|
It's really weird to find myself in the position of saying to people, "It's fine, because Kim Jong Un isn't crazy and the President of the United States is a buffoon whose statements don't matter."
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Maybe he thinks he needs to beat Bush #2 in how long it took him to get in a major conflict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Maybe he thinks he needs to beat Bush #2 in how long it took him to get in a major conflict. Speedrunning Nixon wasn't enough for him. He needs to speedrun Dubya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Was there ever an unclassified report about how many got destroyed in their bunkers by bombing? If by 'stopped scud launches' they only counted ones where they rolled the launcher out and then we blew it up then yeah we stopped 0.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I hate this analogy as an iPhone is trivially simple compared to a "modern" defense industry system-of-systems type project. It can do dope stuff but in basically every quantifiable measure of system complexity (SLOC, number of interfaces, number of circuit cards, design requirements, etc.) its much simpler. Theres a reason why it takes the defense industry 5+ years to turn out a new product and it takes Apple 1 despite the same number of engineers working on it. This isn't really a complete statement. iPhones at this point are a completely iterative design process. Yes, each one incorporates new technology, but it's all an improvement on what's already there. More importantly than that, the testing process for iPhones is substantially shorter and less arduous than for any military system simply due to the stakes involved. If Apple fucks up, it costs them money. Maybe in a software patch, maybe a hardware fix, or at absolute worst case a major recall and loss of good will. With military systems, the testing process by definition has to be more arduous - not just for system reliability and failsafe testing, but interoperability and system integration with current technology. I completely agree, but a huge component of the much longer, more difficult development process for defense systems (and I'm not even including the vendor selection process, which is a whole different ball of wax) is simply ensuring that when lives depend on something, it will work as intended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:The Gulf War Air Power Survey is about as close as you're likely to see. It includes extensive discussion of BDA, not sure of the top of my head if they specifically talk about Scuds in bunkers, but overall our targeting left a lot to be desired. According to page 85 they didn't use SCUDs in bunkers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:Newsweek is reporting a counterpoint from two MIT scientists claiming that DPRK actually cannot deliver a nuclear warhead to CONUS and probably not even AK. This is all way over my head so I'd like yalls impression on it. We're hampered by NewsWeek not just being able to publish the whole article, but some highlights: quote:The world suddenly believed that the North Koreans had an ICBM that could reach the West Coast of the United States and beyond. But calculations we have made—based on detailed study of the type and size of the rocket motors used, the flight times of the stages of the rockets, the propellant likely used, and other technical factors—indicate that these rockets actually carried very small payloads that were nowhere near the weight of a nuclear warhead of the type North Korea could have, or could eventually have. These small payloads allowed the rockets to be lofted to far higher altitudes than they would have if loaded with a much-heavier warhead, creating the impression that North Korea was on the cusp of achieving ICBM capability. They need to show their work or else this is just conjecture. quote:The scientists based their analysis on publicly available information about the trajectories of the missiles lofted on July 4 and July 28. These independent experts determined that defense and other analysts who decided the North Korean missiles could carry the weight of a nuclear payload were focused on the rocket motor’s ability to place the rocket on maximum achievable range, as opposed to maximum achievable altitude. "We think the North Korean engineers intentionally built something that can go very high with a long flight time, but can't go far horizontally" is a claim that will require a lot of work shown to be reasonable. quote:But calculations we have made—based on detailed study of the type and size of the rocket motors used, the flight times of the stages of the rockets, the propellant likely used, and other technical factors—indicate that these rockets actually carried very small payloads that were nowhere near the weight of a nuclear warhead of the type North Korea could have, or could eventually have. Definitively predicting the future, I guess? gently caress you, Ted Postol, knower of all future iterations of a system: quote:In a separate statement attached to the article, Postol, an expert in ballistic missile defense, stated that while existing ballistic missile defenses “will never work reliably,” there is still time to develop a defense system with available U.S. technology. In the past, when missile defense system tests have gone well, Postol has inferred that the tests were faked or conditions altered to maximize just how effective the systems appeared to be. He also "analyzed" iron dome by watching youtube videos of intercepts and went on to bitch about how Iron Dome let a ton of rockets hit the ground (in areas intentionally not defended and either unpopulated or very sparsely populated like farmland) . Good job, Postol, you were correct that Desert Storm-era Patriot wasn't good at killing ballistic missiles, I'm glad you've ridden that to "expertdom" for decades while saying plenty of things I know for a fact are false or else wild conjecture. I can't say this report is outright wrong, but it's certainly suspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
zoux posted:Newsweek is reporting a counterpoint from two MIT scientists claiming that DPRK actually cannot deliver a nuclear warhead to CONUS and probably not even AK. This is all way over my head so I'd like yalls impression on it. This is just gonna provoke them into launching an ICBM off the coast of california
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We're hampered by NewsWeek not just being able to publish the whole article, but some highlights: Whole article is here. I'm still not convinced, but you will know better than me. http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012 Edit: The whole thing seems like a SWAG to me. There's a ton of guesswork in terms of rocket design, fuel used, and development stage of NK's warhead based on what China sold to Pakistan sold to Libya years ago. I'd really like to see the chain of evidence that leads them to believe it's the same design other than "the test blasts were about as big as we've seen from those same designs" Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:"Everyone knows the Chinese can't make complicated stuff. Why they'd never be able to make the Iphone in China. #MAGA" Not to be that guy, but considering that the vast majority of smart phones produced by Chinese for Chinese are copied designs produced by copied machinary provided by the Chinese government, I would say no, they're not capable of building Iphone by themselves. Smart phones are a trivial matter in the large scheme of things, however it's a reflection of the Chinese government as a whole in how they choose to operate and encourage their industries to operate, and we've seen the dire results of this time and time again whenever they try to execute on their own ventures, especially when it come to infrastructure. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We're hampered by NewsWeek not just being able to publish the whole article, but some highlights: Ok thanks for taking the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Smartphones are assembled in China, the microchip manufacturing happens in Japan, Taiwan and the US. The LCD screens are manufactured in Korea. China has about 33% of the Li+ battery manufacturing market. Chinese factories makes batteries and cases, and put the expensive parts together. The impression that Chinese high-tech manufacturing has yet to catch up with the US, Germany, Japan & Korea is largely correct. Just off the top of my head Chinese firms are behind in electronics, aerospace, and metallurgy. Having the most manufacturing doesn't necessarily make you good at manufacturing a specific item. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
electronic warfare loving owns and spoofing-type jamming is rad as hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:A few pages late but if the GE passport & associated FADEC/avionics is type certificated to the FAA process, it seems like the Air Force is within their authority to accept this type certificate. Assuming the integration method pass muster as applied to the B-52, whats stopping them from saying "yep the FAA cert is good enough"? Sperglord posted:For example, Dale Brown on his FB feed said: Readiness is down, capability remains high. We were able to truck Libya with whatever random assets we had that weren't currently being used in Iraq or Afghanistan, using a plan put together by the Junior Varsity squad. Yes, North Korea is a more complex problem, but it is also one we have had our eye on for literally decades. We already have forces in Korea. Per what open source intel I can find, North Korean air defense is still mainly equipped with the Summer of Love vintage SA-2/3/5/6/7 combo that has proven utterly ineffective against western air power the last four-ish times it was tested. IMO, the conventional military campaign is not now and never has been the worrying part of a renewed war on the peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Lollin at this callsign https://twitter.com/aircraftspots/status/895920499238162432
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Whole article is here. I'm still not convinced, but you will know better than me. Alot of the "rocket deisgn, fuel used" were answered by opensource imagery. You can tell the fuel used by the color of flame and smoke, you can tell 90% of the engine design by what sticks out the rear end when they parade it down the street. We have burn times, flight profiles, acceleration curves, the acceleration curve is the biggest indicator that they were throwing warhead test masses, as the difference in TWR between wet mass and dry mass can then be estimated with good accuracy and a deltaV budget calculated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Alot of the "rocket deisgn, fuel used" were answered by opensource imagery. You can tell the fuel used by the color of flame and smoke, you can tell 90% of the engine design by what sticks out the rear end when they parade it down the street. We have burn times, flight profiles, acceleration curves, the acceleration curve is the biggest indicator that they were throwing warhead test masses, as the difference in TWR between wet mass and dry mass can then be estimated with good accuracy and a deltaV budget calculated. Call me a skeptic when it comes to the open source imagery - if you're an SME on the subject I'm all ears, but it's not like improvements are impossible on a design, not to mention the pictures we have aren't exactly great quality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Ted Postol has, let's say, diminished credibility, given his horrifically inaccurate takes on Syria's use of chemical weapons
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Call me a skeptic when it comes to the open source imagery - if you're an SME on the subject I'm all ears, but it's not like improvements are impossible on a design, not to mention the pictures we have aren't exactly great quality. I'm not going to say that maybe you're right and they're overestimating the range.... https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/time-to-lose-your-illusions-on-north-korea/ http://www.comparativist.org/2017/08/please-stop-saying-nks-weapons-dont-work/ http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203680/the-more-you-kn-0w-about-north-korean-missiles/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/north-koreas-icbm-a-new-missile-and-a-new-era/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Not to be that guy, but considering that the vast majority of smart phones produced by Chinese for Chinese are copied designs produced by copied machinary provided by the Chinese government, I would say no, they're not capable of building Iphone by themselves. Smart phones are a trivial matter in the large scheme of things, however it's a reflection of the Chinese government as a whole in how they choose to operate and encourage their industries to operate, and we've seen the dire results of this time and time again whenever they try to execute on their own ventures, especially when it come to infrastructure. I am familiar with what machines are used by major chinese OEMs at least for machining smartphones housings and theyre Fanuc Robodrills, Brother Mill Taps and DMG MillTaps. The DMG ones being particularly good. These are all machines that are better than the small HAASes you see in most American shops and not Chinese copies. This applies to a lot of the large industrial robots too, you see some Chinese ones (Foxconn has one thats poo poo and validates what youre saying, but its not in widespread use to my knowledge) but lots of Kukas and Fanucs. Injection molding machines come in a big spectrum but Fanuc is a common sight there as well. Dead Reckoning posted:From a ways back, but the USAF effectively doesn't give a single poo poo about the FAA certification process. The B-52 doesn't even have a type certificate in the first place. They have their own airworthiness certification process and criteria. The big commercial derived contracts require FAA type certification. Tanker and Recap will both be FAA type certificated on an STC. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Ted Postol has, let's say, diminished credibility, given his horrifically inaccurate takes on Syria's use of chemical weapons Ted Postol is either a brain-rotted idiot or is happy to just put out crazy poo poo in order to be hosted on a mix of fringe and mainstream media. He fundamentally either lacks an understanding of or intentionally misrepresents the basics, including unclassified briefs, of how THAAD works. He will also do dumb things like say "X country has 400 missiles, and this battery has 48 interceptors, so it's useless!" while completely ignoring, either through stupidity or intentionally, that he is assuming enemy logistics and launcher capability stays 100% intact to launch 400 missiles and also assumes the US does literally zero resupply operations of interceptors. Granted, interceptor vs. launched ordnance is typically much more expensive and harder for the defender, but it's dumb as hell to assume zero attrition of enemy launchers. If you've got 400 missiles or 400 million missiles, you're still only firing at a rate allowable by your number of MEL/TEL/UGF crews, your refueling crews (if liquid fueled), and the ability to keep your launch systems mission-capable. Also, defense planners make hard choices about where they're going to engage a missile and where they're just going to say "sucks for you" to anyone in the impact zone, outside of a defended asset. Also, he's quick to just say "they probably faked it" regarding any combat proven system or any testing. Or if testing has been, step 1, step 2, step 3, and so on, he'll bitch and moan that step 28 hasn't been tested yet, so obviously it's all bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:The big commercial derived contracts require FAA type certification. Tanker and Recap will both be FAA type certificated on an STC. KC-46 is going to hold a 767 variant type certificate (767-2c) and Boeing will then "optionally" be able to modify those aircraft to full KC-46 status with an STC that includes all of the boom equipment, and the entirety of the military avionics and mission kit. This means that a fully-militarized KC-46 could be purchased and operated by a civilian company, assuming the mission electronics are made available by DOD. An aircraft is not certified with an STC, the STC is (wait for it) supplemental to the Type Certificate, which is the actual certifying document. All of that said, I don't think the USAF requires FAA certification; I think it's a way for Boeing to streamline foreign military certification, and for DOD to allow contract tanker operations, later on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
The Tiger attack helicopter has been declared unsafe by the manufacturer following a July 27 crash in Mali. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mali-un-crash-idUKKBN1AP1TE?il=0 A Bundeswehr Tiger was apparently flying at 550m and 250kph and suddenly pitched its nose down 90 degrees and lawndarted. It lost the main rotor on the way down but whether or not that was part of the problem or just a result of the uncontrolled flight state is not yet known. Manufacturer put this out: quote:Despite the missing information and considering a sudden failure, Airbus Helicopters declares an UNSAFE condition for all Tiger versions. AH can neither identify the part, the failure of which would lead to the accident, nor the origin of the failure (design, manufacturing, maintenance). Consequently, AH is not in the position to propose a protective measure. I kinda wonder about the cost-benefit relationship of building stuff like this domestically vs. just getting Apaches. The production run has been 200 apparently, for four operators.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The cost:benefit is basically 0:infinity from the politician's point of view of being able to say they're developing domestic industry, providing <Germans/Italians/French/Whatever> with jobs, and minimizing reliance on the United States. it could be a literal dumpster full of burning trash held aloft with hot air balloons and still be superior to just buying something off the shelf if there is any way they could figure out how to produce it domestically or semi-domestically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The cost:benefit is basically 0:infinity from the politician's point of view of being able to say they're developing domestic industry, providing <Germans/Italians/French/Whatever> with jobs, and minimizing reliance on the United States. it could be a literal dumpster full of burning trash held aloft with hot air balloons and still be superior to just buying something off the shelf if there is any way they could figure out how to produce it domestically or semi-domestically. Ok but since you have by an order of magnitude less examples to spread dev cost across vs. the Apache don't you basically go into this knowing that it's going to be a less capable or more expensive helicopter? Or is there some way to offset this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Just lmao at the times Tigers with ISAF would "escort" ground forces by flying above them and providing lookout but weren't allowed by their host nations to engage lethally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:According to page 85 they didn't use SCUDs in bunkers. (PS Scud is not an acronym, it's a reporting name.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Ok but since you have by an order of magnitude less examples to spread dev cost across vs. the Apache don't you basically go into this knowing that it's going to be a less capable or more expensive helicopter? Or is there some way to offset this? See: Canadian Navy
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Ok but since you have by an order of magnitude less examples to spread dev cost across vs. the Apache don't you basically go into this knowing that it's going to be a less capable or more expensive helicopter? Or is there some way to offset this? From a politician's standpoint? Doesn't loving matter. Worst case scenario they fall out of the air and kill a bunch of people in the military, in which case with any luck you've long since moved on to bigger and better things. Ultimately this is the answer to just about every procurement clusterfuck that involves the question "Why didn't we just buy Item X from country Y that makes a really good one?" Canada's perpetual quest to build their own ships is a great example of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:OK, so we didn't destroy any mobile TELs, and Iraq didn't hide any in bunkers so we didn't kill any there either. Don't assume that we're going to get all of the TELs now, if history is a guide. Also Iraqi Scud commanders weren't idiots. They knew the USAF of the time had limited night-time recon ability. They also knew their area. So they could move out at night, fuel and elevate their payload, launch a Scud, and then relocate, possibly reload a new missile, and move to cover all under cover of darkness. Sometimes cover included stuff like a bridge overpass the americans don't want to bomb, because they want to use it in a few days to get their armor into the fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:KC-46 is going to hold a 767 variant type certificate (767-2c) and Boeing will then "optionally" be able to modify those aircraft to full KC-46 status with an STC that includes all of the boom equipment, and the entirety of the military avionics and mission kit. This means that a fully-militarized KC-46 could be purchased and operated by a civilian company, assuming the mission electronics are made available by DOD. Apologies in advance for the tone of this post. Theres a lot of wrong things said here: 1) The post I was replying to said the Air Force doesnt care about FAA TCs. They do. They require them in contracts for commercial derived aircraft despite realizing cost and schedule delays as a result. The Air Force DOES require them or the contractors would not do them because the FAA and the Air Force have different philosophies about certification, with the FAA requiring much more involvement on their end. 2) Foreign military planes fly under MTCs. Japan and other countries fly E-2s certificated by the US Navy for example. There is no FAA/EASA TC for an E-2. 3) You're splitting hairs by saying its not certified on the STC. Since you like to smugly split hairs, planes are type-certificated, not type certified. If Boeing could meet the requirements of the contract by getting an STC for the -2C and an MTC for the KC-46 they would because it would save them lots of money and time but: From the GAO: "The FAA has previously certified Boeing’s 767 commercial passenger airplane (referred to as a type certificate) and will certify the design for both the 767-2C and the KC-46 with amended and supplemental type certificates, respectively. " http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676429.pdf EDIT: Should add that they're getting both STCs and MTCs. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Apologies in advance for the tone of this post. Apologies in advance for the *fart noises* So, with the exception of the last paragraph of my post, which I started with "All of that said, I don't think," to imply that I was then stating an opinion, and not fact, what exactly is wrong with my post? I was simply clarifying that a TC and an STC are wildly different documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also Iraqi Scud commanders weren't idiots. They knew the USAF of the time had limited night-time recon ability. They also knew their area. So they could move out at night, fuel and elevate their payload, launch a Scud, and then relocate, possibly reload a new missile, and move to cover all under cover of darkness. Sometimes cover included stuff like a bridge overpass the americans don't want to bomb, because they want to use it in a few days to get their armor into the fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ted Postol is either a brain-rotted idiot or is happy to just put out crazy poo poo in order to be hosted on a mix of fringe and mainstream media. To be specific, Ted Postal has been regurgitating the Russian angle on a few highly politicised subjects. Similar to his retarded Syrian CW claims, this lines up with the Russian claim that NK doesn't have ICBMs and everyone is just being mean to them for no reason. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
I'm not going to go into any significant detail for obvious reasons but you simply can't analyze rocket/missile performance with any acceptable accuracy using open source videos, or at least the open source videos I've seen. That kind of analysis is about on the level of "the F-22/PAK-FA/J-20 RCS is must be much big, because of tail, and also wings".standard.deviant posted:Sure. The bottom line is that if we didn't get even one confirmed Scud mission kill (let alone destroying a missile on a TEL) in Desert Storm, it is absurd to believe that we have any chance of destroying 100% of NK missiles in a theoretical preemptive strike. No one thinks we're going to destroy 100% of the missiles the DPRK lobs...wherever. The *hope* is that we'll destroy all, or at least most, of the missiles that will impact on a very small number of very important assets. Sorry, Gangnam. bewbies fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:No one thinks we're going to destroy 100% of the missiles the DPRK lobs...wherever. The *hope* is that we'll destroy all, or at least most, of the missiles that will impact on a very small number of very important assets. Sorry, Gangnam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I mean ballistic missiles, not rocket artillery. They use an off-road transporter/erector for their ICBM and have focused on decoys, camouflage and underground facilities for the last 60 years. Expecting that we will have improved from 0% in Desert Storm to 100% today is wildly optimistic, even with a reduced number of overall targets. It's also a much smaller area than Iraq. But yeah, they've kinda been working on this for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This isn't really a complete statement. iPhones at this point are a completely iterative design process. Yes, each one incorporates new technology, but it's all an improvement on what's already there. More importantly than that, the testing process for iPhones is substantially shorter and less arduous than for any military system simply due to the stakes involved. If Apple fucks up, it costs them money. Maybe in a software patch, maybe a hardware fix, or at absolute worst case a major recall and loss of good will. With military systems, the testing process by definition has to be more arduous - not just for system reliability and failsafe testing, but interoperability and system integration with current technology. I completely agree, but a huge component of the much longer, more difficult development process for defense systems (and I'm not even including the vendor selection process, which is a whole different ball of wax) is simply ensuring that when lives depend on something, it will work as intended. Also because the design of Iphones comes from Silicon Valley or South Korea and the software running on them is almost universally American. There are some Chinese designs but their advantage tends to be that they're cheap and they are extremely derivative of Western and Korean designs. "China makes our Iphones!" is overestimating the role China plays in the creation of the device. Even discounting the design most of the hardware (semiconductors and chips generally) has its origins in the USA, Korea, or Taiwan. Note: This doesn't mean China can't make weapons that can kill people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/hidden-spy-planes This is interesting. Machine learning used to spot spy planes from the patterns flown. Surely this is how Bane pulled his 2012 heist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Dandywalken posted:https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/hidden-spy-planes lol Yes let's re register a pilatus as a powered parachute to keep it secret! A new registration number? Hell no paint costs money!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 01:56
|
|
