HypOps: Russia vs. US - Breaking the S-400

[BobTank63]

Just wanted to share this video with the community. It's a video on how a US carrier strike on a Russian IADS system might play out. The interesting part is that the scenario is run twice, once with 4th-gen tech and then again but with 5th-gen tech. The video really shows the advantages the US advances in stealth and jamming provide.

HypOps video

There's also a Fox-2 podcast on the channel which covers SEAD in a more in-depth manner. There are also a couple more scenarios on the channel, including a Chinese attack on a CSG. I highly recommend all of them.

[lowchi]

Thanks for that!

[Filitch]

(yawningly) Red team don't use Navy, ECM assets, proper ROE, maneuver of radars and TELARs. This isn't simulation...

[BobTank63]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

(yawningly) Red team don't use Navy, ECM assets, proper ROE, maneuver of radars and TELARs. This isn't simulation...

This scenario was meant to demonstrate SEAD specifically. As such, adding in Russian naval assets isn't really in the scope of the scenario and would've been superfluous. Having too much stuff can be a problem, as shown in HypOps' To Sink A Carrier vid when he completely forgets a US sub [:D]. I agree though that the US might have to fight off a counter-attack from the Russian navy if this happened IRL. However, with 4 escorts and a spare squadron on board, I think they would be fine.

HypOps said Russian ground ECM didn't make the final vid because it borked Tacview and it had a marginal effect on the outcome of the scenario. He has since gotten help to fix this problem, so Russian ground ECM will appear in future videos.

I don't see any issues with ROE. Could you explain this further?

The maneuver of radars and TELARs is simulated by the radars and SAM sites being unspotted at the start of each run. The US side has to find the SAMs and radars in both attacks without knowing where they are.

[kevinkins]

Great video. Disregard anyone from Russia. They drink heavy and don't want to learn. They were raised to have closed minds.

[KLAB]

The cost benefit return ratio is the elephant in the room!

[Filitch]

BobTank63
Thank you, I'll answer later.

kevinkins
boob, you have time to delete your message or apologize

[thewood1]

You could also make the argument that if the US was to do this with the assets shown in the scenario, the airstrike would have been coordinated with a cruise missile strike. And the US has a large contingent of available land-based strike aircraft that would more than likely been deployed. So both sides had their hands tied somewhat. I think its a good exercise to show how much the modern Russian SAM threat alters the response equation for US. The US used to have a free hand for strikes like this. with S-300/400/500, a restructure of responses has to happen. Its no longer throwing a bunch of missiles at the problem. Real substantial changes have to happen in planning a response.

[BobTank63]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

You could also make the argument that if the US was to do this with the assets shown in the scenario, the airstrike would have been coordinated with a cruise missile strike. And the US has a large contingent of available land-based strike aircraft that would more than likely been deployed. So both sides had their hands tied somewhat. I think its a good exercise to show how much the modern Russian SAM threat alters the response equation for US. The US used to have a free hand for strikes like this. with S-300/400/500, a restructure of responses has to happen. Its no longer throwing a bunch of missiles at the problem. Real substantial changes have to happen in planning a response.

Well, the pretext to the scenario is that the US is striking the S-400 after it and supporting units shot down the majority of a mass Tomahawk strike on Syrian chemical weapons. So the carrier group is low or completely out of cruise missiles going into the scenario.

Good point though on the US land based aircraft.

[kevinkins]

Filitch, sorry for joking around.

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Filitch, sorry for joking around.

Thank you

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Filitch, sorry for joking around.

Thank you

[Filitch]

BobTank63

This scenario was meant to demonstrate SEAD specifically. As such, adding in Russian naval assets isn't really in the scope of the scenario and would've been superfluous. Having too much stuff can be a problem, as shown in HypOps' To Sink A Carrier vid when he completely forgets a US sub . I agree though that the US might have to fight off a counter-attack from the Russian navy if this happened IRL. However, with 4 escorts and a spare squadron on board, I think they would be fine.

I mean navy as not only threat to CSG, but additional air defence assets. Maneuver assets. F-35s attacking from north of Cyprus have not free play when Pr.1164 with naval version of S-300 places between their and Khmeymim.

HypOps said Russian ground ECM didn't make the final vid because it borked Tacview and it had a marginal effect on the outcome of the scenario. He has since gotten help to fix this problem, so Russian ground ECM will appear in future videos.

Yes, this is may be lack of simulation game engine.
From what I understand and know - IRL ground ECM could make significant challenges for AEW like E-2C/D. Especially when AWE acts at limit of their range. So idea with silent F-35s attacking Russian CAP beyond radar "visibility" become less livable.

I don't see any issues with ROE. Could you explain this further?

My point is that long-range, active-seeker equipped 40N6 shouldn't be used against SBD-II or another simple to intercept aims.

The maneuver of radars and TELARs is simulated by the radars and SAM sites being unspotted at the start of each run. The US side has to find the SAMs and radars in both attacks without knowing where they are.

Sure, in this mean you are right.
I talk about maneuvers during one scenario. Radars could be off and change position after every attack, in frame of one scenario. For example - Tomahawk strike, SAMs fire, after go to reload station, radars moves away to new position. Next attack wave should detect SAM at new position. But SAM radars can be off...

Given that HypOps have moved 5-Gen scenario to 2025+ years, he can use at Red side, additionally to mentioned above, Su-57 instead Su-34 with outdated R-27s, SAM S-350 instead Buk and Tor, missile R-37M at Su-35 and Su-57, AEW A-100 instead A-50, frigates Pr.22350 with 3M22 Zircons. ​

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: BobTank63

Well, the pretext to the scenario is that the US is striking the S-400 after it and supporting units shot down the majority of a mass Tomahawk strike on Syrian chemical weapons. So the carrier group is low or completely out of cruise missiles going into the scenario.

Good point though on the US land based aircraft.

So. If I understand right, every surface combatant launch about 25-30 RGMs in first strike at chemical weapon sites, and then about 25-30 RGMs in second strike against Russian AB. So, for self-defence purpose every ship use only about 30 canisters. Given shoot doctrine SS-L-S (shoot, shoot, look, shoot), used in US Navy today, we have about 2,5 missile per incoming target. Decreasing of Pk (supersonic or hypersonic missiles, missile ECM, sea-skimming flight mode) increases this number. My point is that CSG will close to defencelessness after second strike.

[Darren_H_slith]

These are extremely well done, and great food for thought. Thanks for sharing.

[Darren_H_slith]

Thanks for sharing I was very impressed with the quality of the production in the videos.

[SeaQueen]

That was good. I like how he referenced the 2017 strike on Syria. Some of the language was a little off, but I like his general idea. I think he could have described what he was planning to do a little bit better as well. I have a few critiques on how to improve it, (e.g. I think the MAINSTAY is unnecessary, and some the Russian tactics could be tweaked to be more effective) but it was good.

[c3k]

I enjoy these videos. Good stuff...thanks for sharing.

[jannas34]

no srry devs dont care about this game

[Darren_H_slith]

If you have the time, why not reach out to him, modify the scenario and tweak it a little and ask him to make another video? That would be very interesting indeed to see another result!