just hypothetical.
Awesome and fascinating video (as always)! Surely, the really important question is not whether British defences could neutralise 10 approaching MIRVs but whether 10 MIRVs could prevent a sufficiently deterring British retaliatory strike?
Britain no longer has any land based nuclear forces for this reason - the nuclear deterant is continuously at sea and therefore the answer is - no it couldn't :-)!
@@tomriley5790 The Vanguards under the ocean can strike back.
Defending Britain From Russian Cruise Missiles: ruclips.net/video/zwIGfabvzHA/видео.html
Does DCS have THAAD or Aegis or Aegis Ashore ABM (yet)? I assume DCS still lacks ASW capability to take out the sub. When it does sic @Kortana on it. ASW is an "art".
Imagine how amazingly entertaining it would be to run scenarios on state of the art defense simulators with the best possible variables for all military systems in operation worldwide. : )
Despite the details of the results, I think it's agreed nearly any nuclear power with a couple MIRV-enabled ballistic missiles will get through any defense. For isolated launch instances, I believe it makes sense Russia has the best capability. However, I also believe the massive investment for Russia to upkeep so many more nukes than they require to obliterate all targets, in addition to focusing so many resources for many decades into advanced SAM systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, is quite a waste. The US is also wasting resources on this, with the difference being they're simply able to afford those projects while funding everything else too. After the "Star Wars" program, I believe it's safe to say the US pivoted somewhat towards more conventional capabilities. Then with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many US weapons programs were terminated. Desert Storm sustained military strength along with Kosovo to an extent, the 9/11 attacks kickstarted huge growth in both conventional capabilities (and modernization programs being initiated as those wars played out), while also vastly increasing the size of special operations forces and capabilities. For example, estimates of total US special forces command personnel (support and HQ companies included I think) went from 40k in 2001 to an 80k peak in the late 2010's, to around 70k at present given the end of Afghanistan.
With so many hypersonic weapons programs in development in multiple countries, I believe SAM systems as a whole will improve, but again, I don't see the US or any country developing a system capable of defeating hundreds to thousands of simultaneous launches. The only effective means of realistically and reliably doing so would be developing the capability to hijack or destroy satellite systems which enable the communications, guidance, tracking, and detection of ballistic missiles. Interestingly enough, the US apparently launched prototype satellites with anti-satellite capabilities over a decade ago (per rumor/speculation admittedly), but their capability of shooting down a satellite with an SM series missile was made public when they wanted to ensure a US satellite in a decaying orbit didn't hit land with its volatile onboard chemicals/materials. Cheers.
What about C-RAM?
@@mikegarwood8680 C-RAM is for very short distances as far as I know. a 20mm Phalanx CIWS for example. The Iron Dome system is a missile based C-RAM, also considered short range.
@@mikegarwood8680 There are systems not modeled in DCS, perhaps up to five more for the US alone (PAC3 missiles as Cap mentioned, the THAAD missile defense system, "Aegis Ashore" likely has notably better radar capabilities with installations in Romania and Poland at a minimum, then there's updates to the SM series of missiles on the Arleigh Burke (I highly doubt the Aegis system is accurately modeled too, all of that is classified so I'm not sure how DCS knows it's accurate), and another program in the US is "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense."
However, it always comes back to such system capabilities being unknown to the public and therefore not being modeled in a sim like DCS. As soon as you start implementing wildly inaccurate models into DCS, it devalues the other (much more) accurately modeled assets. This is why user-mods are counter productive in so many cases, as the planes are just set to completely unrealistic performance measures.
I'm surprised you didn't run this with the American Ticonderoga-class cruiser. That's our premiere anti-missile naval vessel.
Don't forget that nukes does not require to detonate on impact to the ground. More damage can be done by detonating at higher altitudes. One more thing to be consider that one nuclear blast in the atmosphere will cause an EMP witch will destroy all electronics of the defender therefore Air defense units will not work.
agreed either way if nuke are coming to UK its finished . Weather they explode in the air or on the ground its finished
These defense systems are emp proof
@@blindingshadow3463 any nuclear attack of any kind is the end
@@scottfay3553 no Scott not true. We used two on Japan, detonated thousands above ground, underground, in the atmosphere, really we nuked the world over and over and over and over. You've been conditioned to believe nuclear war will be all out. It won't. It will be tactical, and highly efficient for the Russians. It is why they are running push logistics, and not using there GPS.....this is how an army operates in a nuclear theatre. Hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm right. God bless
Patriots missiles are meant for shorter range interceptions which is why they were deployed later when incoming enemies’ missiles are closer to their target. THAAD will easily take them out long before that!
The only way a Tor is going to intercept a ballistic missile is if the target happened to be right adjacent to the Tor where the solution wouldn't change much.
Wonder how effective the British army's new Sky Sabre will be
It wouldn't do anything - Sky Sabre is for taking out lower slower threats.
12:20 they can't go accidentally off. A nuclear bomb is very hard to trigger, and if anything doesn't work, it just is a inefficient dirty bomb. So the biggest problem is the radiation and fragmentation from those interceptions.
not sure who made you an expert on Russian strategic nuclear weapons, but it isn't a question of how hard it is to defeat or disable these weapons, it's a question of whethre we CAN defeat or disable these weapons.
Pretty-sure that a hand-grenade going off as a RV goes by isn't going to do the job.
@Milo Jones I remember hearing that, during the Cold War, one field-expedient method of disabling nuclear warheads (in order to prevent them from falling into enemy hands due to ground invasion) was to literally *shoot* them with a pistol!
The idea was to smash apart the precisely calculated arrangement of the shaped charge explosives, derailing any nuclear chain-reaction.
Nice job, but one tidbit for nukes. For a nuke to go off properly, there needs to be an internal sequence of finely tuned explosions to trigger the reaction. So if you shoot down the rocket, their nuclear warhead will be rendered mostly harmless. it'll still detonate but the explosion will be much smaller than intended. Think of a Moab or less.
Mach 8.5 is the speed listed for the S-300. Truly Hypersonic but it don't maneuver like the supposed Super Duper Missiles that China and Russia have now.
Nobody is going to start a nuclear war, and everyone would lose it . You can't take these threats from either side seriously.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki..disagrees.
Then why aren't I hearing such reports about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
That small island is connected to 50 vast states that would end them all
yay!
@@grimreapers lmao
Article 5
And China will inherit the earth
He forgets, the UK has land all over the world, and just as many Brits living abroad as they do living in mainland UK. Attacking the UK won't end anything, it will only be the start
It will certainly be the end for a lot of us in the UK. It will not be without consequence. I for one, do not want to be used as an example to the world.
Most interesting, thanks. 👍
Just to say... SS-X-30 "Sarmat" deploys a MIRV warhead with 14 (some say up to 20) single vehicles of which some are decoys and all of them deploy countermeasures and actually steer their trajectory to the target with "evasiveness" at 24.000 km/h.
Considering multiple missiles would be used in a large scale attack (no sense in a small scale one just to get retaliated) that means a SHIT SHOWER of nuclear bombs coming down like lightning and doing things to avoid interception.
In all the simulations the Pentagon has done in the last decades THEIR state-of-the-art air defences succeeded in stopping at best 1 out of 3.
So just stop fooling around and dreaming.
Very important to determine what block of the Aegis anti-missiles are being modeled. Current SM-3 models have a range and ceiling well over 1000 km and a speed of Mach 13. THAAD uses the same missile, maybe a generation older.
No Western ABM is capable of stopping a Russian hypersonic nuke!! 😙😙 The Pentagon; The UK MoD, and NATO know this, and are hoping that both The British & NATO nations' public are either too distracted, or too stupid to notice!!
This is why we needed star wars and I am willing to bet they have ground and space based DEW's not sure what type but that is the only way to assure survival. Lets hope we never have an actual existential threat that requires such weapons
US Military actually has a defense plan in place if Aliens decide to come down thanks to Ronald Reagan.
Avangard Hypersonic missile, with Mach 20-27 speed, is currently UNSTOPPABLE !
How do you know it’s hardly been tested or used
@@thetrooper9236 Humm I thought lower grade Hyper sonics are already being used in Ukraine. Confirmed by the US. Wake up-- take the blinders off. Hypersonic age is already here!!! I sure hope that they are not used with Nukes against any nation.
@@emilehoffman8425 tell me when they have been tested as a nuke I doubt you can
@@thetrooper9236 Whats your MOS??
@@thetrooper9236 a Nuke ICBM was tested about a month ago. what are you talking about Hypersonic, Nukes, or Hypersonic Nuke ? you are all over the place...
Still don't know the answer, big difference between those missles and and ICBM warhead coming in at mach 25.
We can’t stop a fucking rubber dinghy crossing the channel let alone a hypersonic missile. 😂
I apologize if this becomes a page of text but this is something I am well versed in. You are using the best that DCS can give you here but its a far cry from what would actually happen. The Scud is a very slow missile in comparison to a real ICBM of the class the Russians are talking about. They were specifically talking about land based, silo launched missiles. The speeds of these things are incredible. They are enough to put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit with ease. Ground Based interceptor missiles, an SM-3 from a Tico cruiser, or perhaps those SA-23 Giants might be able to do it. If the Russians don't launch a missile with lots of decoys in the warhead package. The Rapier and Tor had no chance. They just can't keep up with the speed of even the Scud.
*Insert Thank You.gif meme here*
Maximum speed Mach 20.7;[citation needed] 25,560 km/h (15,880 mph); 7.1 km/s (4.4 mi/s)
i think that this generic missiles are litle bit on the slow side.
Agree, they topped out at mach 8.
As soon as you mentioned it was a Satan missile all I could think of was James May trying to set one off with a cigarette lighter
“I think it’s damp”
I’ve definitely pondered this. Good content.
well this was fun, as a game! in reality 1- you need to hit them before reaching your air space (it’s not like there will nuclear detonation only on target) 2- even then we are doomed, as at that point we have already fired back and regardless the nuclear fallout goes around the earth
Wouldn’t planes be on alert to take pop shots if can dispatch quick enough?
Nah…those planes are carrying the Prime Minister and family to the safety of the countryside
If a nuke were hit, it probably would not go off, but wouldn’t it have fallout?
fallout is generated by ground bursts
The only fallout would come from dispersed plutonium and maybe tritium, still many many times less than from actual nuclear explosion near ground.
A DDG-51's (and Ticonderoga's for that matter) ability to defend against ballistic missiles will depend on its current radar set and what is sitting in the tubes.
For the radar set it depends on if the ship has received the Aegis BMD upgrade. This is an upgrade to both the AN/SPY-1 primary radar system as well the AN/APG-62 FCS radars. For ships without the upgrade they can still engage ballistic targets but are not as efficient and cannot do so at greater ranges. Ships with the upgrade meanwhile are able to engage at much greater distances and can provide more accurate guidance at higher angles (IE missile coming down on your carrier task force).
As for the missiles the primary ABM weapons are the:
RIM-174 (SM-6)- Essentially a modified AMRAAM seeker on a VLS RIM-67 (RIM-156) and an additional booster motor
and
RIM-161 (SM-3)- current form is the largest SAM in the US arsenal other than the GBI and is capable of engaging targets in low earth orbit including missiles still in their boost or midcourse phase of flight.
To my knowledge the missiles carried by the Burke and Tico in DCS are RIM-66 (SM-2) which are SARH missiles reliant on the AN/APG-62 radars (3 per ship) to provide illumination. Without the BMD mod this is... challenging. Furthermore the RIM-66 is not meant for the BMD role and is simply too small and slow for the task hence the other missiles.
It is by no means a guarantee that any given destroyer in peacetime will have either of the appropriate weapons aboard much less in suitable quantities. People with actual naval experience would be better than myself at confirming this but in general most Burke's are tomahawk heavy while the Ticonderoga's handle fleet air defense more directly although both ships can perform either role.
TL:DR: in DCS the Arleigh burke class is not setup to deal with ballistic targets but managed to do pretty darn well in this scenario anyway
The answer is no and neither could Russia from the inevitable counter attack. Mutually assured destruction is a real thing or at least real enough to give even Vladimir Putin a reason for caution.
I think the type 45 is much better than modelled on DCS. Baring in mind the radar and armourment is pretty potent and definitely better than an Arleigh Burke class.
that Russian video in the beginning looks just like the B-movie style cut scenes in the Command and Conquer red alert 2 PC game.
Please keep trying with more and more warheads(like 20,30,40,50) so that we can know the limits of the defences,
I don’t think they realize if they send a Nuke, it’s over for everyone including themselves.
PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDHT THROW STONES, MEMO FOR PUTIN.
At least this show will end with a big bang
@@Spec_Tral The big bang for the USA NATO UK nazi empire.The day will come.
but Russia can stop UK nukes i don’t think other country will risk it for Uk
No the answer is this island would be completely destroyed, and millions would die first from the nuclear blast and after from the huge wave that would swallow most of the low areas.
It just takes one modern nuke to land on London and that's the world in a tail spin.
When the systems don’t shoot, it’s usually a combination of range and target speed. The short range of a Rapier makes it impossible to reach and intercept before that enemy missile hits its target.
Also, if the UK asks Biden for PAC-2s, he will most likely send a few quarts of his favorite ice cream.
dont forget that nukes deployed from ICBMs and bombers are designed to air burst at a certain altitude they dont hit the ground. The altitude a megaton range warhead is detonated would be too high to get a chance to intercept for most of the surface to air missile systems used in this video. The Pac-2 and S300 might get lucky but its doubtful. You need dedicated anti ballistic missile defense systems.
@@joshuaortiz2031 they need a THAAD system
Screw Biden (from an American)
yea weapons from Biden are reserved for blood thirsty terrorist organizations like the Taliban or countries with politicians that help his drug addict son make money like Ukraine
Because the US hasn’t supplied and resupplied and deployed tons of jets, troops and assets to Europe and England already? I’m no Biden fan myself but get a grip. You insult all of us with your snarky BS.
Hadn't heard of DCS till I saw some GR videos a few weeks back; really enjoying them, thanks Cap et al. Couldn't help wondering here though if there were a few Meteor equipped Typhoons up would that stand a chance of intercepting ballistic missiles?
Britain would be turned to glass before its Typhoons even got off the runway!!! 😙😙😙
@@hicm1of124 it's cute you think we don't have constant CAP's around our own borders.... there's _always_ Typhoons in the air. Same as the F-35's we have as part of the JSF, always ready to go on our carriers 😙😙😙
@@SA80TAGE - Typhoons & 1960s Trident missile technology are simply NO DEFENCE against hypersonic "SATAN" ICBMs!! As for those "Flying Dustbins" (F35s) as they have been colloquially christened for good reason, and so-called "state of the art" aircraft carriers - which low & behold don't even have any planes to carry....the less said the better coz it would be almost beyond embarrassing!!! 😳😳😳
Such an attack would probably have a bunch of dummy/decoy missiles flying along side the real ones to waste the defenses. 🤔
You’re smart
Well, that's MAD! We all know that if anyone develops an effective defensive umbrella system then it WILL be considered a first-strike weapon. Any PURELY defensive missile system, is _(quite correctly)_ considered a 'first-strike weapon' under the treaty - as it *permits* a country to launch a nuclear strike. Some nations may, therefore, have some very "hush hush" defensive capabilities. Any adequate defence, under the treaty, is an illegal offensive capability : /
Basically the defence of his country will be Boris getting driven through London at high speed, running down any serf that gets in the way as he gets to the VIP bunker, whilst the rest of us get a radioactive suntan.
I thought modern icbms come down at mach 10-25? Doubtful you'd be able to intercept these effectively given just a single warhead needs to get through
Yeah. You have to intercept them in space when they are at their slowest
@@ephemeral.793 no it is due to limitations with DCS. He has repeatedly wrecked western countries in other videos
@@ephemeral.793 I dont mind that this was tested for fun in DCS because heck, why not. That's what this video series is all about!
But if the conclusion is that these systems can intercept an ICBM, especially a modern one with decoys too, well .. doubtful. Although having said that, there are more dedicated systems for anti ICBM duty, but these aren't very effective either.
Certainly the west has gone mad with anti Russian sentiment, somewhat justifiably but also quite blindly and hypocritically, given the west has started many wars, has pushed it's forces and weapons to encircle Russia for a long time and has engaged in most of what they've accused Russia of doing.
Leaving aside the politics which, frankly, is what it is and can't be changed in any case, I like this video but I don't believe it is realistic in terms of our chances of stopping Russian nukes.
Best if nuclear war is avoided!
if they are so fast they can't really change direction so the trajectory is totally predictible, this could help interceptors, idk
@@alf3071 good point. I wonder if the ATHENA system could shoot down nukes?
All the Russia-on-Russia makes sense for a future scenario where Russia has fragmented into several regions run by local warlords.
there are more Britons emigrating to other countries because of your insane inflation, 1000 percent increase of emigration read it on your media. Than a likely hood of Russia defragmenting, many before you wished that even at its weakest point during the fall of the USSR and yet it still stands against the wolves who dress in sheep's clothing wishing for its destruction and ready to gobble up its enormous commodities and resources. The West have already failed with the sanctions many companies are already back in Russia working as usual lol my friends tell me that, the ruble is strengthening with out capital controls being implemented anymore and its interest rate is now at 14 percent almost back to 10 percent before the start of operations. GDP is a false indicator of economy readout, commodity and resources things not just the west needs but the global south who continue and increase purchase of Russian resources. Only time, will all of you wake up your just shooting yourselves in the foot
That’s never going to happen. Russia is probably the most united country on earth. All of the Russians with western values moved to the west.
Mexico cartels 2.0
@@dudelebowski8629 yet you prove the point that the west is filled with nothing but racist rats nazi sympathizer
not gonna happen
Cap, England has Sky Sabre, an anti-missile air defense system capable of hitting targets over 25nm away.
thx
one additional thing to remember, for a fire solution from Russia to England, they also have to fly over Poland Germany and depending on exact launch / flight path the Netherlands Belgium or France; or over Finland Sweden and Norway. Each country has anti missile defense as well and would take fire solutions at them. Firing a (nuclear) missile over someones soil is a big no no.
Not really. They could fire it from a sub in the waters north of GB.
Those people that responded to you sounded like they just woke up. 😆 They were not ready for this serious of a conversation. Kinda put them on the spot I think.
The only thing is sarmat 2 is land based and travel hypersonic at terminal phase so need to hit it before but would be nice to have patriots and thaad.
Excellent simulation with the goal to assist USA military industry in ramming their junk into English throats! Russian missiles don't fly on predictable paths, their courses are erratic and CANNOT be subjected to computations in order to intercept them.
In true Russian fashion,The missiles they launch hit civilian housing estates😂😂
Did you not have THAAD in SIM. That would be the most likely defense for UK for now.
Sadly not in game :(
It would be cool to add the THAAD, patriot pac 3, and GBI interceptors as well as give ticonderiga cruisers and arleigh burke destroyers sm 6 multi role missiles, and sm 3 anti ballistic missiles
there is no winners at a nukeclear war ....
I like what you guys done here man it's pretty cool
Imagine if 97% of Russia's ballistic weapons failed in a nuclear war, that'd be a serious "Oh Shit" moment for Putin...
Considering the condition of their tanks and combat vehicles it’s not so far fetched.
@@Angl0sax0nknight That's the idea... also, imagine if you will sabotage to the silos, or some commanders simply refusing to fire....
@Gary Baldi I know... just wishful thinking... I suppose it is a good thing we don't know for sure
@Gary Baldi Of course.
@Gary Baldi russia is number one in missiles tech
With an ICBM, does the intercepting missile really need a warhead? From the numbers, it sounds like you could get a kinetic kill with practically any mass.
My thoughts also, but I think that defense type missle that are made to intercept missles rely on getting close and blowing up in front. Sort of like a shotgun blast because intercepting these missles is EXTREMELY difficult
I would be interested in the return attack on the Russian Submarines as well and how effective the Anti-submarine helo's, ships and allied submarines fared.
Yes i cant wait for putin to push the button and then seeing him laugh on his table
No russian missile sub is on patrol. Their combined patrol time per year can be measured with a stopwatch. And if they ever leave port, they'll have an american hunter-killer sub within firing range, ready to sink it at the first sound related to missile launches.
@@AllanFolm Yep. Russian nukes are a joke. First sign of an ICBM launch Boris Johnson would put on his Superman custume, fly over and grap it and shove it up Putins ass.
@@AllanFolm Russian subs don't need to leave their port to fire their missiles, they can launch from the pier and from sitting on the surface.
Also Russian subs from the delta 4 onwards, so anything from the 80s is as loud as a 688. Even Russian Sierra subs are as quite as a seawolf not to mention the Yasen, so writing off Russian current Submarine capabilities is just plain ignorant.
Russia submarine fleet is the most finance in Russian armed services, saying they don't leave their port is just disinformation at its best.
Nuclear threat from Russia is real, and anyone who dismissed it isn't a full quid.
it would probably be clapped by an attack sub either just as it's doors opened or right after it launched.
what you guys recorded will happen in the future
So basically there is no reason to fear a nuclear war. Nuclear missiles are no longer a deterrent?
This island once had the biggest empire the world as ever seen 🇬🇧
Looted the world 😂😂
@@Phanindra_Bhupathi_Raju_ people should of learned to defend themselves,we had to and got to be said back when we started ,going to new worlds not known before was like going to the moon these days ,so we did well to be fair .
Hopefully we can get the PAC-3 Patriot and the SM-3 missile which are more optimized for ballistic missiles
you already have them.
No.
This was kind of like Monty Python's Flying Circus talk about nuclear war.
By the time this tech improves to the point that it could ever be mass produced and integrated at an affordable price, by that time nukes will be much more sophisticated and new challenges will exist rendering the new system already redundant. Nuclear war is never an option because no one survives - anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. That said, I enjoyed this video and found it interesting.
It’s getting scary day by day… let’s hope this scenario doesn’t come out…
Feels a bit like the 70s again to me but I was a child then.
it most likely will
@@cypherfirs5106 it mostly likely won’t
there are specific Burkes configured for ABM defence using the the SM3 version of the Standard missile, they can also shoot sat's
SM-6 is the new wonder weapon. People dont realise how good it is.
You kinda forgot about EMP in term of atmospheric blast of some nuclear missiles, which makes all ground and naval anti air useless
No it doesn't. You can harden defensive systems against EMP. It's not some magical wand that eliminates all electronics everywhere.
Keen to see what Britains Sky Sabre could achieve.
Hey GR, there is one thing that makes you different from any other Western DCS channel. It’s your unbiasedness. I love how you try your best to remain unpolitical whilst bring the the most fashionably interesting videos. 🙏
The fact is no matter how evil or not-evil the politics of a nation, they all end up developing some cool military tech to be interested in.