Apology from the UK Defence Journal

You made a mistake, as we all do from time to time, and you’ve owned it. Well done

Mea culpa

Appreciated

Thanks

Don’t beat yourself up George 😎

thanks. thought i was on Twitch

Can’t ask fairer than that.

Fair Play George 😉

As an analogy, I had it down as drama rather than a documentary. I assume that most did the same. I wouldn’t worry about it George.

It was an interesting article on an interesting video, and I enjoyed both, however it was entertainment plain and simple. Featuring it on a site like this, which usually sticks to more factual information, risked offering it more credibility than it otherwise deserved.

It was interesting, but not a good fit for this website.

Indeed it seemed rather unconvincing at the time which surprised me to see it on here when I read it as it didn’t seem to be a serious simulation to my mind or evidentially credible and without the in depth analysis that one has come to expect here.looked superficial and unconvincing so this explanation doesn’t surprise me. A foot in mouth moment but best to accept the error and own it, so well done for so doing.

Seeing as it involved platforms in hypothetical configurations and ones that aren’t likely to sail again anyway, I don’t think anyone was taking it too seriously.

I mean, you’re still muppets for having published it, but at least you’re honest about your mistake.

I don’t care if you occasionally report on Santa sightings or military games. Why not? I can tell the difference.

I’m a DCS World sim peep. I have lots of its modules. The accuracy of the modules are quite varied. Although very entertaining it is very likely to misrepresent capability on both sides as they can only use public domain information. The military keep the truth closely guarded. Notwithstanding this, it is immensely rewarding to finally discover what switch to flick to lobbest thou rocket towards thy foe.

I haven’t commented on UKDJ before but have always over some years enjoyed and appreciated your informative articles and the comments made. You always come across as having the highest of integrity so no need to beat yourself up about this. That you do only reinforces my positive view- thanks for all your efforts George

“DCS, the platform used for the scenario, does not offer the level of detail and accuracy required for serious defence analysis. It lacks comprehensive models for electronic warfare, radar cross-sections, and other critical components […]”

Thank you for letting your audience know. May I suggest trying to use BMS as a platform as it is much more detailed and could be used in defence analysis.

We all make mistakes… said the Dalek to the dustbin. Well done for acknowledging it, bringing it to the fore, and dealing with it. Restecp innit!

Thought what I was reading was a bit whimsical, my appreciation of UKDJ remains the same.

Not Sure anyone took it too seriously!

Although not MilSim perfect I know the Grim Reapers do try an build the plugins that they use to be as accurate as DCS and the publicly available data allows. That being said they do say that what they do is for the enjoyment of the viewers and you only need watch some of their less serious videos to know this.
I will say that certain of their productions have had the wife and I in tears of laughter. Especially the one where Cap gets sideswiped by the jet he has just ejected from at ground level. It’s one of those slow motion things that you can see unfolding but know that you can’t avoid.
It is interesting to watch some of the Falkland ones where you have the entire Argentine F-16 fleet up against the small typhoon detachment at Mount Pleasant. It makes for sobering watching if you are an Argentine pilot. Well, assuming that the publicly available data on Meteor is accurate.

Oh
I’d assumed that the whole article was tongue in cheek, and so I quite enjoyed it as a mock representation of a theoretical battle.
DCS has its limitations, to be sure, but I would recommend to all readers, and especially those like me who are interested in missiles and, as GR would put it, Boom Boom, to go and have a look at their channel and in particular the naval battles. As with any SIM, they provide a visual representation of the sometimes confusing discussions and differences between missiles types and techniques. Besides, the visuals of a US CSG firing a hundred missiles a minute in defence against volleys of hypersonics is frankly stunning. Even if CAMM cold launch doesn’t work and so the entire CONOPS is broken.
It’ll only get better, with T31 being added as a mod as well as Italian ships in the pipeline.

Good work George.

Takes a big man to own an error…..if only we could find some politicians answering to that description……

👍

Personally I thought it was a decent exercise. You were dealing with some kit which hasn’t been built yet and also you were making an excellent point that ships & aircraft may well run out of ammunition. I personally didn’t take it that seriously and I did not feel it was meant to be taken seriously.

The article in no way hid the fact it was a made up scenario on a computer simulation.

Its refreshing to see the apology but I really dont think its required.

Definitely agree with all that. However if anyone is interested in historical or modern aerial combat, and would like to learn with visuals that exceed the usual woodcut from 1932, then I do highly recommend DCS.

Fair play to you. Sticking to the core based fact subjects is the only way for me. That holds my interest.

Well, it was poor, but it had quite a few interesting comments.
Not all was lost.

The guy who runs those sims had the US NCIS demanding he hands over his data. As a brit he was not compelled to but did as asked just to avoid the aggro.

All the data was from open source stuff like wiki, a lot of it is best guess stuff.

Whilst these are are far from 100% accurate there’s clearly been some accuracy hit somewhere to bring him to their attention.

I have to say, I’d probably have more faith in what the Grim Reaper’s assessment of a military scenario is, rather than say the BBC or other non military orientated media outlets, who regularly report and speculate on these types of things. The Grim Reapers do normally qualify their simulations with a summary of the limitations of the platform they use. That’s more than can be said of most news outlets whose reporters struggle to remember the difference between the breech and muzzle end of a gun and think that ballistic curve is the latest band at glastonbury. 😉

Top level simulation can model the physics in near real time so that it’s not only good enough for testing tactics but training operators.

For example Formula One both develops, tests and practice on simulators.
Obviously this depends on deep understanding of the physics and the engineering with an integrated approach to components of the car that also run in the simulator framework.

That also depends on full information about each component and subassembly, often from specialist suppliers. Intellectual property ownership means that full disclosure doesn’t work for the suppliers so user documentation has to include the physics model that enables simulation.

For military purposes the Intellectual Property added to Security constraints makes simulation of unknown capabilities hard to impossible. The absence of a commercial relationship with any of the suppliers and security agreements makes simulation fully impossible so only a best guess.

Without the correct information DCS can’t be a simulation more a best guess entertainment platform like a game engine.

Thanks for entertaining us UKDJ.

Hello everyone, nothing to do with the conversation at hand but just wanted to welcome home hms diamond and say a big Thankyou to all the lads and lasses on the ship from an English an abroad and extremely proud of all of them, wrote it here cos I didn’t know how or where to say it, night all.

You tried something different. Sounds like it did not hit the mark. Great you are trying different things!

The DCS environment is actually superior in many ways to the rather old tech sims used by UK military. Not surprising really. Think about the Mavic drone. Technically far ahead of UK. Even US systems don’t match the fundamental tech achievements of a £1500 commercial drone. But in the case of the Grim Reapers game, it’s the complete lack of relevant military know how that lets the side down. They sound like Uber nerds who might get sea sick at the sight of a real ship. I like them. If your readership need to be told the difference, then they are as voyaristic and inexpert as the rest of us.

Constant political attacks also don’t do your platform any good, stick to broadcasting defense news, instead of making the site a centre for unionism.