Let's see a ski jump launch this...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Let's see a ski jump launch this...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Let's see a ski jump launch this...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/10/2017 8:34:13 PM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

10x GBU-32s!!! Plus a tank, AIM-9X, ATFLIR, and looks like an AMRAAM on the cheek. Bad day for ISIS. Submitted the loadout to the DB3000 thread.

< Message edited by Tailhook -- 6/10/2017 8:35:06 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/10/2017 9:21:17 PM

Dan109

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline

Impressive loadout - for the F-35, we may have to wait to see an actual photo, even though its wetpoints can technically support the weight for the same amount of ordinance - I suppose it would need the software to send targeting info and release commands for that exact amount of weapons - I don't think public info on the block software ever discusses that level of detail.

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 2

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 2:28:30 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Well, the STOBAR platform like Kuz and her sisters has one longer launching station, for 1 tons heavier of loadout than first two short stations. If I remember correctly, the J-15's short launch can only carry 2 PL-9, 4 PL-12 and one underbay fuel tank. Using the long launch may add 2 C-803A or 4 C-704A ASMs, but launch rate will be extremely slow.

Both are nowhere to be heavier than that Super Hornet launch from a catapult. And it's not even a full potential of Su-33/J-15 because of the much bigger size (and to be launched from the cancelled Soviet nuclear powered CASTOBAR). What I'm agree with is ski-ramp is by far the simplest method to put carrier jets to the sky, with inferior performance.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 6/11/2017 2:32:08 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Dan109)

Post #: 3

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 1:34:05 PM

Hongjian

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 4

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 2:57:57 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky.

Otherwise, they are lemon sharks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 5

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 3:25:41 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their
grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters.

Kevin

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 6

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 4:23:50 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their
grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters.

Kevin

5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 7

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 4:36:25 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Anyway, I think that bomb-truck FA-18 fields better combat effectiveness than heavier, but no AA capability of B-1 for CAS, as well as to face against limited aerial threats. It's nimble enough for A/C, and store enough ordinances for a substantial land attack. The only weakness is short-legged compare to the proper bomber.

A squadron of bomb-truck FA-18 can flatten most of the defense perimeters and convoys, and way more economical than cruise missiles. It's a big note to other navies in the world why warfare will favor to jets more than ships.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 6/11/2017 4:37:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 8

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 5:44:10 PM

Hongjian

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky.

Otherwise, they are lemon sharks.

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 9

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/11/2017 8:46:02 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn.

Mike

Hmm ... not sure a mere 5 years is able to replace several generations of tradition, experience and engineering prowess. Not to mention real blood, sweat, and tears. I admit I am not an expert on these matters and could be missing something. That said, we are all fortunate China fights commercially and not militarily. Their strategy is methodical and never enters the cable news cycle wherein it might alert the public in western democracies to their motives.

Kevin

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 10

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 8:42:41 AM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km

And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 11

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 10:19:27 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle.

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 12

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 10:31:20 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle.

One more: afterburner must be on.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 13

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 11:23:23 AM

Hongjian

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km

And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

27 tons is still pretty good. Keep in mind that the internal fuel of the Su-33 is about 9 tons full, while the Super Hornet is half of that at 4.9 tons. Empty weight of the Su-33 is about 18 tons.
So, if the Sea Flanker takes off with half fuel, it would have 23 tons without weapons. This gives it about 4 tons of weapons, which is really not bad, if it could enable the Su-33 to be launched from the two forward positions with still decent range and payload. One always has to remember what huge plane the Sea-Flanker is.

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 14

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 12:38:54 PM

poaw

Posts: 107
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km

And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

Those look like 1000lbs class JDAMs, not 500lbs, and you shouldn't ignore the Super Hornet's internal fuel even if you're measuring payload. If the weight restrictions mean that a larger payload has to come out of the fuel carried then that will have a significant impact on either the payloads it carries in practice or it's practical range.

Matching comparable aircraft in payload by only carrying half the fuel you can isn't fine, when the they don't have dedicated tanking aircraft to top them up after launch, they have a relatively small number of strike aircraft to begin with (which will suffer the same weight restrictions as the other aircraft) so chopping aircraft to buddy tank cuts much deeper, and their air forces have a much smaller tanker force overall.

< Message edited by poaw -- 6/12/2017 1:54:43 PM >

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 15

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 1:20:28 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

i'm 90% those are MK83 and not mk82 like poaw says.

so it's a really, really heavy loadout.

(in reply to poaw)

Post #: 16

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 1:43:07 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

< Message edited by Dysta -- 6/12/2017 1:45:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 17

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 1:57:55 PM

shania

Posts: 7
Joined: 11/2/2016
Status: offline

Super Hornet
TOW: 21320kg (with 6780kg of internal fuel)
10x 1000lb bombs: 4500kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

=25070kg - still 4867kg reserve to MTOW

(in reply to poaw)

Post #: 18

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 2:41:36 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb.

unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety.

edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

< Message edited by Cik -- 6/12/2017 2:43:25 PM >

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 19

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 3:07:19 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb.

unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety.

edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

I agree. Likely GBU-32.

M

_____________________________

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 20

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 3:41:03 PM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

Those are indeed GBU-32 1000lb JDAM bombs.

Here's a very senior (and tragically no longer with us) Naval Aviators thoughts on SU-33/Kuznetsov ops. I know there is a lot of chest thumping involved whenever this ship is brought up, but pay attention to his sortie rate calculations and see the dramatic difference.

https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/flanker-ops/#more-21071

< Message edited by Tailhook -- 6/12/2017 3:47:19 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 21

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 5:53:38 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

If Yak-144 was developed 10 years earlier before the Su-33, then I understand the value of Kuznetsov for Soviet navy. If not, without Ulyanovsk's Steam catapult, skiing 70K lbs of big boy upward is only a dream. While MiG-29K have a humble size for take-off efficiency, it's still short legged compare to the Hornet A/B.

Comparing ski-ramp and steam catapult is like a baseball pitcher throwing a 95mph heater, against a golfer driving a 200mph from the tee. Absolute hopeless. And like I said, Su-33 was promised to be more combat-effective, but there is none of a take off platform to give it a full potential.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 6/13/2017 8:31:52 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 22

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 8:28:36 PM

Hongjian

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

Actually, despite all limitations of the Ski Jump design, shouldnt the sortie rate be one of its strong points? As I understand, steam catapults have a set number of subsequent launches until the steam boilers have to recharge the pressure. For the Ski Jump, none of that is necessary, so planes could take off with steady rate one after another...

Of course, in the end, a Nimitz is still superior in sortie rate because it has 4 catapults, while the Kutznesov only has 3 launch points. But still...

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 23

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/12/2017 9:25:25 PM

Tailhook

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Actually, despite all limitations of the Ski Jump design, shouldnt the sortie rate be one of its strong points? As I understand, steam catapults have a set number of subsequent launches until the steam boilers have to recharge the pressure. For the Ski Jump, none of that is necessary, so planes could take off with steady rate one after another...

Of course, in the end, a Nimitz is still superior in sortie rate because it has 4 catapults, while the Kutznesov only has 3 launch points. But still...

I've never seen steam generation rates listed as a limiting factor in discussions involving modern carriers. The amount of steam that can be generated by a full size plant is rather impressive. It also lets you save space because every single catapult can launch a fully loaded fighter, while only one spot on Kuznetsov and Lioaning can launch a heavy jet. You've also got to factor in the need to clear the deck for the run up, so there's less space for jets to maneuver around topside. I believe that's what the Queen Elizabeth carriers are trying to design around, but at the end of the day there's only one way to get it done.

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 24

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/13/2017 2:08:46 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

There's a lecture by the former lead of the CVN 78 design (this video should be required watching before talking about carrier design), where he emphasizes the fact that STOVL carriers generate "half the range, half the payload". While STOBAR will improve this, the limitation is primarily on the take-off (bring-back capability is significantly improved by the arrested recovery, however). If you want to launch useful payload to useful range, you use catapults (or move your carrier aircraft to a nearby land base...). I'd be interested in seeing the heaviest load used by an operational STOBAR carrier. The heaviest I've seen pictures of is a MiG-29K loaded for AAR work - 4xDrop tanks with a buddy store on centerline...it would be interesting to know the actual weight numbers. Unfortunately, the performance manuals for the Su-33/J-15 and MikG-29K don't appear to exist in the public sphere.

(in reply to Tailhook)

Post #: 25

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/13/2017 5:48:12 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

(or move your carrier aircraft to a nearby land base...).

Or what about launch a full-loaded Su-33 from land base, completed the mission and return to the aircraft carrier to refuel, then ferry back to land base for the next full-load run?

They are carrier fighters, doesn't mean they must be take off and land at the carrier. Using the carrier as a midway station is also possible, especially having air bases near the carrier that usually for defensive deployment. If the fleet is in imminent aerial threat, those jets can justly lightly equip with AAMs from the carrier; while the bomb run can use airfields instead.

The problem is the carrier cannot be overcrowded for external carrier jet operations, and landing for refuel also takes time and resources as well. Worse, pilot management will be very complicated, and doubling the time for each strike.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 6/13/2017 5:54:21 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 26

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/13/2017 2:04:34 PM

jtoatoktoe

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/9/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb.

unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety.

edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

I agree. Likely GBU-32.

M

DOD twitter confirmed they were.
https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/873751648350466049

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 27

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/23/2017 2:23:04 PM

AlGrant

Posts: 912
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline

Let's see EMALS launch this ...

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20170622.aspx

"During sea trials the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations.
Under intense use EMALS proved to be less reliable than the older steam catapult, more labor intensive to operate, put more stress on launched aircraft than expected and due to a basic design flaw if one EMALS catapult becomes inoperable, the other three catapults cannot be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults."

Estimated breakdown every 400 launches is bad enough (design spec is for 4,100) but if one goes down ALL 4 go down!

_____________________________

GOD'S EYE DISABLED.

(in reply to jtoatoktoe)

Post #: 28

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/23/2017 4:08:08 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Well, I saw that news translated to Chinese, and those commenters are said it's a bluff -- by releasing bad news to soften the importantance of Chinese EMALS development.

_____________________________

(in reply to AlGrant)

Post #: 29

RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... - 6/23/2017 4:13:01 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

21 dimensional underwater parcheesi to be sure

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 30