Dear Readers,

We recently published an article featuring a naval scenario created by the Grim Reapers, a popular group of flight simulation enthusiasts on YouTube. Upon further review, we acknowledge that we mistakenly presented this scenario as a somewhat serious simulation without adequately considering the limitations of the platform used to create it.

The scenario was created using the game DCS (Digital Combat Simulator), which, while highly engaging and entertaining, is primarily designed for flight simulation, not analysis. DCS’s limitations mean that the scenario is more of a creative exercise than what most people could reasonably call a simulation.

Why We Shouldn’t Have Published It

Our mistake was in treating the Grim Reapers’ video as a credible source of content rather than recognising it for what it is: entertainment produced by hobbyists. DCS, the platform used for the scenario, doesn’t offer the level of detail required for serious simulation analysis. It lacks comprehensive models for electronic warfare, radar cross-sections, etc.

As a publication dedicated to serious news and analysis, we are responsible for ensuring that the content we present is accurate and reliable. Unfortunately, we failed to uphold this standard by not thoroughly examining the limitations of the DCS platform and the context in which the Grim Reapers operate. A proper analysis would have revealed that the video is not realistic or authoritative.

We understand that our readers rely on us for credible and well-researched information. Presenting a game-based scenario undermines our commitment to delivering high-quality journalism we always try to aim for. We regret any confusion this may have caused and acknowledge the need for greater diligence in our editorial process.

Moving Forward

We apologise for this oversight and will take greater care in the future to ensure that the content we share matches our commitment to providing something there is a value to reading. We will be more vigilant in evaluating the sources and platforms we feature, we are sorry about this.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

George Allison
Editor, UK Defence Journal

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

33 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ColinM
ColinM (@guest_832240)
14 days ago

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

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_832242)
14 days ago

Mea culpa

Appreciated

Thanks

Bulkhead
Bulkhead (@guest_832243)
14 days ago

Don’t beat yourself up George 😎

lordtemplar
lordtemplar (@guest_832246)
14 days ago

thanks. thought i was on Twitch

NoGo
NoGo (@guest_832247)
14 days ago

Can’t ask fairer than that.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_832250)
14 days ago

Fair Play George 😉

Andy P
Andy P (@guest_832251)
14 days ago

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.

Bazza
Bazza (@guest_832261)
14 days ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832262)
14 days ago

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.

Ian
Ian (@guest_832263)
14 days ago

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.

PainGod85
PainGod85 (@guest_832270)
14 days ago

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

Jon
Jon (@guest_832272)
14 days ago

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

Exroyal.
Exroyal. (@guest_832962)
12 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Not having that. There is nothing false about Santa. Or the Loch Ness Monster.

PaulW
PaulW (@guest_832273)
14 days ago

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.

Tom
Tom (@guest_832284)
14 days ago

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!

Athelstanthecurious
Athelstanthecurious (@guest_832286)
14 days ago

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

Nick
Nick (@guest_832289)
14 days ago

Not Sure anyone took it too seriously!

Iain
Iain (@guest_832290)
14 days ago

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… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_832291)
14 days ago

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… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_832308)
14 days ago

Good work George.

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

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_832322)
14 days ago

Seconded…

Cheers CR

Coll
Coll (@guest_832323)
14 days ago

👍

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_832337)
14 days ago

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.

James
James (@guest_832366)
14 days ago

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.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_832378)
14 days ago

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.

John
John (@guest_832395)
14 days ago

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

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_832406)
14 days ago

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

Last edited 14 days ago by Dave Wolfy
Marked
Marked (@guest_832442)
14 days ago

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.

Lonpfrb
Lonpfrb (@guest_832473)
13 days ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 13 days ago by Lonpfrb
Lee John fursman
Lee John fursman (@guest_832577)
13 days ago

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.

Matt
Matt (@guest_832592)
13 days ago

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

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_832735)
12 days ago

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.