Jump to content

Mission Dictation Question


SmeagleGoneWild

Recommended Posts

I frequently see questions asked about whats the best loadout or real loadout, but my question is built from that and a tad more specific'ish lol.

When would you use what, for what type of mission or target.

i.e.:

IR Mav for the super strong tanks (i cant remember what they are, maybe T90?)

JDAMS for multiple targets in area where you cant get super close

 

Answers such as that. The reason I ask the question is because I am still trying to learn the different types of ammo and what they are good for, versus the way I am currently going about things...shoot mavs at the SA's, drop JDAMS on tanks even though idk if they're heavy, shoot rockets at the AAA trucks and brrt whatever else i can find and do flippie and spinnies dodging SA missles from manpads and AAA from the trucks lol. This is my way of trying to be better and ask questions to be better 🙂

  • Thanks 1

Ryzen 7 5800x w/ PBO on, RTX 3070ti w/ OC, 32 GB RAM @3000 | Quest 2, Virpil Joystick, Throttle, and Rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the answer is rather multi-faceted.

First, you need to know which weapons will kill which targets under which circumstances.

For the weapons, that comes down to warheads, fragmentation, blast, fuzes (airburst, delayed etc; not really a thing in DCS right now), armor penetration and so on.

For the targets, you have to consider armor, technology like explosive reactive armor, strength (as in strength of concrete walls for bunkers and the like), shelter, and possibly also impact angles and how these affect weapon effects.

As for circumstances, are we talking mobile or stationary targets, and is that inherent (bunker) or momentary (stationary tank, which could get moving any second)?

The next facet is the tactical situation: can you use the preferred weapon against the target, or are you forced to use another weapon to do the job? Besides target and safety considerations, are there other considerations like Rules of Engagement, requested weapons by JTACs and so on?

All of this stuff is pretty complicated when we get down into the gory details of it all.

I'd suggest you try a variety of weapons against a variety of targets in completely controlled environments to build a mental matrix of the first two or three aspects (which weapons will kill which targets, and under which circumstances). And then you have a good basis once you get into the tactical considerations.

So when you get to work with a JTAC and he requests an APKWS rocket against a main battle tank, you can tell him an LJDAM would give a much higher probability of kill, but since it's the JTAC that buys the weapon, if he insists on an APKWS rocket, you'll have to go ahead and tickle that tank... 😄

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the A-10, the rules are pretty easy:

Every bomb or missile bigger than or equal to the AGM-65D will kill at least one tank with a "direct hit."  This includes the JDAMS, LJDAMS, Mk-82 and so on.  The only exception are the CBU-87 and CBU-103 cluster bombs.

Anything smaller will work against anything other than a MBT (Main Battle Tank) type target (including the CBU-87 and CBU-103).   You can take out those pesky AAA vehicles with either type of APKWS, usually in one hit.

4 hours ago, Yurgon said:

So when you get to work with a JTAC and he requests an APKWS rocket against a main battle tank, you can tell him an LJDAM would give a much higher probability of kill, but since it's the JTAC that buys the weapon, if he insists on an APKWS rocket, you'll have to go ahead and tickle that tank... 😄

AFAIK, JTAC's only ever "request" ordnance type.  The final decision on ordnance type is up to the CAS pilot, although I assume if you can't agree you wouldn't get cleared for the attack.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

AFAIK, JTAC's only ever "request" ordnance type.  The final decision on ordnance type is up to the CAS pilot, although I assume if you can't agree you wouldn't get cleared for the attack.

As I understand it, they both have to agree. So the JTAC requests a weapon type, and the CAS pilot can of course offer alternatives, or make the JTAC aware of potential problems.

As for the decision, my understanding is that the CAS pilot can't just decide to use another weapon. The decision as such lies with the JTAC. The CAS pilot can decide not to use that weapon in that situation, and that's about it.

I believe there have been cases where no weapons were used because the pilots were not willing to use the requested weapons, despite urgent calls from the JTAC, and I imagine there were also cases where the pilots were adamant to use a specific weapon (maybe because it offered them more range and kept the CAS aircraft outside of a threat zone) which the JTAC didn't clear them to use because it didn't provide the intended effect on the ground.

But the general idea of course is that they work together toward a common objective, and when a JTAC decides to use a specific weapon, and the pilot has offered alternatives, and the JTAC sticks with that weapon, then the pilot will either use it, or refuse to use it altogether, but the pilot will never use another weapon without the JTAC's consent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

As I understand it, they both have to agree. So the JTAC requests a weapon type, and the CAS pilot can of course offer alternatives, or make the JTAC aware of potential problems.

As for the decision, my understanding is that the CAS pilot can't just decide to use another weapon. The decision as such lies with the JTAC. The CAS pilot can decide not to use that weapon in that situation, and that's about it.

I believe there have been cases where no weapons were used because the pilots were not willing to use the requested weapons, despite urgent calls from the JTAC, and I imagine there were also cases where the pilots were adamant to use a specific weapon (maybe because it offered them more range and kept the CAS aircraft outside of a threat zone) which the JTAC didn't clear them to use because it didn't provide the intended effect on the ground.

But the general idea of course is that they work together toward a common objective, and when a JTAC decides to use a specific weapon, and the pilot has offered alternatives, and the JTAC sticks with that weapon, then the pilot will either use it, or refuse to use it altogether, but the pilot will never use another weapon without the JTAC's consent.

Yeah, it sort of sounds like getting a clearance from ATC.  If you don't agree, you don't have to comply, but then they're probably not going to let you in their airspace 🙂

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This definitely gets me in the right direction. I think that in my head I was thinking of what is the best weapons for the fights in a more realistic aspect. Majority of the time mavs and JDAMs do the job, but im sure APKWS, guns, and unguided bombs are best suited for something, just couldn't find or think of when I would bring them bc most of the time, mavs and jdams do exactly what i need it to do. Trying to expand my knowledge and what yall put definitely helps and I thank yall for that!

  • Like 1

Ryzen 7 5800x w/ PBO on, RTX 3070ti w/ OC, 32 GB RAM @3000 | Quest 2, Virpil Joystick, Throttle, and Rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The text book answer is that it is that weaponeering and tactics are primarily the aircrews responsibility. JTACS don't dictate what ordinance they want, they dictate what the ground commander's intent is for the target. JTACS ask the aircraft for a specific effect (complete destruction, suppression, destroy an artillery piece vs the people using it, etc...). They might recommend or request a specific ordinance, but the pilot is the one who decides the best way to get that effect with what they are carrying. The JTAC can make restrictions like "save at least 1xGBU-54 for follow on targets", "No cluster bombs", or "Don't use any cratering munitions on the runway" or something like that.

In theory at least, the pilot has a much better understanding of the weapons they are carrying, and their aircrafts specific tactics and ability to deliver it considering accuracy, probability of destruction, threat exposure, etc...

While picking that weapon though they have to come to an agreement with the JTAC because of issues like theater ROE, special intructions (SPINS), run in restrictions, danger close considerations and collateral damage, just to name a few. If the JTAC doesn't like the plan they wont clear the aircraft to release, but they shouldn't be dictating specific weapons. Generally speaking though, as long as the ground commander is getting the desired effect it should all be the same to them. I'm sure there are probably plenty of real world examples where it has happened before, but that's a different topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ASAP said:

The text book answer is that it is that weaponeering and tactics are primarily the aircrews responsibility.

Interesting. All the documentation I've seen so far, and everything I've ever heard about CAS, says the JTAC buys the weapon and does indeed dictate the tactics and weapons used. And while the JTAC can't overrule what the pilots do, the choice ultimately lies with the JTAC, for the very simple reason that the JTAC (as an extension of the ground commander) knows the situation on the ground, of which the pilots will only get a very limited picture.

To the best of my knowledge, JP 3-09, being one of the most important documents regarding CAS, is not in any way restricted, but I won't quote it here because of the forum rules. In any case, the explanations as well as the examples in the appendix speak a very clear language, where JTACs do indeed typically request specific weapons.

All things considered, though, JTACs and CAS pilots work together toward a common goal, and whenever either of them is not confident with the requests of the other, they'll make suggestions and try to get the desired effects as quickly, efficiently and safely as possible.

9 hours ago, ASAP said:

JTACS don't dictate what ordinance they want, they dictate what the ground commander's intent is for the target.

Do you have an example of such a CAS brief, or better yet, an example of the whole CAS workflow?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 15 Stunden schrieb ASAP:

The text book answer is that it is that weaponeering and tactics are primarily the aircrews responsibility. JTACS don't dictate what ordinance they want, they dictate what the ground commander's intent is for the target. JTACS ask the aircraft for a specific effect (complete destruction, suppression, destroy an artillery piece vs the people using it, etc...). They might recommend or request a specific ordinance, but the pilot is the one who decides the best way to get that effect with what they are carrying. The JTAC can make restrictions like "save at least 1xGBU-54 for follow on targets", "No cluster bombs", or "Don't use any cratering munitions on the runway" or something like that.

In theory at least, the pilot has a much better understanding of the weapons they are carrying, and their aircrafts specific tactics and ability to deliver it considering accuracy, probability of destruction, threat exposure, etc...

While picking that weapon though they have to come to an agreement with the JTAC because of issues like theater ROE, special intructions (SPINS), run in restrictions, danger close considerations and collateral damage, just to name a few. If the JTAC doesn't like the plan they wont clear the aircraft to release, but they shouldn't be dictating specific weapons. Generally speaking though, as long as the ground commander is getting the desired effect it should all be the same to them. I'm sure there are probably plenty of real world examples where it has happened before, but that's a different topic.

The "text book answer", can be found in the actual text book, the JP3-09.3 CAS... and as said by others, already, the pilot mustn't chose the ordnance, unless cleared to do so by the JTAC.

He may offer alternatives or add information for the JTAC to consider, though. That's why the final clearance ("You are cleared hot") is done by the JTAC, not the pilot. Keep in mind they still work as a team toward a common goal, to fullfil the ground commander's request for air support. 

The ground commander (through his JTAC) is the one responsible (!) for the attack and ultimately going to court. For example if two fuel trucks are bombed and it turns out the bad guys, may have been civilians.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

The "text book answer", can be found in the actual text book, the JP3-09.3 CAS... and as said by others, already, the pilot mustn't chose the ordnance, unless cleared to do so by the JTAC.

He may offer alternatives or add information for the JTAC to consider, though. That's why the final clearance ("You are cleared hot") is done by the JTAC, not the pilot. Keep in mind they still work as a team toward a common goal, to fullfil the ground commander's request for air support. 

The ground commander (through his JTAC) is the one responsible (!) for the attack and ultimately going to court. For example if two fuel trucks are bombed and it turns out the bad guys, may have been civilians.

"Aircrews retain the primary responsibility for developing weaponeering recommendations and aircraft employment tactics, while the JTAC or FAC(A) focuses on target effects."

^ The only mention of weaponeering I found in the JP3-09.3. I googled that and found it immediatley it was not marked FOUO or CUI. Hopefully that doesn't break forum rules.

This is a chicken or the egg argument. We are all basically saying the same thing in the end. Which is: the CAS team has to agree on what they are doing. The JTACs WANT to clear the aircraft to strike because they need the effects. The pilots WANT to give the ground commander the best weapons effects possible, but according to joint force doctrine the JTAC is asking for an EFFECT not a specific weapon. It might be that of the weapons available there is only one specific weapon that meets the restrictions, and gives the desired effect in which case the JTAC can say it has to be that specific weapon (AGR-20s come to mind).  Obviously the JTAC is the one who owns the hammer on the cleared hot call, so he does have the ability to just overide the pilot. But its not doctrinally what is supposed to happen.

The JTACs are not experts on all the different aircraft tactics and it's not their job to dictate them.


Edited by ASAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Do you have an example of such a CAS brief, or better yet, an example of the whole CAS workflow?

Either in the attack brief prior to the 9-line they can say "Type 2, bomb on target, ground commanders intent is to attrit 50% of enemy tanks in the area" or in the remarks in restrictions after the 9-line is read they could say something like "Ground commander's intent is to level the building." The pilot could then come back with their weaponeering solution "You can get 2xCBU-87 from my -2 on those tanks" or "We'll need to use all of our GBU-38's to level the building" or something like that. The JTAC can then either agree with the plan or give them a restriction.

Like the example you gave in your first post, if the JTAC could ask for AGR-20's on a tank, the pilot would tell them there is absolutley no way that would give them DWE and probably recommend somethign like mavericks or guns. You are correct he could say "no its AGR-20's or nothing" and simply not clear them to attack, but that makes a pretty ineffective CAS team.

Again, doctrinally speaking, it's the flight leads job to do the weaponeering. but its a conversation and they come to a conclusion together.


Edited by ASAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ASAP said:

Either in the attack brief prior to the 9-line they can say "Type 2, bomb on target, ground commanders intent is to attrit 50% of enemy tanks in the area"

Can you cross check that against JP 3-09.3? The examples I'm seeing there say something along the lines of "Type 2, BOT, Mk-82". I also don't recall a single CAS brief in which the ground commander's intent was part of the game plan; not from real world videos, not from documentation, and not from playing DCS with real world JTACs.

Also, a type 2 control where every individual attack needs to be cleared by the JTAC doesn't work too well with the example of attrition of multiple targets. That would be much easier to achieve with a type 3 control.

Finally, in order to figure out the weapon's potential ill effects on friendlies and civilians, the pilots would need to know the proximity of friendlies and civilians to their target. The only such information they get as part of the regular CAS brief is line 8, and that is a rough approximation. So now the pilots would have to figure out risk estimate distances and tell the JTAC whether or not the upcoming attack would be Danger Close, and the friendlies on the ground would then have to react to that. Again, for all I know, this happens in reverse. The JTAC does all this math and calculous mumbo jumbo, figures out REDs and Danger Close, double checks with the ground commander when required, tells everyone to put their heads down when his call comes, and then tells the pilot what he wants, which is typically a specific weapon with a specific final attack heading.

Then again, CAS is a very dynamic situation and I wouldn't be surprised at all when there are examples for doing it like you described. But from what I can tell after studying the topic for use in DCS over several years now, that's the exception rather than the rule, and JP 3-09.3 seems to support that.


Edited by Yurgon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Can you cross check that against JP 3-09.3? The examples I'm seeing there say something along the lines of "Type 2, BOT, Mk-82". I also don't recall a single CAS brief in which the ground commander's intent was part of the game plan;

I've heard it done both ways IRL, most commonly I've heard the GCI passed in remarks and restrictions, or even a generic GCI passed in the situation update. If you have a copy of the JP3-09.3 look at the paragraph labeled DEVELOP GAMEPLAN in the execution chapter. It clearly states GCI can be included there. examples provided in the JP are not all inclusive of every scenario and a lot of that comes down to JTAC technique.

Talking JTAC instructors I know, they say that they train JTACS not to request a specific weapon but to request effects instead. Sometimes its obvious, if you request a BOC attack from an A-10 they pretty much have to use a 38 or a 54. If the aircraft checking in is a viper with 4xMk-82s and you want to blow something up then sure request Mk-82s.

The big point I'm making is that weaponeering is primarily (not solely) the responsibility of the pilot. The ground commander could be saying he only wants certain weapons used for certain targets, that's not really the JTAC making that decision though. There's a really good chance the ground commander is also not an expert on air to surface munitions or the tactics used to employ them.

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Also, a type 2 control where every individual attack needs to be cleared by the JTAC doesn't work too well with the example of attrition of multiple targets. That would be much easier to achieve with a type 3 control.

I 100% agree, it was just an example. Situation dependent though, in a vacuum, yes type 3 is probably the way to go. If it's a 4-ship of A-10s doing two target strafe every pass and they can quickly mass firepower with one pass each a type 2 could work just fine. After 9-line passage a the pilot could also request type-3 control. Maybe the JTAC has a good reason for it needing to be type-2, maybe he hadn't thought about it. Its a team effort to get the GCI met

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Finally, in order to figure out the weapon's potential ill effects on friendlies and civilians, the pilots would need to know the proximity of friendlies and civilians to their target. The only such information they get as part of the regular CAS brief is line 8, and that is a rough approximation. So now the pilots would have to figure out risk estimate distances and tell the JTAC whether or not the upcoming attack would be Danger Close, and the friendlies on the ground would then have to react to that. Again, for all I know, this happens in reverse. The JTAC does all this math and calculous mumbo jumbo, figures out REDs and Danger Close, double checks with the ground commander when required, tells everyone to put their heads down when his call comes, and then tells the pilot what he wants, which is typically a specific weapon with a specific final attack heading.

Then again, CAS is a very dynamic situation and I wouldn't be surprised at all when there are examples for doing it like you described. But from what I can tell after studying the topic for use in DCS, that's the exception rather than the rule, and JP 3-09.3 seems to support that.

Pilots already know the REDs for all their weapons. The line 8 shouldn't be rougher than what the JTAC knows, it should be to the absolute best knowledge of the JTAC, and both parties should be working off the same number. Both the JTAC and the pilots are looking at REDs to make sure danger close requirements are met and if friendlies are close to the target the pilots should be talley the target and visual the friendlies before attacking. If it's a pre planned 9-line then the JTAC would probably have already doped all that out. If its a troops in contact (when danger close is most likely to be a factor) its a lot more dynamic.

 


Edited by ASAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2021 at 10:31 AM, Yurgon said:

As I understand it, they both have to agree. So the JTAC requests a weapon type, and the CAS pilot can of course offer alternatives, or make the JTAC aware of potential problems.

As for the decision, my understanding is that the CAS pilot can't just decide to use another weapon. The decision as such lies with the JTAC. The CAS pilot can decide not to use that weapon in that situation, and that's about it.

Yurgon, I always enjoy these discussions, I feel like we've done this a couple of times now. LOL I'm just going to throw out that I agree with everything you said here ^^^ and you are absolutley correct. This whole topic exploded more than I expected.

All I was saying is that doctrinally the JTAC is trying to get effects and the pilot should do weaponeering to meet those effects. I'd venture a guess that 95% of the time if the JTAC says I want a GBU-38 on this target the pilot is going to say, here it comes. If they say, hey this weapon would work better to get you what you need, the JTAC would probably say cool, use that then.

War is chaotic and dynamic and people have their own techniques. Ultimatley its a CAS team and CAS pilots are going to do everything they can to help the guy on the ground.

For the purposes of DCS I ignore what the computer JTACS tell me to use and use the weapon that makes the most sense. When playing with a live JTAC, its a team effort.

Happy new year!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Can you cross check that against JP 3-09.3? The examples I'm seeing there say something along the lines of "Type 2, BOT, Mk-82". I also don't recall a single CAS brief in which the ground commander's intent was part of the game plan; not from real world videos, not from documentation, and not from playing DCS with real world JTACs.

Also, a type 2 control where every individual attack needs to be cleared by the JTAC doesn't work too well with the example of attrition of multiple targets. That would be much easier to achieve with a type 3 control.

Finally, in order to figure out the weapon's potential ill effects on friendlies and civilians, the pilots would need to know the proximity of friendlies and civilians to their target. The only such information they get as part of the regular CAS brief is line 8, and that is a rough approximation. So now the pilots would have to figure out risk estimate distances and tell the JTAC whether or not the upcoming attack would be Danger Close, and the friendlies on the ground would then have to react to that. Again, for all I know, this happens in reverse. The JTAC does all this math and calculous mumbo jumbo, figures out REDs and Danger Close, double checks with the ground commander when required, tells everyone to put their heads down when his call comes, and then tells the pilot what he wants, which is typically a specific weapon with a specific final attack heading.

Then again, CAS is a very dynamic situation and I wouldn't be surprised at all when there are examples for doing it like you described. But from what I can tell after studying the topic for use in DCS over several years now, that's the exception rather than the rule, and JP 3-09.3 seems to support that.

 

There's a description of the game plan on page V-20 that additional comments can include GC's intention and requested ordnance (among other things)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 5 Stunden schrieb ASAP:

"Aircrews retain the primary responsibility for developing weaponeering recommendations and aircraft employment tactics, while the JTAC or FAC(A) focuses on target effects."

^ The only mention of weaponeering I found in the JP3-09.3. I googled that and found it immediatley it was not marked FOUO or CUI. Hopefully that doesn't break forum rules.
(...)
The JTACs are not experts on all the different aircraft tactics and it's not their job to dictate them.

 

The key here is the "weaponeering recommendations" part. The pilot can recommend, not change on his own and most important, not without the JTACs approval.
And especially the JTACs are trained in most (if not all) NATO weapons available for CAS, including the typical employment limitations, weapon effects, fuzing etc. It is their job to know.

In the Annex E of the JP2-09.3 are some full scenarios for training the whole procedure. Includes game plan, 9-line and all the required radio calls... These scenarios are much easier to understand, than the whole regulations.
It took me a while back then, when the A-10C was brand new, to grasp thze whole concept, myself.

The typical on call  xCAS flow is something like this (very high level, there is a lot more going on):

- Troops on the ground get into trouble and need air support. The ground commander tells his JTAC to call the "controlling agency" (typically JAOC or the like) and request CAS to their position

- Controlling agency directs nearest available CAS asset(s) to the area

- Aircraft arrive in the area, contact the JTAC and "Check in" (Who they are. What ordnance they have, how lonmg they can support)

- JTAC calls aircraft and assigns a holding area, IP and gives a short SitRep (What's going on, where are friendlies, where the enemy, what is the opposition, threats. Not in detail just the current situation), this also enables the aircraft to give these informations to additional aircraft arriving on scene or hand over if they run out of gas (Relief InPlace).  

- JTAC calls aircraft and builds a gameplan with the lead pilot. What threat needs taking care of first, what effects on target are desired (-> type of weapon, that's where the pilot would usually recommend bombs, LGB, JDAM or else, if he thinks it appropriate), if he needs multiple attacks or just one at a time, then BDA, rinse & repeat. 

- JTAC selects a target and type of control. This dependds on eyes on the target vs. only a grid coordinate, if he is under fire and look around etc.) and gives the pilot a 9-line (or 5-line) brief, including what ordnance, attack direction, abort code etc. and additional/optional info (the "remarks").

- Pilot verifies the 9-line, confirms via readback. if necessary corrects any mistakes, until the JTAC is 100% sure the pilot has the correcxt information.

- Depending on type of control, pilot and JTAC make sure they are looking at the correct target. Typically the JTAC will do a tlk on and the pilot will tell him what he sees, JTAC ask questions on details so they don't accidentally look at different "L-shaped" compounds.

- pilot begins attack as advised by the JTAC, checks ingress and parameters, JTAC tries to acquire the aircraft (depends on type of control) and if he is satisfied the parameters of the attack run are ok, clears the aircraft in hot.

- pilot confirms weapon release and egress from target and gets back to his assigned holding unless told itherwise by the JTAC.

- JTAC confirms impact/effects on target and does a BDA, if possible

- If necessary JTAC authorizes another attack on the same target, or assigns a new target (new target means a new 9-line is required).

This repeats until the ground commanders request is met, the aircraft runs out of  ammo or fuel (needs to refuel) or the JTAC sends the aircraft away.

I am aware there is a lot more going on, but this is a good basic overview of the workflow.

If somebody has more details or more in-depth knowledge, feel free top chime in and correct this.


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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