|
Radio Free Kobold posted:Hunh. I didn't know that, I thought fighters would generally sealclub helos unconditionally. I wonder what's stopping them from putting BVR missiles on helos? Probably the helicopters generally staying low to the ground meaning it'd have terrible targeting range except vs planes and the BVR missile having to expend a shitload of energy to go from near-0 AGL to 35000ft or whatever the fighters are hanging out at. There's a reason most SAMs include giant boosters. And if you try take your helo up to where you can fix that you'll just get an AMRAAM up your rear end before you can do anything. There are a bunch of helicopters people have strapped IR AA missiles on, though, usually converted MANPADs.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Helicopters are usually used generally for close air support for ground troops as well right? So if they are performing in that role then the air space would have to already have been secured anyway. Plus for every BVR missile you strap on that's one less hard point you can use for the ground attack role thus limiting their usefulness for the troops on the ground I think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:Hunh. I didn't know that, I thought fighters would generally sealclub helos unconditionally. I wonder what's stopping them from putting BVR missiles on helos? Yeah they can equip IR missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache quote:Starting in the 1980s, the Stinger and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation missile were evaluated for use upon the AH-64.[72][73] The Stinger was initially selected; the U.S. Army was also considering the Starstreak air-to-air missile.[72][74] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_(missile) quote:The R-73 is an infrared homing (heat-seeking) missile with a sensitive, cryogenic cooled seeker with a substantial "off-boresight" capability: the seeker can "see" targets up to 40° off the missile's centerline.[5]
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
This helo mission could trigger at a few different times. If it triggered first then the F-15's tore it up with sparrows and AIM-120C's. Comically enough this was the first time I saw it happen where the F-15's were winchester. It was impressive to see it play out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
When you're not in World War 3, you should identify your targets before deciding it's cool to take them out. When the enemy is using BVR, a lot of the guess work goes out because only certain craft are going to break mach, and people are pretty comfortable with "split track, air contact constant bearing decreasing range" meeting opportunity, capability and intent--order the code red if they don't have civilian airliner kinematics. While Skynet remains dormant and you're not acting in self-defense though, you should have someone ID the target so you don't kill a friendly CAS/joint CASEVAC/civilian reporter. That study provides justification as to why you should be very careful about using your jets to do it because the assumption that jets are the 'rock' to helicopter's 'scissors' is not true in all cases. But in 1979, getting a visual ID from a nearby USMC Helo or from US Army forces on the ground to the Air Force or Navy was not as easy as it is today. I don't know specifically how relevant J-CATCH was to that decision making process, but we were having a lot of those crossed wires issues in the US at the time, hence Goldwater-Nichols for the structural problems and Tactical Data Link (TDL -- formerly TADIL) for the signal. Edit: I don't know if CMO actually tries to model it, but if you're running pre 1980s scenarios, in many cases, it might be more realistic to have not shared vision between the branches because the local Air Forces commander would be time late on the picture they were getting from Navy, USMC, or Army. I've always thought it would be cool to play a simulation that emphasized these comms elements--a civil war battle simulator with limited vantage point and messengers that didn't always make it or a squad level tactical simulation where blue forces are there and semi-responsive, but not under your command. piL fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Okay I went and looked this up because I can and also I enjoy doing this because I'm insane. The following helicopters mount air-to-air weapons that aren't guns (I'm discarding duplicates):
I'm noticing a distinct lack of Russian-aligned helicopters in there but unless those are somehow not classed as "helicopters" I can only assume the DB just doesn't have any configured that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Okay I went and looked this up because I can and also I enjoy doing this because I'm insane. Top Cop title strangely appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
piL posted:When you're not in World War 3, you should identify your targets before deciding it's cool to take them out. When the enemy is using BVR, a lot of the guess work goes out because only certain craft are going to break mach, and people are pretty comfortable with "split track, air contact constant bearing decreasing range" meeting opportunity, capability and intent--order the code red if they don't have civilian airliner kinematics. While Skynet remains dormant and you're not acting in self-defense though, you should have someone ID the target so you don't kill a friendly CAS/joint CASEVAC/civilian reporter. You can absolutely have two allied sides that don't communicate or coordinate, or do so in a delayed manner. I'm actually working on a Fulda Gap scenario right now that has the 11th ACR in heavy comms jamming that will report hostile contact. CMO doesn't do it out of the box, but it wasn't a terribly difficult bit of code. I've thought of ways to do it here, but we've already got one layer of separation between Planner - Mission (me). Adding a 2nd layer just adds more for me to do and less for the planner. Which is OK I guess, but I'm still working out how to add in out of comms to our model without it being super frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
The only one that stands out to me here (the others are all "hey let's plop a Stinger or Sidewinder on the stubs") is the AH-64 with an AIM-120 -- I'm really skeptical that ever proceeded beyond paper stages, and I haven't found any sourcing to back it up. power crystals posted:Okay I went and looked this up because I can and also I enjoy doing this because I'm insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
  Our liaison with the Niger government has confirmed that they've installed SA-13's paired up with a ZSU-57-2 near the Goudomaria refinery site. It won't halt a determined strike but it should keep the likes of the HIND's off their backs. Unfortunately it's likely the Triumvirate have also learned this lesson and we can expect some SAM systems covering the hot spots. Speaking of the Triumvirate...  The three met in Lagos, at the same time, at the same place. This hasn't happened since ORMEC came to power in Africa which means these three need to hash something out. Our employers are very worried that a unified Nigerian government could be troublesome. So in order to take some pressure off General Agwai they want us to keep that sector cool and put a little pressure on the other two to balance things out.  The Liquid Asset is still moving in towards the coast at creep speed. Once we get near the continental shelf we'll take some orders. For the next mission we'll have a slightly degraded F-15 wing as the HAMMER assets out of Sokoto are still in place and threaten Niamey. Once the Triumvirate evens out we can pay that runway a visit with some cluster bombs. Until then though we have to maintain a presence and keep them away. So here are our options for the next mission.    #1 - Corporate is really clear on this one. They don't give a poo poo who we kill or what we do, just don't blow up the drat dam. We can scoot through Benin and all we have to do is make a minor payment to a bakers dozen of government officials. #2 - We own a stake in Maersk-Snickers and seeing our own profits go down the drain is a bummer. But, if we do kill it, our forces may benefit later as the hostiles will lack a bit of cash. #3 - Algeria and Niger both have very old French roots. If Niger can move minerals through Algeria for sale it'll up the value for us all. But someone doesn't want it to happen and that someone isn't Nigerian. AIM-120C Available  KH-31 Available  Pick one Mission!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
AcraDabra, let''s blow up some botes it'll synergize nicely with the Liquid Assets in the area
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
AcraDabra and we should aim to sink the freighter regardless of what Corporate wants, the client is the one who is hiring us and showing that we get the job done regardless of the situation is good for our rep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
If the liquid assets were kept off the books and our overlords at goldman don't know its us have it sink the Maersk freighter while we hit everything else. Corporate doesn't get on our asses, client is happy, everyone wins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
ohoho look at that, almost a full brace of the KH-31. You know these aren't just anti-radiation missiles, the KH-31A is a supersonic, sea-skimming anti-shipping variant. I think the RNG has opinions of its own and I'm not inclined to disagree; Acradabra!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:ohoho look at that, almost a full brace of the KH-31. You know these aren't just anti-radiation missiles, the KH-31A is a supersonic, sea-skimming anti-shipping variant. I think the RNG has opinions of its own and I'm not inclined to disagree; Acradabra! Unfortunately those are actually KH-31Ps and our Fencers can't carry KH-31As Our anti-ship options are: 4x Kh-25L (AS-10 Karen) - 6nm 110kg laser guided, great for boats with only manpads and guns 2x Kh-59 (AS-13 Kingbolt) - 35nm 150kg subsonic missile with TV terminal guidance 2x Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo) - 60nm 320kg subsonic missile with TV terminal guidance and a bunch of bombs TheDemon fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Desert Dessert This looks like a good move strategically, and it's a mission that we can't screw up by exploding the wrong thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Dambusters I think this terribly mis-named mission is most within our abilities and does the most to affect the strategic situation, which is where I'm critical of Desert Desert. With our collection of TV-guided cruise missiles and SDBs off-target strikes are not likely against ground targets. Furthermore, I'm much more confident in tackling MIG-23s and the SA-9 than I am in attacking a fleet covered by Rafales.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:AcraDabra, let''s blow up some botes it'll synergize nicely with the Liquid Assets in the area  AcraDabra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
Dambusters but given the lack of actually busting a dam, petition to rename it to Dam & Busters.piL posted:Top Cop title strangely appropriate. I am entirely unsure how to take this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Yooper, can we take on TWO missions at once if we really wanted to split forces? my current gut feeling says desert desert, because it adds value to the client and ought to reveal who's gunning for the hired goons. also doesn't shoot ourselves in the foot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
Dambusters
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 10:50
|
|
|
I think Desert Dessert.power crystals posted:
The software whose visual style CMO emulates is used to build a common operating picture (COP) and the command in charge of a single COP that everyone feeds the data into is known as the TOP COP. So an interesting unintentional reference when contextual to this game is all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 10:54
|
|
|
Desert Desert looks like it's full of potential surprises
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
I could go for desert
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
Desert
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 12:47
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Edit : Also, whichever Goon recommended me Krisp... thanks! It worked great. You can't hear any of the background noise, PC noise, or 3d printer humming 10 feet away. Really impressive stuff. Glad to help! We got it at work once everyone went full remote and it's been clutch. DesertDessert because we don't want to be drawing attention to the water before we send in Liquid Assets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:Yooper, can we take on TWO missions at once if we really wanted to split forces? I prefer not to split the mission as someone *cough*Yooper*cough* has a history of getting wound up in the moment and totally missing some important call out. Tangential stuff can be fun, which is why we have a few bonus objectives, but an all out theater wide slog turns into an opportunity for me to gently caress something up and that's not fair to the mission planner. piL posted:I think Desert Dessert. I'd like to know more about how the pro's actually use something like this for actual missions. I see poo poo like below and it makes me wonder how there's any coordination between the ground forces and aircraft. Ever.   Yooper fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 13:42
|
|
|
Also I want to second power crystals' petition to rename dambusters to Dam & Busters Warmachine fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 13:51
|
|
|
power crystals posted:IIRC the USAF did some tests and found out the helicopters are unexpectedly effective vs jets due to their relative agility, and on top of that more modern helicopters' fire control systems were able to plot "jet will be here" and the gunner just has to fire a half-second burst at the right time to cause serious damage. I think the recommendation was to just avoid trying to go for short range kills on helicopters if you can because the odds are very much not in your favor. Hell just try doing it in DCS vs. an AI helicopter and you're probably in for a rude surprise. If you do it low and level enough it might even just decide to throw an ATGM at you instead which is extra funny. Oh boy, we're talking about J-CATCH! I wrote a thing about this a while back folks might be interested in. J-CATCH (Joint Countering Attack Helicopter) was 1978-1979 experiment run by the U.S. military to develop a counter to the Hind attack helicopters the Soviets were deploying in growing numbers. It took part in four phases. Phase 1: Simulator tests with airplane and helicopter pilots from the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. The tests began in May 1978 at the Langley NASA Differential Maneuvering Simulator Phase 2: At Fort Rucker, Alabama, the home of Army Aviation, helicopters squared off against each other. The Blue Force of three U.S. Army AH-1S Cobras and two OH-58A Kiowas faced a Red Force of two CH-3Es and four UH-1N Hueys from the Air Force's 20th Special Operations Squadron. The big CH-3Es had been used as "Jolly Green" rescue helicopters in the Vietnam War; and their size and performance made them a suitable "Hind" emulator. To add further verisimilitude, the Air Force crews tried to get into the heads of their Soviet counterparts; Paul Kennard posted:The crews were given access to the latest classified information on the Hind’s capabilities and TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) and practiced flying the “Jolly” as a Hind before commencing Phase 2. Additionally, the “Mini-TAT” sighting/gun camera system from a Canadian UH-1 was installed to offer a reasonable facsimile of a turreted gun facility and to provide post flight analysis in the form of “gun tape." The spirit of the USAF Aggressor squadrons was adopted; the aircraft were repainted, red scarfs were created out of cleaning rags and the crews started painting their helmets to help “get inside the mind” of their Soviet equivalents The big helicopters proved to be surprisingly dangerous opponents. Every engagement was meticulously recorded with onboard gun cameras and poured over after a day's mission. After several days of flying (and occasionally losing). The Army pilots quickly realized that surprise, teamwork, and agility were their greatest assets in a fight against "Hinds." Phase III: In this two-week phase, the helicopters of Red Team faced the best the Air Force had to offer: F-4E Phantom II fighter-bombers, F-15A Eagle air superiority fighters, and A-10A Thunderbolt II and A-7 Corsair II attack aircraft. The helicopters did remarkably well. Phase Three is where the fighters came in. The Air Force chose F-4, A-7, A-10, and F-15 fighter aircraft to counter whatever the Army could muster in the exercise. The F-4 and F-15 were front line fighters with anti-air roles while the A-7 and A-10 had air-to-ground missions. For two weeks the fast-movers dueled the helicopters ... and lost. Badly. At one point" the helicopters racked up a 5-to-1 kill ratio in their favor! It quickly became clear that a slow-moving helicopter at treetop level wasn't easy meat for a jet. Quite the opposite! Army aviator Davis Tindall Jr., summarized the findings of J-CATCH's third phase (pages 21-23) several years after the fact Davis Tindall Jr. posted:The J-CATCH testing provided the most interesting insights concerning the capability of fighter aircraft to engage the attack helicopter. The Air Force aircrews found the helicopter to be extremely difficult to hit. They found out that the helicopter was virtually impossible to track. The best technique to achieve a kill was a slashing attack, a quick surprise attack. They discovered the helicopter was not a slow, vulnerable target. It could be a dangerous foe. The air crews' after-action reports found the helicopter to be as dangerous as a ground gun emplacement. The lackluster kill figures bore this out (aircraft kill ratio : helicopter kill ratio):
Tindall notes that the AIM-9L air-to-air missile fired at a 2500 meters range was the most effective weapon. The best solution for tactical fighters is a standoff/look down acquisition [using a radar that could pick the helicopter out from the ground clutter] and use of shoot down weapons such as the AIM-9 missile. However, even cutting-edge fighters would pay a heavy price trying to take down comparatively cheap attack helicopters. As Tindall says: The best exchange ratio of 1.7 to 1 achieved with today's weapons and tactics is not encouraging in light of air-to-air missile technology. How were helicopters racking up such an impressive kill count? Tindall explains what the Air Force helicopter crews did: Davis Tindall Jr. posted:The best tactic for the helicopter crews was to terrain mask, making acquisition difficult for the fixed wing pilots. The helicopters would work as a team of two or more aircraft to provide mutual support between each other and attempt to make an unobserved shot. In some cases, Air Force pilots weren't aware they'd been seen, much the less "shot down," until the post-mission debriefing, when they saw their fighters in the gun cameras of the helicopters. Once spotted, the helicopters were also hard to draw a bead on. Indeed, since the introduction of the helicopter, this had been a problem. Paul Kennard writes about a Luftwaffe experiment in 1944 that got similar results. Paul Kennard posted:[The trial] pitched a Me109 and FW190 against a Flettner 282 Kolibri (“Hummingbird”). Both fighters were equipped with gun cameras and told to spend 20 minutes trying to shoot down the helicopter. To the astonishment of many, not a single hit was recorded by either fighter. The fighter pilots encountered extreme difficulty in detecting a well-camouflaged slow-moving helicopter operating at low level. With no radar to guide them, the fleeting “spots” could not be turned into attacks due to the speed differential and the manoeuvrability of the helicopter One of the most worrying realizations was that J-CATCH hadn't even simulated weapons that might have tipped the odds further in the helicopters favor: missiles. Davis Tindall Jr. posted:[T]he opposing helicopters were not carrying air-to-air missiles such as the SA-7 or SA-9 in the conduct of the test. These missiles would have a range of 5600 meters and 7000 meters respectively. This additional weapon system would give the helicopters a tremendous advantage. If the helicopters crews acquired the fixed wing aircraft first, they could destroy the high performance aircraft well beyond the recommended engagement ranges of the fixed wing weapon systems. The possibility of the AT-6 Spiral antitank missile being fired at the fixed wing aircraft was not tested. The range of this missile is 5,000 meters and it will travel the distance in 11 seconds. An antitank weapon system with very high speed, such as the AT-6, provides an additional advantage to the helicopter. Phase IV of J-CATCH did end on a brighter note, one that suggested other attack helicopters might be the best counter to attack helicopters. Davis Tindall Jr. posted:In phase IV of the J-CATCH test the tactical fixed wing aircraft worked jointly with Army attack helicopter teams [AH-1 Cobras and OH-58 Kiowa scouts]. This effort was similar to a joint air-to-air attack team operation or what might be depicted. In a deep attack scenario for an attack helicopter battalion. This phase demonstrated that simultaneous operations by attack helicopters and tactical aircraft increased force effectiveness against enemy helicopters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Dambusters Agreed. Dambusters is the best fit for the forces we have. We're great at wrecking old Soviet fighters and blowing up WarPac SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
piL posted:The software whose visual style CMO emulates is used to build a common operating picture (COP) and the command in charge of a single COP that everyone feeds the data into is known as the TOP COP. So an interesting unintentional reference when contextual to this game is all. Huh, I'd never heard of that. That makes way more sense. If it's not obvious I have no formal experience with any of this stuff, I am just armed with a working knowledge of SQL, an enthusiasm for all things big fast and/or loud, and the ability to  , so I legitimately appreciate any such insights.Speaking of which, that's a great writeup, Bac. Though I do wonder how effective Sidewinders would actually be when the helicopters get to use flares given the helicopters' presumably minimal IR signature, but I suspect we're never going to know that one unless one of these fights actually happens and I'm fine with that not being the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Oh boy, we're talking about J-CATCH! Awesome write up Bac, and everyone pitching in on J-Catch. HG universe aside, it sure makes you wonder about UCAV air-to-air combat, especially against manned aircraft. You could potentially have an F-35 trying to shootdown a gunboat drone that's agile and hiding the weeds. Energy - maneuverability suddenly becomes crazy if it's a vtol drone with some evasive capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Speaking of which, that's a great writeup, Bac. Though I do wonder how effective Sidewinders would actually be when the helicopters get to use flares given the helicopters' presumably minimal IR signature, but I suspect we're never going to know that one unless one of these fights actually happens and I'm fine with that not being the case. That's an interesting question! The Sidewinders used in the Gulf War had some issues trying to get a lock when helicopters were flying over hot desert sand. As far as I know, none of the Iraqi helos shot down in 1991 tried to use flares. One Strike Eagle crew dropped a 2000-pound laser-guided bomb on an Iraqi helicopter after they had a hard time getting a radar lock on the hovering helicopter (some accounts also say they couldn't get a Sidewinder lock). An A-10A shot down an Mi-8 Hip with his cannon after the pilot worried he couldn't get a good Sidewinder lock. Captain Robert Swain posted:“Things were happening fast; the helicopter moving quickly across my canopy, the altimeter unwinding and approaching 8,000 feet, and the potential threat all distracting me as I settled the gun cross out in front of the target. ... What about the AIM-9? No, the desert sand is probably hotter than the target-it’s a good gun shot." There was also an (apparently unofficial) guns kill on by another A-10A against another Mi-8. This pilot also had some issues getting a good tone from his Sidewinders. Captain Todd Sheehy posted:"I then decided that, since I was overhead the target, I would take a shot. I armed my gun, but also un-caged my AIM-9 heat seeking missile. I was fairly steep (65-70 degrees), and tried to lock up the helicopter twice, but the missile kept breaking lock because of the size of the target, distance away, and the surrounding terrain. Prior to pulling off the target I decided to also shoot the gun and put about 75 rounds out, but thought I had missed. I then extended away from the target and tried a second pass. I noticed that the helicopter was flying erratically, but I still managed to miss to the left with my first burst of 100 rounds, retook aim, and fired another 100 rounds and missed right. Knowing I was pressing the minimum altitude for the kill box, I put another 100 rounds down, and the helicopter jinked right into the last burst; the helicopter looked like it had been hit by a bomb.” Things might be a bit different now with IIR-guided Sidewinders and seekers with flare-rejection, but who knows?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:One Strike Eagle crew dropped a 2000-pound laser-guided bomb on an Iraqi helicopter after they had a hard time getting a radar lock on the hovering helicopter (some accounts also say they couldn't get a Sidewinder lock). Truth is always stranger than fiction it seems. It makes sense this would work though. The bomb's guidance wouldn't alert the helicopter crew that it was about to get the equivalent of an ACME anvil dropped on it, would it? It does point out how astonishingly accurate the bomb is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Things might be a bit different now with IIR-guided Sidewinders and seekers with flare-rejection, but who knows? Well, unless I've missed another event, we've currently fired one AIM-9X in anger and it was successfully spoofed  so I'm not going to rule out flares just yet.Warmachine posted:The bomb's guidance wouldn't alert the helicopter crew that it was about to get the equivalent of an ACME anvil dropped on it, would it? Some helicopters have laser targeting alerts along the same lines as a plane's RWR, but they're meant to alert you to somebody aiming a surface-fired missile at you. I have no idea if anybody ever bothered to mount the appropriate sensor on top of one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
<muffled French laughter> (VOTE COUNTS TOWARDS DESERT DESSERT)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Desert Dessert
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 07:54
|
|
|
Right, which one if you is taking inspiration here? https://theaviationgeekclub.com/att...1v1-air-combat/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
Voting is complete! We had 10 votes for Desert Dessert, 4 for Dam & Busters, and 4 for AccraDabra. As a reminder you'll get a stab at them again in the future. I'll get a planning map together and then we can get rolling on cementing the French Connection. Zebba! is quite pleased as this is his old stomping ground guiding caravans across the Sahara.  All pilots should watch Flight of the Phoenix (No, not the remake) as corporate security said it is a great protocol in case our SAR contract isn't renewed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
  PLANNING MAP :::::>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DY3Eg6_CRM9aTjYH1ShSHrLS4jYswc5s&usp=sharing quote:Desert Dessert OP ORDER
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:39
|
|