Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Кош said:

I'm sorry Sir, but "Big difference" is not informative. Algorithm1 with these1 formulas VS Algorithm2 with that2 formulas would be informative and bring the discussion to a productive level.

INU is not magical, again. It prolongs the track of lost target and just that. Also present on R-24 and R-27. 

 

If you want more qualitative measures on how big a leap it is comparing information from non digital missiles that went digital like the AIM-54A to AIM-54C and those pilot accounts are a little telling or open source information on Air Intercept radars like the AWG-9 vs say the APG-63 which are basically the same class of radar.

 

As for the INU its a known capability for the AMRAAM to fly to the last known intercept point when unsupported and seek the target on its own (or what ever it finds there)

 

amraam-1.gif

Pretty much all digital actives do this, though there have been some extremely rare instances where a customer opts out of this option

 

I do believe though that Fox Alfa is talking about certain aspects of the AIM-120s kinematics and maneuvering.

And of course its active range not being dependent upon RCS of the target and aspect/closure.

If something like that can be coded for IR missiles maybe something can also be done for RF ones


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Кош said:

I'm sorry Sir, but "Big difference" is not informative. Algorithm1 with these1 formulas VS Algorithm2 with that2 formulas would be informative and bring the discussion to a productive level.

INU is not magical, again. It prolongs the track of lost target and just that. Also present on R-24 and R-27. 

 

You are being unnecessarily pedantic.  Yep, there's a big difference and these things you can read about and speculate about their exact meaning.  No one here is going to know the exact differences, and if they do they won't be talking about them - and you know this.   The simplest level of simulation in DCS here is simply the chaff rejection value for all of this.

 

And yes, INU is not magical but your response isn't reasonable either.   INU should steer the missile where it needs to go, not leave it flying into space.  Yep, the target might not be there any longer, but that's not the problem - the missile should still be flying towards search coordinates, not into orbit.

  • Like 4

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 часа назад, Chizh сказал:

Если и изменится то в гомеопатической дозе.

 

Пока нет, но есть в плане.

Посмотрим конечно, но к.м.к 120-ой очень хорошо помогло, энергию она значительно лучше сохранять стала, даже без учета лофта, или у нее аэродинамика самой конструкции лучше? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

No, they didn't. 120s are underperforming in a bunch of ways, and you know this.

 

Yes, 120s in underperforming when supported should be much less notchable, but when independent it is overperforming.

All pilots talks and Air forces I seen train to support it till impact, and even with support pilots train to expect 60% of a PK, our 120 picks that target 100% of the time at 8nm, so big overperformance.

 

Based on talks and I find that 120 and R-77 should behave more like less notchabe SARHs you can drop support if needed and still expect some chance to hit than the current Independent Hunter-Killers we have. ARH with new gens and two way DL are getting to Hunter-Killers but not ones we have in DCS.

 

That is my opinion take it or leave it. With that said MADDOG got fixed and 120 is still being worked on and for sure it is improving, and I am really looking forward to seeing how it performs when it is finished. 
 

38 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Similarly, all the limitations you mentioned should apply to all platforms, so the fact that you're stuck on 120s here while going around saying everything should be the same standards when it benefits R-27s (specifically in this case WRT CFDs and new FM ) is at least somewhat peculiar.


Yes, they should be applied to all platforms, but currently Viper, Hornet and 120s are being worked on, that is way I am 'stuck' on them.
I am really looking forward to having all weapons made to the same standard, but we are not there yet. 

 


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 6

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

You are being unnecessarily pedantic.  Yep, there's a big difference and these things you can read about and speculate about their exact meaning.  No one here is going to know the exact differences, and if they do they won't be talking about them - and you know this.   The simplest level of simulation in DCS here is simply the chaff rejection value for all of this.

 

And yes, INU is not magical but your response isn't reasonable either.   INU should steer the missile where it needs to go, not leave it flying into space.  Yep, the target might not be there any longer, but that's not the problem - the missile should still be flying towards search coordinates, not into orbit.

Being unnecessarily pedantic is what I do for a living, so sorry for that. Still my intention is not toxicity but greater good of the community.

From my experience, advocating anything at the scale people present here are doing from both sides requires at least an "educated guesswork" and not "this is digital so better". I've seen my share of shit-tech originating from companies considered leaders in the market so "this is new" does not tell a thing.

So far I saw good constructive position towards R-27 tracking math with real docs provided.

120 on the contrary sometimes acts as a cheat-insta-tracker and cheat-turner and I'm eager to see links to docs approving this.

INU should steer the missile to the target approximation on the moment of track loss, not being an aimbot also. Thank you.

 

Dollars, so 120 has a pure INS stage like R-24??? Thought it's always supported until active. At least that was my impression from DCS.

 

 


Edited by Кош
  • Like 2

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/SSD NVME/1060gtx 6gb/1920x1200'24/VPC T-50 Saitek X-52 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

60% of a PK

60% Pk from what? 60% Pk because of target manuevering? 60% Pk because of ECM? 60% Pk because of target chaffing? without specifics contextless Pk numbers dont mean anything, certainly not a basis to call something OP

 

10 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

All pilots talks and Air forces I seen train to support it till impact

Because it increases Pk vs chaff/ECM/notching, etc. It doesnt imply that seeing targets at 8nm is OP/unrealistic.

 

And to be clear, im not doubting the AMRAAM seeker is overperforming in many ways, specifically vs cold aspect/low RCS targets. But I havent seen any specific evidence that seeing hot aspect fighters at 8nm is somehow OP or unrealistic.

  • Like 3

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Кош said:

Dollars, so 120 has a pure INS stage like R-24??? Thought it's always supported until active.

I am not sure what you mean here. INS+DL Phase similarly to how it works in the R-24/27/7P family where they can guide onto targets before the seeker can see them?

Yes it does, and can be unsupported before the active phase and still attempt to guess where the target is most likely to show up and go active there.

 

Though this isn't nearly as consistent and reliable as supporting till active as I understand.

Its is a situational tactic, but an option nonetheless.


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Кош said:

Dollars, so 120 has a pure INS stage like R-24??? Thought it's always supported until active. At least that was my impression from DCS.

image.png

image.png


Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 минуты назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

I am not sure what you mean here. INS+DL Phase similarly to how it works in the R-24/27/7P family where they can guide onto targets before the seeker can see them?

Yes it does, and can be unsupported before the active phase and still attempt to guess where the target is most likely to show up and go active there.

 

Though this isn't nearly as consistent and reliable as supporting till active as I understand.

Its is a situational tactic, but an option nonetheless.

 

I mean, of course, if support is off, it uses INS. My question is if the platform can support the 120 at any range, or it;s support range is much shorter than range till active?

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/SSD NVME/1060gtx 6gb/1920x1200'24/VPC T-50 Saitek X-52 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Кош said:

I mean, of course, if support is off, it uses INS. My question is if the platform can support the 120 at any range, or it;s support range is much shorter than range till active?

As far as I'm aware there isn't a real limit in terms of range, the only limit I believe is a fighter supports the AMRAAM for about 90 seconds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Кош said:

My question is if the platform can support the 120 at any range, or it;s support range is much shorter than range till active?

Are you asking if there is a maximum launch range beyond which the launching radar cannot support the AMRAAM, and instead it goes pure INS? If so, Im not aware of any specific limitations in this regard. -34s ive seen make no mention of limitations in this regard. As tax mentioned above, the main limitation is the 80 sec of max datalink transmission, likely because of missile battery life constraints:

image.png


Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

60% Pk from what? 60% Pk because of target manoeuvring? 60% Pk because of ECM? 60% Pk because of target chaffing? without specifics contextless Pk numbers dont mean anything, certainly not a basis to call something OP

Ask him.... he knows better than me, he trained, went to war, and shot down a MiG... 

35 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

But I havent seen any specific evidence that seeing hot aspect fighters at 8nm is somehow OP or unrealistic.


I am quite sure it is quite possible against hot target against the sky but ours does that in valleys on cold close to notch.
If you continue to listen to the interview longer, you will see that the guy's radio didn't even work all the time... and one would think we figured that out after 70-90 years of use. 

My point is lot of our equipment performs like "marketing man's wet dream" without any issue or limitation.

And people keep asking for more capabilities, I say we should push for limitation, since capabilities make nice game, limitations make it a good simulation.

 


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 3

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Ask him.... he knows better than me, he trained, went to war, and shot down a MiG... 

Just out of curiosity... have you compared the Pk the AMRAAM actually gets in PvP scenarios? Pretty sure its under 60% 😄 And for the record, this has a lot to do with stuff other than the AMRAAM itself, such as the employment tactics used. But even from some of the best DCS pilots, you simply arent seeing Pks over 50% unless its against completely unaware targets.

22 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

My point is lot of our equipment performs like "marketing man's wet dream" without any issue or limitation.

And people keep asking for more capabilities, I say we should push for limitation, since capabilities make nice game, limitations make it a good simulation.

Fair, and I dont disagree. At the same time though, limitations do need to be realistically modeled, else its often just as bad as not having them (we can see what happens when they aren't with the whole CCM ECM/ECCM in game... its an absolute mess). Unfortunately, finding accurate/specific information on limitations of weapons systems is often a lot harder than finding capabilities. But I think my main point is that vague limitations are not helpful (e.g, the baseless "AIM-54 bad against fighters" rhetoric thats thrown at HB without any specific evidence/basis)


Edited by dundun92
  • Like 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

Yes, 120s in underperforming when supported should be much less notchable, but when independent it is overperforming.

 

Says who?

 

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

All pilots talks and Air forces I seen train to support it till impact, and even with support pilots train to expect 60% of a PK, our 120 picks that target 100% of the time at 8nm, so big overperformance.

 

And I have seen pilots train for cheapshots.  What now?   I'm not kidding or trying to be contrary.

 

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

Based on talks and I find that 120 and R-77 should behave more like less notchabe SARHs you can drop support if needed and still expect some chance to hit than the current Independent Hunter-Killers we have. ARH with new gens and two way DL are getting to Hunter-Killers but not ones we have in DCS.

 

I'm not considering any of that new stuff.   The fact is that we don't know the reason for cheapshot tactics, but they definitely exist.  We don't know the effect on the Pk, but if you say 'it'll be less', I will certainly agree with you.

 

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

Yes, they should be applied to all platforms, but currently Viper, Hornet and 120s are being worked on, that is way I am 'stuck' on them.
I am really looking forward to having all weapons made to the same standard, but we are not there yet. 

 

You know very well that we will never be there.  Things will always be out of sync in DCS probably, and everyone will feel 'left behind' at one time or another.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Says who?

Swedish Airforce par example, or every other pilot that got a kill with an Aim120...  they don't train to support the missile just for fun, there must be a reason, and in the video we see one pilot not going cold even drought there is a return shot on him.

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

And I have seen pilots train for cheapshots.  What now?   I'm not kidding or trying to be contrary.

A video, document, or interview might give insight...

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

I'm not considering any of that new stuff.   The fact is that we don't know the reason for cheapshot tactics, but they definitely exist.  We don't know the effect on the Pk, but if you say 'it'll be less', I will certainly agree with you.

Cheapshot is exactly that a cheapshot, that might be taken for positioning, missdirection or to turn the opponent. Without more info is hard to tell.

Bottom line currently there is not difference in DCS, but hopeful soon there will be. 

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

You know very well that we will never be there.  Things will always be out of sync in DCS probably, and everyone will feel 'left behind' at one time or another.

 Agreed, I only wish something were done in chunks, SARHs all one chunk, then move and do all ARH, etc.... but completely agree there will be always out of sync... 


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 2

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Just out of curiosity... have you compared the Pk the AMRAAM actually gets in PvP scenarios? Pretty sure its under 60% 😄 And for the record, this has a lot to do with stuff other than the AMRAAM itself, such as the employment tactics used. But even from some of the best DCS pilots, you simply arent seeing Pks over 50% unless its against completely unaware targets.

Fair, and I dont disagree. At the same time though, limitations do need to be realistically modeled, else its often just as bad as not having them (we can see what happens when they aren't with the whole CCM ECM/ECCM in game... its an absolute mess). Unfortunately, finding accurate/specific information on limitations of weapons systems is often a lot harder than finding capabilities. But I think my main point is that vague limitations are not helpful (e.g, the baseless "AIM-54 bad against fighters" rhetoric thats thrown at HB without any specific evidence/basis)

 

Yup this exactly, lets be clear the PK of the amraam in game now is trash compared to what it is currently irl.  The INS/Datalink bug, the chaff bug, the ECM bug, weirdness with terminal guidance sometimes causing the missile to miss for no reason at all even on a non-maneuvering target, and a lack of proximity fuzzes all contribute.  Plus I've never really liked using missile PK as a metric to say if a missile is good or not.  For example in Vietnam a later study found that of the missiles that missed something like 60-70%, or more (going from memory here could be a bit off), of misses could be attributed to human error rather.  Poor maintenance, poor loading crews, pilots/wzo's not clearly knowing missile launch limitations are what's meant by human error.  Which is beyond the capabilities of the missile itself but had a massive impact on its pk.  And it didn't help that if you shoot 2 missiles at a target and the first one hits that's technically a 50% pk. And for the amraam how many missed irl because the bandit split-s'd and ran away at full speed back to base, which works against every missile that's not fired within RNE.  Or had 2 missiles fired at one target?  Essentially the tldr in rlf PK is a bad tool to say a missile is over or under performing.  you'd need to analyze every single employment to get an accurate understanding of that number.


Edited by nighthawk2174
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

A video, document, or interview might give insight...

 

Not going to happen, but I'll give you the known details - it's a pair of fighters attacking a bomber stream OR formation with a 20nm offset.  Before you start trying to draw conclusions, we don't know the reason for the use of this tactic, only that it is a valid tactic.

 

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

Bottom line currently there is not difference in DCS, but hopeful soon there will be. 

 

Sure there is.  Cheap-shotting a 120 can leave it flying into space, which shouldn't happen - and that's just an obvious one.   There's no capture basket or gates for target capture simulated at all, but as long as the missile is getting no data when cheap-shotted, even with its currently huge search zone a target would be far enough that yep, the missile will see it, but the maneuver required to intercept will have the missile dropping out of the sky.  Yes, it's a major nuisance on your RWR ... but as you've pointed out, there aren't enough RWR nuissances out there as is.

4 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Pretty much all digital actives do this, though there have been some extremely rare instances where a customer opts out of this option

 

The brits wanted to opt out but they decided that they wanted the full 120 Pk, not the 7 Pk (apparently that's what the Pk dropped to if not using the DL)

 

 

4 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

And of course its active range not being dependent upon RCS of the target and aspect/closure.

 

No missile in game does this, but yes, it's a generic missile thing, much like instead of having capture baskets or other parameters it's just to attack objectId#####

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Sure there is.  Cheap-shotting a 120 can leave it flying into space, which shouldn't happen - and that's just an obvious one.   There's no capture basket or gates for target capture simulated at all, but as long as the missile is getting no data when cheap-shotted, even with its currently huge search zone a target would be far enough that yep, the missile will see it, but the maneuver required to intercept will have the missile dropping out of the sky.  Yes, it's a major nuisance on your RWR ... but as you've pointed out, there aren't enough RWR nuissances out there as is.

 

 

Last time I checked the Aim-120 in DCS was still able to find a target if support was cancelled a little later and the target did not maneuver.

The main issue right now is that the loft is not completed. So as soon as support is dropped, it will keep its current direction, which is upwards if the support is dropped to early.

 

This and the ECM bug are some issues that ED will hopefully solve soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BlackPixxel said:

Last time I checked the Aim-120 in DCS was still able to find a target if support was cancelled a little later and the target did not maneuver.

yes it can, and it should. But the problem isnt really the loft per se. Its the fact that there is no INS/Inertial Active guidance at all; the problems with the loft are only the symptoms of the basic issue. The missile should fly to the last extrapolated target position, not fly in the same direction as when the support was lost. This could become problematic when you take into account that the AMRAAM uses variable PN, which can cause medium-long shots, even in the absence of loft, to miss because if support is dropped in the variable PN stage, straight ahead isnt an intercept course, and may or may not be inside the 15° FoV. Agsinst fast-ish beaming targets this could definitely be an issue.

  • Like 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

You guys got it backward. It is not that R-27 is underperforming, it is that Aim120 and launch platforms are overperforming. 
 

The R-27 family will be much better when the bugs are fixed (also if fuse is factored in R-27R will be much better so you want need to haul heavy ERs). I do hope R-77 also get a bit of time and loft.

 

But now you should be pushing for fixes on the Aim120 and the platforms. Instant pickup at max active range for 120, or high overG during instable launch mass shift. 

For the platforms, less reliable RWR with ghosts, misidentification, angle errors, stronger signals hiding weaker, jamming, realistic ranges on the radars, TWS errors and target drops, TWS single ping DL donations, launch delay for Hornet, 13g pulls for Eagle, Viper overspeed etc ... while ED is "in the shop" for Hornet and Viper. It will be much harder to get those fixed later too and all those things give much bigger advantage then 5 or 10 km in range. 

 

And dont forget to implement all this stuff for FC3 modules as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Есть цифры пусков Р-27 по МиГ-29 в эфиопо-эритрейском конфликте. 27 пусков и только 1 фраг. Точность Р-27 по МиГ-29 менее 4%.

Цифры пусков AIM-120 по МиГ-29 в Югославии легко находятся в гугле, даже Чиж давно приводил. Точность AIM-120, всех тамошних модификаций, по МиГ-29 >0,7.

В 17.5 раз AIM-120 точнее Р-27, в ДКС эта разница существенно меньше, опять совков для электората переапали.

  • Like 1

5950X / G.Skill 16GBx2 @3800MHz cl16 / PowerColor Red Devil RX 6800 XT / SSD 980Pro 1TB / LG 27GL850 144Hz / Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ватрушка said:

There are numbers of R-27 launches on MiG-29s in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict. 27 launches and only 1 frag. The accuracy of the R-27 on the MiG-29 is less than 4%.

The numbers of the AIM-120 launches on the MiG-29 in Yugoslavia are easily found in Google, even Chizh has been citing for a long time. Accuracy of AIM-120, all modifications there, according to MiG-29> 0.7.

The AIM-120 is 17.5 times more accurate than the R-27, in the DCS this difference is much less, again there were scoops for the electorate.

In what parameters were these R-27s launched? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vladimir_V_T said:

Кстати, у реальной AIM-120C пять модификаций. Какая из них представлена в DCS? Сори, если это кто-то уже спрашивал.

Our in game one is a 120C5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know, this is the IR version, but does not look like a joke missile to me...

Never seen any detailed info about what happened during that Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...