4 ms·

I’ve been watching a bunch of these videos where they war game realistic and pretty far fetched battle scenarios https://youtube.com/@grimreapers?si=lvRNWBee9Rf

I’ve been watching a bunch of these videos where they war game realistic and pretty far fetched battle scenarios https://youtube.com/@grimreapers?si=lvRNWBee9RfnkxBI https://youtube.com/@grimreapers?si=lvRNWBee9RfnkxBI. They’ll cover stuff like a Chinese carrier group vs a US carrier group using slightly futuristic weapons. What often decides the outcomes of battles are the accuracy of ships’ air defenses and how many missiles they have onboard. Shooting down supersonic, hypersonic, and stealth missiles is hard. You may need to fire multiple anti-air missile just to hit one attacking anti-ship missile. But doing so depletes your magazine faster and it can just come down to who has more ammo. If you’re able to fire a couple anti-air missiles, and then recover the ones that miss, or have them loiter and acquire a new target, I could see that as being an advantage.

baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
chaostheory 3y ago
I thought they were focusing more on lasers for carrier defense?
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  They who?
- H8crilA 3y ago
  Lasers are, unfortunately, still a planned weapon. And they have some un-correctable problems, for example they don't work in a fog, and their maximum effective range is very small. Carrier strike groups rely entirely on Aegis for defence against a peer opponent. While Aegis is a beast (seriously, it's amazing, it can even destroy satellites in LEO) you have to expect some carriers will be sunk. Lasers will be very good for VSHORAD, like in Israel or for point defences of objects like embassies or bases in questionable places (CRAM - Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar).
Maxion 3y ago
> What often decides the outcomes of battles are the accuracy of ships’ air defenses and how many missiles they have onboard. I always do wonder how realistic these war games actually are? They (at least the war games that are public) always assume at least one or both sides are near 100% competent with their systems. The Ukraine war has at least showed that that is not the case, the best example perhaps being the sinking of the Moskva, or the multitude of times Ukraine has managed to pierce Russian air defenses (who, mind you, has the most AD of anyone). I'm pretty certain that a lot of these war game scenarios, of played out in real life, wouldn't play out the same way. There'd be miscommunication, technical issues with equipment, massive total surprise on both sides and so forth.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Many attempted attacks always succeed over many defensive moves in the end. So the OP strategy is to have abblative proxxys capable of rolling the sisyphos dice up the bell curve. Counter to that are decoys, lots of them.
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  I don't think war games are meant to actually predict outcomes (even if media etc often wanna draw those conclusions). Rather it is to create scenarios to plan for and then it makes sense to ask "if the chinese act perfect when it comes to their systems and doctrine, how do we counter that?". If you can respond to someone acting perfectly you can probably also respond to someone with less skills.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    Also to practice the response, you have people with roles that are extremely hard to practice because they involve mass-coordination that rarely happens in reality but you still want them to have some prior competence at. The goal is often to make their simulated experience ‘realistic’ even if the model is fraying at the edges. All models are wrong but some are useful and all that.
- fallingknife 3y ago

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]

chaostheory 3y ago

I thought they were focusing more on lasers for carrier defense?

actionfromafar 3y ago
They who?
H8crilA 3y ago
Lasers are, unfortunately, still a planned weapon. And they have some un-correctable problems, for example they don't work in a fog, and their maximum effective range is very small. Carrier strike groups rely entirely on Aegis for defence against a peer opponent. While Aegis is a beast (seriously, it's amazing, it can even destroy satellites in LEO) you have to expect some carriers will be sunk. Lasers will be very good for VSHORAD, like in Israel or for point defences of objects like embassies or bases in questionable places (CRAM - Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar).

Maxion 3y ago

> What often decides the outcomes of battles are the accuracy of ships’ air defenses and how many missiles they have onboard. I always do wonder how realistic these war games actually are? They (at least the war games that are public) always assume at least one or both sides are near 100% competent with their systems. The Ukraine war has at least showed that that is not the case, the best example perhaps being the sinking of the Moskva, or the multitude of times Ukraine has managed to pierce Russian air defenses (who, mind you, has the most AD of anyone). I'm pretty certain that a lot of these war game scenarios, of played out in real life, wouldn't play out the same way. There'd be miscommunication, technical issues with equipment, massive total surprise on both sides and so forth.

Log_out_ 3y ago
Many attempted attacks always succeed over many defensive moves in the end. So the OP strategy is to have abblative proxxys capable of rolling the sisyphos dice up the bell curve. Counter to that are decoys, lots of them.
victorbjorklund 3y ago
I don't think war games are meant to actually predict outcomes (even if media etc often wanna draw those conclusions). Rather it is to create scenarios to plan for and then it makes sense to ask "if the chinese act perfect when it comes to their systems and doctrine, how do we counter that?". If you can respond to someone acting perfectly you can probably also respond to someone with less skills.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  Also to practice the response, you have people with roles that are extremely hard to practice because they involve mass-coordination that rarely happens in reality but you still want them to have some prior competence at. The goal is often to make their simulated experience ‘realistic’ even if the model is fraying at the edges. All models are wrong but some are useful and all that.
fallingknife 3y ago