|
Baloogan posted:https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/850724118228066304 drat, this thing is getting legs in the best possible way. Triple A posted:I do think we should keep about half of the SK-60s because they can still deliver rockets and we have the spare parts to keep them running as long as we want. Maybe. Is there a way to increase the rocket accuracy? Have them let off fewer in one pass? Have them launch closer to the targets? Use the gunpods instead? The RB 60s just really haven't accomplished much in the last few mission. If we can sell off six Gripens and buy 4-5 aircraft that can drop GBU-12 or fire Mavericks, then that gives us a much more effective and combat-ready force.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
CBJamo posted:I assume you meant not-gripens? Otherwise we're gonna have a problem. Also, this last mission is basically what the SDB was built for. We should make getting those a priority. Hopefully we're just missing a setting somewhere and we can get the AI to use them more intelligently, because dropping 8 SDBs on one target is just as dumb as dropping 4 GBUs on one target. AHHHHHHH. I meant sell off the RB 60 Saabs. Not the Gripens. Regarding recon, we just bought has the two German UAVs. So we are getting some recon capability with the last two. And If we're doing a really seriou strike, we can send one of the Grpeins off with a photo pod to do recon work. It'll drive up costs a little, but I do agree that good recon can be worthwhile. Might be worth seeing if someone like the Russians or Indians are willing to see us satellite recon data.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Maybe. At this point, the Ukranian buy does two things 1) increase our ground attack capability (cluster bombs, dumb bombs, bigger rockets, and the Frogfoot's laser-guided missiles) and 2) provide cheap replacement rides for the goons who lost their RB 60s. These aren't competitive air-to-air aircraft and will need careful CAP protection from the Gripens. The good news is that we can be much bolder in operating aircraft at low-level now that the Chiniese SAMs and radars are at the bottom of the ocean. If we can stop them from launching rockets 3km away from the target (like the RB 60s did last mission), then we'll get more hits. The Ukranian buy isn't a great deal, but it isn't a terrible one, either. It does up our CAS and ground strike abilities a fair amount. Can we see what other arms dealers have to offer? In light of the higher fighter threat, I'd like to see if there are F-15s, F-16s, Super Hornets, or F-14s on the market. We're going to need something with strong air-to-air capability and standoff ground strike ability. Failing that, I wonder if there are any any more Phantoms of modernized Su-27 or Su-30s on the market? It might also be worth seeing if we could snap up those FA-50 Golden Eagles and get the AMRAAM upgrade -- they are basically affordable F-16s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:You realizing BOMBING THE DE JURE CAPITAL OF THE DISPUTED REGION is a good way to get everybody gunning for us, right? There's definitely a way to do go after the Lhasa airbase with an alpha strike. It's going to be challenging and require some pretty precise planning. But it's doable. Basically, I'd do this: 1. Send in the UAVs to recon the area -- focusing on finding enemy SAMs and AAA. 2. Fly in SEAD flight of two Gripens at low level with Mjolnir standoff munitions. They blow up as many radars, SAMs, and AA guns as possible. Cover them with a high CAP of Gripens with Meteors to deal with Chinese interceptors. 3. Then, send in a low-level strike package of Gripens and Phantoms to hit the base, focusing on killing aircraft on the ground. If we think we can sanitize their airspace, we give them bombs for max mayhem. If not, we give them Mavericks and Mjolrnirs. 4. If things are clear enough, we send in the RB 60s and the Frogfoots at low level loaded to the gills with ordnance to pound facilities. If we get the Ukrainian planes, we'd send them in with this wave to hit hangars, buildings, and fuel storage. It's a shame we lost those Durandal runway-killers in shipping... There are 17 countries that have some in stock, so it might be possible to beg, buy, bargain, or steal some. Let's hold off making a decision about the Ukrainians and the RB 60 sale until we know more about the potential target and how soon we can get the new birds delivered. If we're making an alpha strike, having lots of aircraft with lots of bombs is good. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:I also have an analysis on planes we might want to try and acquire based on this mission, note they are more low key, but I feel are just as, if not more critical to our long term success as a PMC Your post got me thinking about our long-term procurement plans. What kind of force do we want to create? And what moves should we make to get there? I think we'd be best-served by a high-low mix of multi-role combat aircraft. Buying nothing but high-end fighters will leave us too short-handed to do much. And only having crappy airplanes will kill us all. So let's have enough modern fighters to clear a path for less-capable aircraft.  Our high-end force is modern strike fighters. Used for: 1) Air Superiority, 2) Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), 3) high-risk Strike missions, 4) Recon Now, we have seven JAS 39 Gripen Cs. Buying more strike fighters should be our top priority. We need at least 3-5 more if we want to take on tougher missions. Our most-realistic options are more Gripens, F-16Cs, Hornets, Super Hornets (F/A-18s have some awesome standoff strike capabilities), and maybe the FA-50s (upgraded to carry AMRAAMs). We should look into setting up a front company to buy some more.  Our low-end force are fighter-bombers, light strike aircraft and CAS aircraft for 1) Strike, 2) CAS, and 3) basic Air-to--air. Now, we have two F-4Es. These guys are the heavy-hitters with their AMRAAMs and heavy air-to-ground loadout. There's also the two Su-25 Frogfoots and two Hawk 209s which are ok CAS and light strike aircraft, but will die rapidly against serious SAMs or AAA. Buying these is a secondary priority, but an easier need to fill. I'd recommend we buy up at least 3-5 more Phantom IIs. Turkish and Israeli Phantom IIs are the best buys, since they carry the best standoff strike weapons. The Israeli Kurnass has the Delilah cruise missile (277km range) and the Popeye bomb (74km range). Turkish Terminators have the Popeye and the SOM A cruise missile (240km range). If those can't be purchased, then we should invest in light strikers that carry precision weapons. No more farting around with dumb rockets. Consider the A-7 Corsair II, Jaguar, AMX and Hawk 209.  For our support aircraft, I think we need to focus on multi-role support aircraft that can do many different jobs. These are expensive aircraft to own and buy and we need to stretch our money as far as it will got. For SEAD and Electronic Warfare, we should try and get some EA-6B Prowlers. They have great jamming pods and can carry AGM-88 HARMs. We should add one more tanker-transport. The KC-135 is the best option -- as a bonus, they have a cargo deck for transport work. If that can't be arranged, let's buy a KC-130. It can do transport work into smaller fields the KC-135 can''t reach and it can help out as a tanker. Or, better yet, we try to make it into a KC-130J Harvest Hawk with bonus Hellfire and Griffin missiles. I don't think we need a dedicated maritime patrol force. However, it might be worth buying some S-3 Vikings . They can be bought for a song from the US government. They can do ground and sea strikes, and they carry a very nice selection of Mavericks, bombs, depth charges, torpedoes, and Harpoon missiles. They can also be buddy tankers! **For those interested in the P-3, it has some features we may find useful. The updated US P-3s (http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/3334/) can carry JDAMs and the 277km-range AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA. That could make it a pretty useful aircraft for killing SAM batteries. It also has a radar with a 370 km range and ELINT gear with a 926 km range. So it could help act as an a sort of AWACs-lite. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Yooper, again - sorry for the complexity of this plan  In order to hit the airfield in good order, we're going to need to pull off a very delicate refueling maneuver. With the Lhasa base 400km away and our fighters carrying loads that limit them to 440-500km range, we need to refuel the fighters on the way TO and FROM Lhasa. But in order for the strike to work, they have to take gas, wait for their flightmates to refuel and then all go in together. If we send them in one-by-one - all our fighters will die. Is this feasible to do? ---  Operation THOR'S HAMMER Here is the target:  Here is the plan:  First, SEAD birds kick in the door with Mjolner standoff cluster missiles and rain death on the Chinese SAMs and AAA. Then, heavy strikers hit the runway, grounded Chinese aircraft, and facilities. All the while, CAP Gripens are overhead ready to deal with the J-20s if they make an appearance. As a bonus, we send the slow CAS aircraft to hit TLA targets in the east to help the Indians Volunteers, distract the Chinese, and earn extra money. They can't keep up with the faster fighters and don't have the range, so sending them against Lhasa is a suicide mission. The tanker and the Eyrie play their normal supporting roles. CAP Aircraft and Loadout Three JAS 39 Gripens, each with: - Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles -Four Meteor air-to-air missiles -Drop tanks Mission Primary: Engage air targets to protect the strikers at all costs. SEAD Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: -Two BK 90 Mjolnerr Mk 1 cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: ID and destroy enemy radars, SAMs, and AAA Heavy Striker - Griffon Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: OPTION 1: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles OPTION 2: -Four GBU-49 GPS-guided 500lb bombs *NOTE: Use the GPS mode on these, if possible) -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities Heavy Striker - Phantom Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two F-4E Phantom IIs, each with OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 2: -Twelve Mk82 500lb dumb bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 3: Two GBU-12 2000lb laser0guided bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 4: -DWS.39 AFDS (aka BK 90 Mjolner) cluster-dispensing missiles -Two AMRAAMS Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities Diversion Aircraft and Loadout Six SK 60s, each with: -135 mm rockets (Yooper, can we get them to shoot these off when they are 1km away?) Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strike as possible Two Su-25s, each with: -Eight RBK-250 PTAB cluster bombs -Two Aphid air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strike as possible Two Hawk 209s, each with: OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AIM-9Ls OPTION 2: -Two Maverick IR missiles -Two AIM-9Ls Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strike as possible "Big Pig" Aircraft KC-135 Tanker Mission Primary: Orbit at the "Gas Station" -- refuel outgoing and incoming aircraft. Secondary: Dash north to rescue any aircraft critically low on fuel. "Eyeball" Aircraft One Saab S100B AEW&C Mission Primary: Orbit at the "AEW&C Point" -- Locate air targets and vector CAP onto targets. VVV sorry, accidentally deleted part of it Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I disagree with using the Su-25s on the diversionary strike. Instead, I would employ them on the airfield strike, attacking the runway itself with BetAB-500s, anti-runway cluster bombs. If we take out the runway itself, the J-20s will not be able to recover there, and depending on how much fuel they will have burned engaging the Su-30s, they may not be able to recover anywhere. The route we take depends on what weapons we use. The reason for the western approach is that I want to use cluster munitions -- one cluster bomb will blanket about a quarter of the field with bomblets. That'll utterly vaporize their aircraft and do a lot of damage to the runway. This approach will have our weapons will be hitting in a east --> west direction down the length of the field, which gives us better odd of hitting things than a south --> north approach. Do this right will take some micro, Yooper will need to set all the strike birds to terrain-hugging, with a pop up for weapons launch. The Su-25s are too slow to really keep up with the strike package. Firewalling their throttle, they make about 520 knots. Just at cruise speed, the Phnatoms do 506 knots and wil be going much fatser on their attack run and egress. That means we need to either A) slow the strike package to keep pace with the slow Frogfoots or B) have them leave the Frgofoots behind, which means our CAP Gripens are going to be burning gas trying to cover the Frogtfoot's slow egress. That exposes the Frogfoots and the Gripens to a retaliation from the J-20s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Triple A posted:I think we could get 4 SK-60s for the diversion and 4 more for the base strike itself. They could focus on destroying the control tower or fuel supplies. They don't have the range to carry rockets and make it Lhasa and back. If they carry the 30mm gunpods, they can make it. But they're too slow to get in and get out with the rest of the strikers. That means they will show up over Lhasa late and get hit by Chinese fighters as they try to get out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Note that in CMANO you need specialized weapons to destroy runways, due to how the penetration mechanics work. Can't the Mjolner Mk 2's kill runways? The Greek F-4E loadout in-game has them using the Mjolner's as anti-runway weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
NOTE: In order to hit the airfield in good order, we're going to need to pull off a very delicate refueling maneuver. With the Lhasa base 400km away and our fighters carrying loads that limit them to 440-500km range, we need to refuel the fighters on the way TO and FROM Lhasa. But in order for the strike to work, they have to take gas, wait for their flightmates to refuel and then all go in together. If we send them in one-by-one - all our fighters will die. *************************************** Operation THOR'S HAMMER Here is the target:  Here's the target's facilities:  Here is the plan: We've learned a couple of things. One, we don't have the firepower to destroy two runways/taxiways. Two, we can complete the mission by taking out Chinese aircraft and support facilities. This plan has four priorities: 1) Destroying the Chinese support facilities, 2) Destroying their aircraft on the ground, 3) Damaging the runways, 4) Clear out TLA forces so Indian Volunteers can rapidly take Lhasa. To accomplish this, here is my plan: In the main show, SEAD birds kick in the door with Mavericks and Mjolner Missiles and kill the Chinese SAMs and AAA. Two, the heavy strikers hit the runway, grounded Chinese aircraft, and facilities. CAP Gripens are overhead with Meteors ready to deal with the J-20s if they make an appearance. The tanker and the Eyrie play their normal supporting roles. The SK 60s and the Frogfoots cannot be sent of the main strike mission. For several reasons. 1) Range - the SK 60s have a ~500km range with rockets. The Su25s have a ~750km range. Lhasa is an 800km round trip. Even if we use the forward in Bhutan, we are asking to get them sniped while they're on the ground there. 2) Speed -- they are too slow to keep up with our force. The max speed of a Frogfoot is the same as the Cruising speed of our Phantoms. Our fighters can get in an out of the target quickly. Bringing Frogfoots means we either slow everyone down or we leave the Frogfoots playing catch-up. So, we create a sideshow for our light strike aircraft. We go after the TLA forces blocking the route to Lhasa. This accomplishes three things: 1) potentially distracts Chinese forces, 2) lets TLA forces get to Lhasa and possibly shut down the runway, 3) let's us make some money with aircraft that'd otherwise be sitting idle. In case poo poo hits the fan, we evac all non-essential personnel from Hired Goons HQ before the mission starts. As soon as the strikers are back at base, we use Quick Turnaround and we get them airborne with long-range air-to-air loadouts and have the orbit over our base, ready to intercept any incoming Chinese aircraft. ***************************************************** Yooper, here is the plan in a more detailed form. (NOTE: "5.1 and 5.2," etc. denotes events that should be happening relatively simultaneously) 1. Support Element (AEW&C and the KC-135 tanker) take off from Hired Goons HQ. 2.1. Tanker heads to Gas Station and orbits there. 2.2. AEW&C heads to AEW&C Point and orbits there. 3. SEAD Package (two Gripens), Strike Package (two Gripens, two Phantom IIs), CAP (three Gripens) launch. 4. Diversion Package (two Hawk 209s, two SU-25s, six SK 60s) launch. 5.1. SEAD and strikers head to the target -- before they cross the border, they go to the Gas Station and refuel. Only once everyone has refuelled do they continue on. 5.2. CAP Heads to CAP Two and orbits there -- if they see any J-16s, they are to immediately engage and destroy them. 5.3. Diversion package heads to TLA targets. 6. SEAD and Strikers drop to low-level, using terrain to mask their approach to the target. 7.1 SEAD Flight pops up for their attack run. They fire the Mjolners and then the Mavericks -- they focus on Chinese SAMs, AAA, and MANPADs, in that order. They do NOT overly Lhasa. Once run is complete, they RTB. 7.2 CAP Gripens hold at CAP 2 point and orbit there to cover the escape of the strikers. 8. Strikers hit targets. They fly at low-level until popping up for the attack run. The Phantoms focus on hitting the underground fuel tanks with 2000lb Paveways. The Gripens focus on hitting the above-ground tanks, and the parked aircraft. Once run is complete, they RTB. 9. Diversionary strikers hit targets. 10.1 SEAD and Strikers cross the border and link up with the tanker at the Gas Station. 10.2. CAP Gripens fall back to CAP 1 point and orbit there. 11. Diversionary strikers land and use Quick Turnaround to re-fuel, re-arm and launch for their second sortie. 12. Strikers and SEAD package land. Use Quick Turnaround to re-fuel and re-arm them with Meteor missiles. Have them join the CAP birds whent hey re-launch. 13. Diversionary Package land. Quick Turnaround to re-fuel and re-arm them with air-to-air loadouts and then have them head to a safer airbase. 14. Load up the transport (and if we need more space, the tanker) with any remaining people and kit and have them head for a safer airbase. 17. All aircraft land at our new airbase. ****************************************************************** AIRCRAFT CAP Aircraft and Loadout Three JAS 39 Gripens, each with: - Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles -Four Meteor air-to-air missiles -Drop tanks Mission Primary: Engage air targets to protect the strikers at all costs. SEAD Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 anti-armor cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: ID and destroy enemy radars, SAMs, and AAA Heavy Striker - Griffon Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft on the ground Secondary: Destroy enemy support facilities -- focus on the fuel Heavy Striker - Phantom Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two F-4E Phantom IIs, each with Two GBU-12 2000lb laser-guided bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS Mission Primary: Destroy underground fuel tanks Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities -- prioritize fuel Quaternary: Destroy parked enemy aircraft Diversion Aircraft and Loadout Six SK 60s, each with: -135 mm rockets (Yooper, can we get them to shoot these off when they are 1km away?) Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible Two Su-25s, each with: -Eight RBK-250 PTAB cluster bombs -Two Aphid air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible Two Hawk 209s, each with: OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AIM-9Ls Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible "Big Pig" Aircraft KC-135 Tanker Mission Primary: Orbit at the "Gas Station" -- refuel outgoing and incoming aircraft. Secondary: Dash north to rescue any aircraft critically low on fuel. "Eyeball" Aircraft One Saab S100B AEW&C Mission Primary: Orbit at the "AEW&C Point" -- Locate air targets and vector CAP onto targets. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I don't think you've accounted for us being able to run out of that airfield in Bhutan. We could stick the Su-25s there for the Lhasa strike. I have. It does (somewhat) solve the range issue that I mentioned in my post, althoug Psawhn posted:I'll go over your plan for more feedback soon. But I have to point out first that our UAVs don''t even have the altitude to make it over the Himalayas. They're limited to 10,000 ft. Good catch -- I'll delete them in the final draft of the plan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Whats the capacity of Lakhimpur and Yongphulla Airport?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:That underground fuel tank is actually really tough. 4 GBU-24s (2000 lbs) is barely enough to guarantee a kill. It doesn't actually blow up immediately, but it burns down after only a couple minutes. Only 3 successful hits might kill it... depending on how good their fire brigade is. The Chinese need four things to launch a strike on us. We should focus our efforts on destroying one of these things. 1. Fuel 2. Ammo 3. Runways 4. Aircraft From what people have said, the runway will be the hardest thing to kill, fuel the second, ammo the third, and aircraft the fourth. But ammo is also the easiest thing to harden, disperse, or hide -- so I'm unsure if we should make that the lynchpin of our attack. If we can't nail their aircraft on the ground, then I think we should focus on taking our their fuel. Cluster bombs will do a number on the above-ground tanks and we can have the Paveways pop the underground one. Psawhn posted:At the moment, Lakhimpur has 7 large open parking spots. Each one can hold 1 very large (KC-145), 1 large (S 100B, Phantom II), 2 medium (Gripen, Frogfoot), or 4 small (SK 60B). So something like this? Lakhimpur: KC-135, S100B AEW&C, 2x Phantom IIs, Yongphulla: 7x Gripen, 2x Frogfoots, 2x Hawks, and 4x SK60s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:I think we can count on the ineptitude of a Chinese Fire Drill. It might be worth having one of the light strikers fire off some ordnance in the general area to kill or chase off any firefighters. Yeah, it's a lovely thing to do. But if it stops the Chinese from getting gas for jets that can drop Durandals on our asses... Psawhn posted:Yeah, that's about the right order. The above-ground tanks are easy to hit, even a single 500 pound bomb will make the whole thing light up. At this point, it seems like the biggest issue we need to hammer out is loadouts and targets. Looking at the Bhutan airport and how little ordnance 4 Gripens and 2 Phantoms can carry...it looks like we're going to need the Frogfoots, Hawks, and the SK 60s. I think we should focus on the avgas stores as our main target, with the parked aircraft as our secondary target. Strike Phantoms: -Paveways --> underground gas tank Strike Gripens: -Mjolner Mk 2s--> parking spaces OR runways -Mavericks --> above-ground gas tanks Hawks: -Rockeye cluster bombs --> parking spaces SK 60s: -Rockets --> parking spaces I'm less sure about what to do with the Frogfoots. I'd either give them those ant-runways bombs, cluster bombs, or anti-tank missiles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:I don't know why, but cluster bombs don't seem to do much to the exposed fuel tank farm. Nor do cluster bombs do anything to aircraft that are parked right in the open, even though it should cause lots of mayhem Well, that is...odd. Is there any difference between anti-personnel and anti-armor cluster munitions? How well do the cluster weapons like the Mjolner do against SAMs, AA guns, and MANPAD teams? Would we be better-off giving the SEAD birds all Mavericks or GBU-49s? Psawhn posted:We don't really need the Su-25s and Hawks to kill all the mission-vital targets: That's good information to have. Agree completely on the GBU-49 selection, although if we're going up against tough air defenses, it might be worth considering the EO Mavericks for some extra stand-off capability. Psawhn posted:If we want to be absolutely sure of mission success in case TWO GBU-24s malfunction, we'd either bring along a third Gripen with LGBs, or the Su-25s. For the Su-25s we'd want to equip it with the Kh-29L. (We're stuck with the laser-guided variant because the EO version can't seem to lock on to what we're aiming at). We can give them orders to hold back in reserve unless either two GBU-24s are duds, or it looks like the AA around the airbase is light enough. Then they can pop over the mountain ridge, launch their missiles and guide them to their targets, and then book it back over the mountains. I'm skeptical about sending the Su-25s. It doesn't seem like we need them. But if we do send them, we should send in the Hawks and the SK 60s as well. Flood the airfield with aircraft -- dump everything we've got in one pass and then get out of there. More light aircraft creates a lot more risk. But the chance of killing Chinese aircraft on the ground makes it tempting. And it'd give a record number of goons the chance to fly. I'd say we leave it up to the Hired Goons to vote. Psawhn posted:On a different note: there is a tradeoff for SEAD flight flying on the deck versus up high. For one, those Mjolnirs are glide bombs, not missiles, so they need to be released high up for maximum range. (They can't be dropped at all under 2000 ft AGL.) Also, aircraft that are high up have lots of potential energy to use to try to dodge missiles from a SAM -- witness how, in the last mission, Ventura and Unicorn were dodging missiles like they were in the matrix. Can we pull off a high-speed, low-level infiltration, then make an aggressive pull-up to make a pop-up attack and get up to weapons release altitude?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 13:41
|
|
. (Baloogaaaaan! 
)
|
Davin Valkri posted:Bacarruda, is there any way we can make these fit into your plans? Like Yooper said, we don't need to completely destroy the runway, but a few bomb craters to make the J-20s crash on landing would be helpful. The dilemma that we face is that we don't know how prepared the Chinese strike will be by the time we come over the target. If they are still preparing (arming, fueling), etc. then hitting the support facilities will cancel, delay, or heavily degrade any strike they can make. That makes hitting the easiest targets the best option. In order, we'd go after: ammo, fuel, runways, parked planes. If their strikers are already gassed up and armed, then hitting the support facilities will only stop them from making a second strike -- Hired Goons HQ will still get plastered in their planned attack. In that case, the only way to stop the strike is to kill the planes on the ground and/or badly crater both the runway and the main taxiway (which can be used as an emergency runway). We have no way of knowing which will be the case. And it's very much and either-or proposition. If the Phantoms focus on the runway and carry STABO Mjolners, then we can't bring the heavy 2000lb Paveway bombs needed to kill the underground fuel tank. So they will still have gas for a strike. But even if we get perfect Mjolner hits on one runway, there's still a second runway. And that means we either need Gripens or the Frogfoots to kill it. So, when it comes to targeting, we have four choices. Three sensible, one insane. 1: Only focus on their support. Leave the runways intact. 2: Go after support, but have the Su-25s each drop their grand total of eight BETAB-500 bombs* on the runway and the taxiway to try and do 25-30% damage to each one. 3: Focus on the runways, and do minimal attacks on their support. Phantoms drop STABO Mjolners (our Gripens don't have this variant), one focuses on the runway, the other hits the taxiway. The Su-25s also hit the runway. The Gripens go after the air defences and support facilities. The light strikers go after parked planes. 4. The Entebbe-Operation Mikado option. We kill every SAM and AA gun we can find and every fighter that can fly. Then, we send in our transport loaded to the gills with Indian Volunteers (re: Indian Para-Commandos who've left their shoulder patches behind) and we land them on the runway, drop them off, and then we get out of dodge. They block the runway with some truck or something and hold until relieved. We send som CAS East to clear the way for a rapid TLA advance. It pains me to say it, but Option 3 (runway strike) is the best bet. It lets us shut them down if they are ready or still prepping. *You can see the BETAB-500s in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQKRpK76gUo Yooper posted:I'd like your guys thoughts on how much info to give you. I don't want to give too much narrative away but I don't want you guys making the wrong decision because either the game mechanic is groggish or because we don't know penetration statistic on some obscure weapons system. On one hand I could say "Runway X needs 3 bombs to kill it," but I'm kind of building the missions for you then. But on the other if a facility is either really hard to kill (underground gas tanks) you'd probably know this as professional ex-military pilots. Give us the info that experienced pilots, ordnance folks, and operations officers would know (or at least would think they'd know). Give us a range for what might be needed to do the job. E.g. "if the runway is extra-thick like Joe here thinks it might be, we'd need 3-5 bombs to really take it out." Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:If nobody had mentioned the Entebbe option I wouldn't have even considered it but now that the idea has been floated I can't get it out of my head. I mean I know it's batshit insane to even consider but what if... what if.... Bacarruda posted:4. The Entebbe-Operation Mikado option. We kill every SAM and AA gun we can find and every fighter that can fly. Then, we send in our transport loaded to the gills with Indian Volunteers (re: Indian Para-Commandos who've left their shoulder patches behind) and we land them on the runway, drop them off, and then we get out of dodge. They block the runway with some truck or something and hold until relieved. We send som CAS East to clear the way for a rapid TLA advance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Are we in idea zone or "ask the Indians zone" ? uhhh... Probably more in the zone of is this even feasible in the CMANO engine? I mean, we should try and get paid extra for doing this. Like, a lot extra. But it wouldn't hurt to try. pthighs posted:Looks like the HQ-7 has a max range of 5nm and a max altitude of 16K feet. Which means we can hit it with standoff weapons, or from 36K ASL with impunity. As long as people stay above 30K feet, we should be good to go. That ceiling does prevent us from sending in the Frogfoots on an anti-runway mission. It also precludes the use of the light strike aircraft. Cathode Raymond posted:At this point I'd ask them kind of casually, maybe slip it in between small talk, maybe with a sudden, awkward seque. Our cargo planes can't drop paratroopers (at least not according to the DB), so we'd have the land on the runway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
We should kill the airfield. But I think someone should run a Raid on Lhasa in CMANO once Yooper releases the scenarios.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Best thread of all time. I'm loving that I get to be the terrorist. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Ok, so there are lots of ways to try and pull this off. For the record: they are all bad ideas. And I'm not sure Yooper will even be able to execute them in CMANO. 1. The (marginally) safer option is to use paratroopers instead of landing on the field. We don't have airborne-capable transports. But the Indians have several aircraft that can carry paras. They have Il-76MDs, C-130Js, An-12s, and C-17s. We might be able to set up a deal to escort 2-3 Indian transports to the target. We focus all our efforts on destroying AAA and SAMs. They could drop paras drop directly on the airfield or just outside the airfield. The paras could then assault the airfield. Once we control the air base, we could get some Mandarin speakers to send out a bogus report the para's assault failed -- they can contact the J-20s and vector them onto the field. Once they land, the Indians can grab the entire intact squadron of J-20s. And we'd better get a drat big bonus. 2. We paint the KC-135 in civilian colors and take off the refuelling boom. Pack it full of Indian commandos. We send it along normal commercial flight routes. They contact Lhasa tower with a feigned Mayday call. The plane lands, they Indians pop the escape slides and storm the base. The moment the KC-135 touches down, we send our strike force overhead to hammer the Chinese and support the Indian commandos. Then, we try the same J-20 capture ploy. ...I have no idea if this is even feasible in CMANO.... Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought about 'Pose as a civvy plane in distress, maybe report being hijacked by the Tibetans that the Chinese don't like to get landing clearance' but then I remembered a whole 747 was shot down for less and scratched that off my list The issue here would be getting the plane to appear neutral while still carrying our BLUFOR troops. Then switch to being BLUFOR on landing. And it'd have to simulate the troops taking out ground targets -- which I'm not sure the engine can do. The biggest obstacle to Poor Man's Entebbe is that it might not be doable in-game....
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I'm kinda worried that you're leaving us without adequate air cover, Psawhn. Agreed. Psawhn posted:
I like this plan, and am voting for it with the light strike option. A couple of notes. 1. I don't think this plan gives us enough CAP birds. We've been briefed that there's a wing of J-16s guarding Lhasa airbase. We need at least three or four Gripens with Meteors doing dedicated CAP work to keep our strikers safe. Would you add 1-2 more CAP birds? 2. I'd consider giving the Hawks 4x Rockeye cluster bombs instead of the Mavericks. If they are overflying the field at the same time as the Su-25s and the SK 60s, it'll help split up the fire of the AAA batteries -- which gives our vulnerable Su-25s better odds of survival. 3. Given the SK 60s rocket debacle last turn, let's set the rocket release range to 1 to 1.5 km. This will give them better odds of landing hits. Can we work this into the plan? 4. All the aircraft here have different cruising speeds -- do you think we'll run into an issue where they get too strung out and don't arrive together? Should we give them some kind of keep formation or throttle setting order?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Yooper posted:This is like everything that was a bad idea about Operation Market Garden but without Germans. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Like some of the other guys I'm torn. Ignoring whether it's viable or not: on the one hand Operation Mikadgoon (Goonkado?) would be the stuff of legends if we could pull it off, but it's ridiculously risky. Like "if we gently caress this up then we're probably done as a PMC" risky. If we do go through with it I feel like it'd be better to focus on flattening the main airbase and do any sort of commando raid on the back-up airfield since it's likely to be staffed by lower quality units than the main airbase (even if not by much). The backup airfield is nearly 300km inside Tibet proper. It's an even worse target to try and land troops at. The TLA will take months to get there. Yooper posted:It's likely they'll attempt to divert to an emergency airfield Dangxiong Airbase. That place is even shittier than our forward base and will barely get them back to a proper refit base. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
To make sure Yooper and Psawhn see this. e: I'd also like to backseat one of the Phantoms, if possible. Bacarruda posted:I like the Strict Parents plan, and am voting for it with the light strike option. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Always bet on sexy Gripens. Phantoms are fun too. How to Rafales stack up against our Grips? As a European, I'm a canards all day guy. The Rafales are geared more towards standoff strike and air-to-air work and are better at it than our Gripens. They only got laser-guided bombs in 2007. Overall, their electronic warfare suite is better than the Gripens, so they'll fair better in hostile environments. We probably won't be able to get surplus Rafales, though. We will be able to get older Swedish Air Force JAS 39Cs (that's how we got our initial birds). Quinntan posted:I don't think we need Flankers. Maybe three more Gripens? I'd rather us bulk up the number of Phantoms we have to be honest and sell off the Frogfoots, Sk60s and Hawk 209s. None of them have IFR and the Frogfoot has already shown that it is short-legged, requiring us to use this shithole airfield. The Frogfoots and Hawks are (relatively) useful light strikers. I think we should keep them around for the odd CAS jobs. The SK 60s have proven to be pretty useless. I agree that we should ditch them. I'm developing more mixed feelings about the Phantoms. They have good features, to be sure. Their range is great, they can carry 2,000lb Paveways, they can carry eight air-to-air missiles, and they have the Mjolner anti-runway bombs. ButpPretty much everything else about them is uninspiring. They only carry two guided air-to-ground weapons, max. Our Gripens can carry up to four guided weapons. For now, the Phantoms are our best option for the bomber role, but I think we should only buy 2-3 more. After that, the rest of our money should be going into strike fighters and support aircraft (SEAD, ECM, Tanker) If we want SEAD birds, there are a bunch of Navy and Marine EA-6Bs floating around. If we can buy them (Jack?), then we'd get some great jamming and anti-radar missile-launching platforms. It can also be used for ELINT -- we can act as hired spies, sniffing out the radar and radio emissions of our enemies. And it can carry IED jammers to clear the route for friendly ground troops. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Is there any reason why they can't carry as many GBU-10s as they can mk82s other than that's the loadout they have in cmano? I've seen pictures of GBU-12s carried on racks on US Phantoms.  It's feasible. Maybe we can bribe Yooper and get him to give us multiple ejector racks on the Phantoms. Then we can really go to town.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Saros posted:Whats up with the adorable little bomblets on the end of the actual bombs? That's the laser seeker. It picks up the laser reflection bouncing off the target when we're painting with the LANTIRN designation pod.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:We probably shouldn't sell anything, as an aside. The Saabs are hella cheap, so it's not even worth it; having another airframe of some sort sitting in the hanger is more valuable then the sub-million each. Except they aren't really cheap. They're a drag on our finances. We get paid for performance. The Saabs have literally only landed one rocket hit in 12 total sorties. We spend tens of thousands of dollars in ammo, spares, and fuel -- and we made back a few thousand bucks. They are literally costing us more money than they are worth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Have them RTB (to Bhutan, if possible), do a quick turnaround to rearm with the Meteor (or AMRAAM) A2A loadout and then join the High CAP flight. That way we'll have our entire fighter force airborne to deal with any J-20s that come out to play. They're going to be very short of fuel after hitting their targets. With 4 GBUs, their combat radius is about 280nm, and our base is about 215nm away from Lhasa. When you account for use of afterburner and taking a terrain-following route, the strike Gripens won't have the gas to hit the target and then join the CAP. e: we could also have the strike birds hit the target, hit the tanker, and then relieve the High CAP birds so they can get gas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Realistically speaking, are we going to take that long hitting Lhasa that re-arming and coming back is actually possible? I was under the impression that we had a short window to fight in while the J-20s were away. We need a backup plan in case the Lhasa raid fails and the Chinese are able to launch their planned strike on Hired Goon HQ. Having the strikers turn around and take up CAP kills two birds with one stone. It ensures they won't be killed on the ground. And it lets us go after their strikers if they get airborne.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:They're almost too good for us, to be honest. I kinda like the idea of us using whatever ragtag fleet we can throw together instead of just getting a bunch of pretty high end aircraft. I think going with high- to mid-end gear offers us more chances to do nutty stuff. We can't bomb Beijing with Super Etendards. But we might be able to put a Paveway in the Palace of the People with some more modern kit. So bring on the F-16 retreads, Tornadoes, and Prowlers!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
No tanker? Oh dear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I can put it up, but I'm not sure we'll need it. The thirsty stuff will be out of ammo, while the other stuff will have plenty of fuel. I'd like the strikers to refuel either as the ingress (before they cross the border) or as they are egressing (just after the cross the border). That'd let everyone use afterburners to get out of Dodge. And it'll let them go down to low-level if needed. Having the option to get more gas is never a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:I really don't want to put the tanker at Bacarruda's "Gas Station" point, between Lakhimpur and Lhasa. It's just too exposed. Only two planes can take on gas at once, so waiting around for a couple flights of Gripens to gas up brings in a lot of the same problems Bacarruda pointed out with waiting around for the slow Su-25s and SK 60s. It adds several extra minutes that the Chinese could detect and react to our strike force and scramble extra fighters, and our CAP will have to defend Big Pig and her piglets for that whole time. The Bhutan location sounds fine to me. Bringing the tanker does two things. 1) It lets our CAP aircraft stay on station longer. And it lets them be more aggressive with how they use fuel in a dogfight (using afterburner, etc.) 2) It lets our strikers be more aggressive. They may have to jettison external fuel tanks, use afterburner, kinetically avoid a missile -- all of which eats into their fuel reserves. Putting up a tanker lets the returning aircraft burn fuel during the mission and have a chance of getting home. We'll feel really silly if we lost a flight of 37 million dollar Gripens because they ran out of gas five minutes from home. Bring the tanker
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Or we could.... not buy a ruiniously expensive boat and instead just take contracts with a good base? This. Buying a big loving ships means we have no money for cool planes. A quick note about business, amphibious ships are ridiculously expensive to operate. Here's just a few of the costs: 1) Purchasing. The Mistrals for example cost $600m a pop. 2) Escorting. Amphibious carriers are massive targets. They need 2-3 corvettes, frigates, or destroyers escorting them. Realistically, they need destroyers to provide SAM cover, since buying an LPD means we won't have enough money (or range) to operate a force of long-range fighters over them. Those are also really drat expensive. An Arleigh Burke DDG is about $1.8 billion each. 3) Fuel. These things suck gas. If we want to really be able to project power, we need to spring for a tanker that can do at-sea refuelling. More money. 4) Crew. The San Antonios have a crew of about 350 people. They have to get paid even when we aren't on ops. 5) Transport. To actually get troops ashore we need helicopters, amphibious armored vehicles, landing craft or exotic stuff like LCACs If we want a navy, let's spring for a small corvette or something. The Danish Absalom-class ships are very nice little multi-role ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship Yooper posted:Procurement Chat Let goons make proposals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
rchandra posted:PR proposal: fund pensions for Indian pilot widow(er)s. Let's drop a couple of thousands bucks and get a really silver plaque for the Indian wing's officer's mess. Maybe mount the radome of one of the J-20s as a trophy or something and give it to them. yurtcradled posted:I hope Wing Commander Rohan is OK. When she drifts back to earth in her parachute, I think we should give her a job. Psawhn posted:So. Operation Strict Parenting turned out to be a crushing success! Glad to see my punny name turned out to be accurate: The Chinese sure are ... grounded. Bravo Zulu on planning this, Psawhn. Very well done. Yooper, great execution. Glad you didn't end up needing that helmet! Jimmy4400nav posted:In addition, it turns out that by 2019 the USAF is planning on retiring its E-8 Joint STARS. These bad boys basically act like an AWACS but specifically for ground based targets. If we can't get our hands on a Globalhawk or other drones we might want to see if we can get one of these. Or an Embraer-99 if we feel like using the smaller version. Here's my wishlist from the Indians, in order. I'm sure we can get a good discount on the older aircraft and on the Indian-made birds. The Mirages are basically a must-buy. The Mirage 2000H light multi-role fighter would be a great little pickup. It's affordable ($20-25 million apiece for used aircraft). And it really brings a lot to the table. It carries a great suite of weapons. For SEAD work, it has two ARAMT anti-radiation missiles. For anti-tank work it has, four BLG.66 Belouga cluster bombs. For anti-runway work, it has four Durandals. For precision strike, it can carry two Arcole 970kg laser-guided bombs. For air-to-air work it can carry Matra Magic heat-seakers and Super medium-range R.530F SARH missiles. Some Su-30MKI Flanker H multi-role air superiority fighters would give us some great punch in the air-to-air and the air-to-ground role. They dominate in the air-to-air mission and can haul six AA-12 Adder A "Amraamskis," plus four AA-11 Archer heaters. They can also carry four KAB-500Kr TV-guided missiles, or two massive KAB-1500Kr TV-guided missiles. There is the HAL Tejas light multi-role fighter. At $24 million a pop, it's affordable. It's a pretty basic light striker and light fighter. It can carry Derby medium-range air-to-air missiles and the Python 5 short-range heaters. For ground strike it's got the 1000lb Griffin laser-guided bomb. If we want more light attack, this is a great option: the Jaguar IS attack aircraft. It can haul a nice load of four 1000lb iron bombs or two 1000lb Griffin laser-guided bombs or eighteen BAP.100 anti-runway bombs or two BL.755 anti-tank cluster bombs. Fro strafing, it has a 30mm cannon. If we replace our SK 60Bs with these, it'd be a HUGE leap forwards in capability. We need a helo for SAR and ground attack. The Mi-17V5 Hip H utility and attack helicopter is a great option. Good cargo capacity. Good ground strike ability. Tough as a brick. MrYenko posted:In terms of mission planning, we showed our bare rear end to the enemy three times: Once when our CAP got irrationally thirsty (this one will get rectified, I know,) once on egress, and the last time when the the AEW bird was last one in the air. We really need to be screening/delousing our egressing strike aircraft and supporting our support assets at all times. Getting shot in the rear end is embarrassing. And expensive. Agreed. We're getting better at mission planning,, but we need to be clearer out the drat "refuel @ X level." And having more aircraft to do CAP work will help out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Phantoms got the first bombs off though. They're showing already that they're worthwhile additions to the fleet. And if there'd been even one Chinese CAP bandit, the Frogfoots would have been screaming for help from us an our AMRAAMs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Some things I'd like people to think about : What missions do we need to fill? What order do they need to be completed? In order: Recon (for air defenses) --> SEAD --> Air Superiority ---> Recon (for ground targets) --> Ground strike (CAS, strategic bombing, etc.) Right now, we have good Air Superiority and decent Ground Strike capabilities. It'd be good to build up more air-to-ground capability. We really felt the pinch last mission and we need more strikers. The Gripens, Phantoms, Mirages, Fencers, and Tornadoes are all good buys in that direction. Our recon is acceptable. The LANTIRN pods our bombers carry can do recon (they spotted the J-20s on the ground last mission) and the Gripens can carry recce pods. We also have the Sperwer UAVs. But we have very little SEAD capability. We need aircraft that can destroy enemy radars, or else we're going to lose a lot of our birds. That needs to be a top priority! Vanilla Tornadoes can do this with radar-killing AGM-88 HARMS, as can the Prowler and the Tornado ICR. We also are going to need another tanker.* The USAF has about 4 fighters per tanker. The RAF has 13 per tanker. If we go through with the proposed buys, we're going to have 15-20 aircraft that need tanker support. On the Bay of Bengal raid, we saw how many tankers were needed to support even a small strike package. It's a good idea to get another tanker. Air defense weapons are nice, but remember how easily the Chinese AAA and SAMs died last time to modern tech. Our best best for air defense is good radar coverage and fighters on Alert 5. *Tornadoes can do do some limited refueling by carrying a buddy-fueling pod. But this doesn't carry much gas. Bottom line: -Gripens are awesome and very versatile, buy more! -Buy more ground strikers (a Tornado-Phantom combo is the best option) -Buy SEAD birds (vanilla Tornadoes, the Prowler, or the Tornado ICR) -Buy a tanker (the KC-135) ----- Here are all the procurement plans so far. I've tried to group them by general themes. I'd recommend people vote for their first and second choice, since having so many proposals will split votes amongst similar ideas, kinda like what happened with the Phantom-Frog debacle. Gervasius posted:Proposal: CirclMastr posted:Procurement: Plane It Again, SAM Coffeehitler posted:1x Gripen = 70M Davin Valkri posted:1x JAS 39C Gripen = 70M Quinntan posted:Procurement proposal Vando posted:Ok, right, procurement. Popete posted:Procurement Plan: Red Viking Tevery Best posted:Here's an alternative procurement scheme: power crystals posted:I want to revise my proposal as follows: Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 09:17
|
|