Jump to content

Can the avionics on the F/A-18C give it an advantage in air to air engagements?


Recommended Posts

I have been hearing a lot of contradicting comments about the Hornet's air to air capability lately. On one side, some people think that the Hornet cannot beat or have the ability to run away from a properly flown F-14, F-15, or F-16 in air to air engagements unless merged due to its slower speed. On the other side, some people think that the Hornet actually have an advantage in air to air engagements because of its avionics (the Hornet has the best radar, ASPJ, and a lot of tools that can give you a great SA). What do you guys think about it? Do you think the Hornet is on par with the F-14, F-15, and F-16 in air to air engagements? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strider1_Trigger said:

I have been hearing a lot of contradicting comments about the Hornet's air to air capability lately. On one side, some people think that the Hornet cannot beat or have the ability to run away from a properly flown F-14, F-15, or F-16 in air to air engagements unless merged due to its slower speed. On the other side, some people think that the Hornet actually have an advantage in air to air engagements because of its avionics (the Hornet has the best radar, ASPJ, and a lot of tools that can give you a great SA). What do you guys think about it? Do you think the Hornet is on par with the F-14, F-15, and F-16 in air to air engagements? 

 

First, a Hornet Vs F-14/15/16 is a heresy. It's supposed to work with these planes, not against it.

 

Hornet and F-16 radar are still WIP, some functions may be finicky to use. Hornet radar range have just been reduced, and it seems that F-16 is still largely exaggerated.

Hornet avionics is easy to use but hard to master. There are a lot of options to use in proper context.

 

That being said, L16 + JHMCS provides a great situational awareness. AIM-120 are great too.

You have the same on F-16.

For all practical matters, Hornet & F-16 are about the same, do the same missions with the same weapons or kind of. But Hornet operates from aircraft carrier.

F-16 is better at high speed and sustained turn rate (or should be).

Hornet is draggy yet it is better at low speed/ high AoA, but it's a dual edge sword if you miss your shot...

On both planes, if you use JHMCS + AIM-9X, you can pretty much avoid having to turn too much.

 

F-14 advantages relies on AIM-54 long range missiles.

In DCS, without a human RIO, it can be tricky to do things quickly with Jester AI RIO.

SA is harder do build compared to the Hornet.

 

F-15C in DCS is overly simplified and it's unfair to compair.

Also great at high speed and good at SPAMRAAM.

In DCS: lacks L16 data link, JHMCS and AIM-9X.

 

ECM is the weak point of DCS. Not all modules have the same level of fidelity. In the Hornet currently, if you use jammer you won't be able to use your radar at the same time.

It is probably realistic, but a disadvantage compared to some other modules which don't have this level of simulation...

  • Like 4

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile / M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With proper MSI, the Hornet should indeed be a beast for SA. It's a generally slow aircraft that accelerates slowly but has great nose authority, so the F-16 is generally the winner in a dogfight. As for missile slinging and BVR, don't forget that the Hornet evolved to replace the Tomcat in the fleet defense and AS role, and thus a lot of goodies have been implemented to help it do so, especially MSI.

 

The F-16 on the other hand was first designed as a cheap fighter-bomber for export (like the F-5A) and evolved into a mainline fighter-bomber/specialized SEAD aircraft afterward. The USAF has several other and better aircraft for the air superiority role, such as the F-15 and the F-22. It's radar (even though it has unrealistic range currently in DCS) is smaller and less capable than the APG-73 of the Hornet, so definitely it most likely is less capable in BVR compared to the Hornet.

The F-15 is another story though, as the version we have in DCS is both extremely simplified and much, much older. IIRC it's similar to an early 1980's F-15, so non of the fancy sensor fusion and datalink avionics. Therefore the comparison in DCS isn't very relevant.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the Viper's radar gets fixed the Hornet will be the king of the skies in DCS hands down.

It's not the fastest, but the combination of good speed, godly SA, AIM-120, AIM-9X, and a fantastic radar make it a phenomenal A/A platform.

The Tomcats AWG-9. I love this radar, I love being in the backseat of the 14, but it's big disadvantage is it's large ZDF making it easy to notch. If you know what you're doing the range of the AIM-54 means nothing. It's a massive heavy missile with poor terminal guidance. Unless you are fighting against people that don't know what they're doing, or bombers, the Tomcat is a Sparrow aircraft.

Even with it's speed, the Viper still doesn't make up for it's poor radar. The Hornet while
.2 mach slower will always be able to out- range the 16. Hornet also has the advantage of fuel capacity (clean Hornet has the fuel if a 2 bag Viper) and weapon capacity. Since you have more AMRAAMs and can fire from further out you can always force the 16 defensive.

In a realistic merge (where you have FOX 2s) the Hornet should be unbeatable. The great nose authority with the AIM-9X is terrifying.

Sadly we only have the low fidelity Eagle in DCS. If we had a proper modern Eagle it would have the best radar, range, speed, and probably SA. Pluse JHMCS and the 9X. One can dream.

For a guns only fight:
Tomcat beats Viper and Hornet
Hornet and Viper are equal
Tomcat beats Hornet
Eagle beats Hornet and potentially Viper
Eagle and Tomcat I think I would call equal

(To be clear, the Eagle beats all in BVR once it and the Viper's radars get fixed. However it will still suffer from lack of SA.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, toilet2000 said:

The F-16 on the other hand was first designed as a cheap fighter-bomber for export (like the F-5A) and evolved into a mainline fighter-bomber/specialized SEAD aircraft afterward. The USAF has several other and better aircraft for the air superiority role, such as the F-15 and the F-22. It's radar (even though it has unrealistic range currently in DCS) is smaller and less capable than the APG-73 of the Hornet, so definitely it most likely is less capable in BVR compared to the Hornet.
 

 

Not sure what you mean by fighter/bomber as the F-16 was built as a frontline day fighter and as a complement to the bigger F-15. Yes, it was adapted into a CAS aircraft not long after but that was more secondary to its intended mission from my understanding.

  • Like 1

F/A-18C; A-10C; F-14B; Mirage 2000C; A-4E; F-16C; Flaming Cliffs 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Once the Viper's radar gets fixed the Hornet will be the king of the skies in DCS hands down.
 

Interesting. I'm not sure what's the max range of the Viper's radar to detect a fighter sized target (I haven't got the time to dig through all the manuals so please don't judge me on that) but I heard from somewhere that it's around 40 nmi or so. If that's the case, the Viper might still have an advantage in air to air since it got the kinetic performance to sling an AMRAAM at 40 nmi. I'm not sure the Hornet can do that tho.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'm not sure what's the max range of the Viper's radar to detect a fighter sized target (I haven't got the time to dig through all the manuals so please don't judge me on that) but I heard from somewhere that it's around 40 nmi or so. If that's the case, the Viper might still have an advantage in air to air since it got the kinetic performance to sling an AMRAAM at 40 nmi. I'm not sure the Hornet can do that tho.
If the DCS Hornet's stays at 48, the Viper will be somewhere around 35, max. The Hornet radar is 1,000 watts more powerful, with it being at 1,800 watts and the Viper's at 800 watts. With radar detection range having just about a linear relationship with power on output, the Hornet has a 44% advantage. With the Hornets radar detection range for a fighter sized target at 48 miles, based on the power figures the Viper would only see to 27 miles.
The other factor of detection range for a consistent RCS target is the aperture of the radar dish for receiving. 27 miles wouldd be if the 16s dish was the size of the Hornet's. As it is considerably smaller that reduces the range again. Say 5 miles. Max radar range somewhere around 22 miles. Now as I said before power and detection range is not a perfect linear relationship I'll give the Viper back 5 miles as if we didn't account for the receiver size.

So, in DCS, scaled to each other, I would expect the absolute maximum detection range for the Viper to be 27 miles.

Slightly better kinematic performance won't make up for 21 miles.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

If the DCS Hornet's stays at 48, the Viper will be somewhere around 35, max. The Hornet radar is 1,000 watts more powerful, with it being at 1,800 watts and the Viper's at 800 watts. With radar detection range having just about a linear relationship with power on output, the Hornet has a 44% advantage. With the Hornets radar detection range for a fighter sized target at 48 miles, based on the power figures the Viper would only see to 27 miles.
The other factor of detection range for a consistent RCS target is the aperture of the radar dish for receiving. 27 miles wouldd be if the 16s dish was the size of the Hornet's. As it is considerably smaller that reduces the range again. Say 5 miles. Max radar range somewhere around 22 miles. Now as I said before power and detection range is not a perfect linear relationship I'll give the Viper back 5 miles as if we didn't account for the receiver size.

So, in DCS, scaled to each other, I would expect the absolute maximum detection range for the Viper to be 27 miles.

Slightly better kinematic performance won't make up for 21 miles.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 


No, a Viper should detect a fighter around 40Nm at least.

But since everything isn’t perfect in DCS:

- big fighters RCS are too small (5.5m2 for Su-27 seems way too low).

- I suspect APG-73 went from over-powered to a little bit on the low side, especially against large fighters because of their too small RCS.

But it’s OK compared to AMRAAM range and Link 16 can help.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile / M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No, a Viper should detect a fighter around 40Nm at least.
But since everything isn’t perfect in DCS:
- big fighters RCS are too small (5.5m2 for Su-27 seems way too low).
- I suspect APG-73 went from over-powered to a little bit on the low side, especially against large fighters because of their too small RCS.
But it’s OK compared to AMRAAM range and Link 16 can help.
Yeah that's why I said scaled to each other in DCS. The 73 is definitely underperforming right now,. It to mention RCS isn't modeled well.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary factor that determines the outcome of any air-to-air engagement is the pilot, not the aircraft. Yes, each aircraft has advantages and disadvantages, but a skilled pilot will know how to fight with the plane they are in to it's strengths while avoiding it's weaknesses. Both the Viper and the Hornet are capable BVR fighters, but each has strengths in slightly different areas. Neither is really better than the other, just different. Survival in BVR combat means playing to those strengths, and in DCS it makes some sense to fly the aircraft with strengths that most closely match the way you want to play. Others here have done a good job describing each aircraft's capabilities, pick the one you think sounds like the most fun.  

 

3 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

Not sure what you mean by fighter/bomber as the F-16 was built as a frontline day fighter and as a complement to the bigger F-15. Yes, it was adapted into a CAS aircraft not long after but that was more secondary to its intended mission from my understanding.

That's a common legend, but not entirely true. The YF-16 was indeed intended as a lightweight purebred dogfighter, but the role changed before the design was even finalized. The F-16 was a purpose-built multirole strike fighter before the first production aircraft came off the assembly line.  

 

23 hours ago, toilet2000 said:

don't forget that the Hornet evolved to replace the Tomcat in the fleet defense and AS role

To be pedantic, the Hornet replaced the F-4, A-4, and A-7. Hornets served along side F-14s for decades. The Tomcat was replaced by the Super Hornet. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

 That's a common legend, but not entirely true. The YF-16 was indeed intended as a lightweight purebred dogfighter, but the role changed before the design was even finalized. The F-16 was a purpose-built multirole strike fighter before the first production aircraft came off the assembly line.  

 

To be pedantic, the Hornet replaced the F-4, A-4, and A-7. Hornets served along side F-14s for decades. The Tomcat was replaced by the Super Hornet. 

 

To your first point: I see.

 

The Super Hornet also served as a final standin for the A-6 Intruder since the Tomcat was updated to fill the void temporarily.

  • Like 1

F/A-18C; A-10C; F-14B; Mirage 2000C; A-4E; F-16C; Flaming Cliffs 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 8:29 PM, jojo said:

- big fighters RCS are too small (5.5m2 for Su-27 seems way too low).

- I suspect APG-73 went from over-powered to a little bit on the low side, especially against large fighters because of their too small RCS.

 

^^^ this. Plus DCS would also benefit a lot from modelling external stores affecting RCS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2021 at 10:42 PM, toilet2000 said:

With proper MSI, the Hornet should indeed be a beast for SA. It's a generally slow aircraft that accelerates slowly but has great nose authority, so the F-16 is generally the winner in a dogfight. As for missile slinging and BVR, don't forget that the Hornet evolved to replace the Tomcat in the fleet defense and AS role, and thus a lot of goodies have been implemented to help it do so, especially MSI.

 

The F-16 on the other hand was first designed as a cheap fighter-bomber for export (like the F-5A) and evolved into a mainline fighter-bomber/specialized SEAD aircraft afterward. The USAF has several other and better aircraft for the air superiority role, such as the F-15 and the F-22. It's radar (even though it has unrealistic range currently in DCS) is smaller and less capable than the APG-73 of the Hornet, so definitely it most likely is less capable in BVR compared to the Hornet.

The F-15 is another story though, as the version we have in DCS is both extremely simplified and much, much older. IIRC it's similar to an early 1980's F-15, so non of the fancy sensor fusion and datalink avionics. Therefore the comparison in DCS isn't very relevant.

I dunno about that, with HOBs fights don't last any longer than the first 90 to 180 degrees of turn

On 5/23/2021 at 9:58 PM, Bunny Clark said:

That's a common legend, but not entirely true. The YF-16 was indeed intended as a lightweight purebred dogfighter, but the role changed before the design was even finalized. The F-16 was a purpose-built multirole strike fighter before the first production aircraft came off the assembly line.  

yes, but a lot of the "pure dogfighter" design choices stuck, making it harder/more limited to adapt to multirole


Edited by Spectre1-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but a lot of the "pure dogfighter" design choices stuck, making it harder/more limited to adapt to multirole
Yeah, just look at the 16s clusterf*ck of avionics they crammed in to "make it work."

Mobius708

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 2:58 PM, Bunny Clark said:

To be pedantic, the Hornet replaced the F-4, A-4, and A-7. Hornets served along side F-14s for decades. The Tomcat was replaced by the Super Hornet. 

 

I'm not talking about the original F/A-18A/B, as these didn't have MSI to begin with. I'm talking about the upgrades made to the Hornet to replace the F-14 in the fleet defense mission when talks about removing it from service started. That's especially why I chose the word evolved when talking about the Hornet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 11:03 AM, CarbonFox said:

 

Not sure what you mean by fighter/bomber as the F-16 was built as a frontline day fighter and as a complement to the bigger F-15. Yes, it was adapted into a CAS aircraft not long after but that was more secondary to its intended mission from my understanding.

The original YF-16 was first presented as a day air superiority fighter in the LWF competition, but the ACF competition that made it so popular both for the USAF and internationally was intended to produce a multi-role fighter/bomber to supplement the F-15. So from the get go, even before the production started, the F-16 was designed as a multirole aircraft. The first YF-16 (which isn't an F-16) was a pure ASF, not the F-16.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, toilet2000 said:

The original YF-16 was first presented as a day air superiority fighter in the LWF competition, but the ACF competition that made it so popular both for the USAF and internationally was intended to produce a multi-role fighter/bomber to supplement the F-15. So from the get go, even before the production started, the F-16 was designed as a multirole aircraft. The first YF-16 (which isn't an F-16) was a pure ASF, not the F-16.

 

 

the first F16's A blocks were somewhat limited as Strike aircraft. Besides Iron bombs/rockets, the only guided munition they had were AGM65 mavericks. The Hornet might of had a benefit of few longer years of development and went into operation with higher tech avionics ( namely Hornet program basically set the bar of what became known as a "glass cockpit) but Navy had vaster requirements for air to surface as well as air to sea role. Like Hornets were capable of employing  datalinked Man in the loop walleyes, Had a Targeting pod, Harpooons, and SEAD weapons like Shrikes and HARMS. 

 

SO even Day 1 Hornet was more versatile overall as a strike aircraft. This also goes for in Air to Air role since it could carry Aim7 Sparrows and due to having Link4A datalink to connect with navy  E2 awacs.  So the Tomcat was not the only gen 4 platform in the navy capable of carrying radar guided missiles or having Datalinks, whereas for the Air force F15 had total exclusively on BVR combat until F16's got Amraams in a post cold war era, and neither had datalinks before LInk16.

 

F16's didn't really drift into becoming proper mulitirole aircraft until the F16C's  which introduced the glass cockpits, and even then specifically i would say it was  Block 40/42 with Lantirn being a thing, is when the Viper could considered a definitive all weather multirole fighter.


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 2

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly it’s strengths to negate its weaknesses.

Capitalise upon your opponents weaknesses.

 

A well flown -18 can wipe the floor with a poorly flown supposedly superior airframe.

RW? You would know when (if!) you get to the merge just who you are fighting within the first turn, then you know what you can do versus what you can’t. 
BVR? Well it will be a little handicapped compared to say a -14 with its long reach, but moxie - tactics - and not being a lone wolf, will pay dividends. Again, fly its strengths.

  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Krippz said:

Yes, one word: MSI

 

Even MSI aside, 

 

 looking at Radar alone AZ/EL and Radar Spot Mode are some nice additional  radar functions in the APG73 that APG68 does not have.


 


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Even MSI aside, 
 
 looking at Radar alone AZ/EL and Radar Spot Mode are some nice additional  radar functions in the APG73 that APG68 does not have.

 
Can the 68 in the Viper even change the PRF? Im sure it can, but can the pilot control it?
On a whim in discord someone mentioned the 16+68 could only use a medium PRF.

Mobius708

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2021 at 4:28 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

Even with it's speed, the Viper still doesn't make up for it's poor radar. The Hornet while
.2 mach slower will always be able to out- range the 16. Hornet also has the advantage of fuel capacity (clean Hornet has the fuel if a 2 bag Viper) and weapon capacity. Since you have more AMRAAMs and can fire from further out you can always force the 16 defensive.

When the radars are finalized, the F-18 might have a slight range advantage but it's not going to be huge. Both planes have datalink as well to over come some of their native limitations. The Hornet's AMRAAM loadout doesn't really help anyway. Carry a huge AMRAAM load and you lower your max range to the advantage of the F-16 because you limit your speed. And the F-16 at 4-6 AMRAAM isn't exactly low on missiles.

 

The speed weakness of the F-18 also isn't just a Mach .2 difference. It has poor transonic acceleration with any meaningful loadout. There is no real comparison between the 18 and the 16 here. If they go head to head, the 16 has the advantage. The 18 needs sneak into the fight to negate this.

 

Fuel wise, a Hornet needs external tanks just to compete with the Viper's internal fuel. Absolute fuel load isn't what's important.


Edited by Exorcet

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the radars are finalized, the F-18 might have a slight range advantage but it's not going to be huge. Both planes have datalink as well to over come some of their native limitations. The Hornet's AMRAAM loadout doesn't really help anyway. Carry a huge AMRAAM load and you lower your max range to the advantage of the F-16 because you limit your speed. And the F-16 at 4-6 AMRAAM isn't exactly low on missiles.
 
The speed weakness of the F-18 also isn't just a Mach .2 difference. It has poor transonic acceleration with any meaningful loadout. There is no real comparison between the 18 and the 16 here. If they go head to head, the 16 has the advantage. The 18 needs sneak into the fight to negate this.
 
Fuel wise, a Hornet needs external tanks just to compete with the Viper's internal fuel. Absolute fuel load isn't what's important.
Why do you believe it would only be a slight advantage, in reference to radar range?

Mobius708

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Can the 68 in the Viper even change the PRF? Im sure it can, but can the pilot control it?
On a whim in discord someone mentioned the 16+68 could only use a medium PRF.

Mobius708
 

 

 

PRF does not have the option be changed manually in the APG68 , Its automatic cycles based on radar mode.

 

IIRC HI PRF is only able to used on VS mode, but even then it interleaves with MPRF .  otherwise RWS/,TWS are M PRF only


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 1

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Why do you believe it would only be a slight advantage, in reference to radar range?

Mobius708
 

They're both smaller radars, essentially in a similar class. The Hornet's is stronger but not by much as far as I'm aware. I think for the Hornet to really shine over the Viper DCS would need some better ECM modeling as the better radar would compound with an internal jammer.

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...