S-400 and F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 02:20

weasel1962 wrote:From a defensive perspectives, few will place area SAMs in isolation. There will be layers of SHORADs and possibly MRAD to handle saturation attacks, even possibly a last ditch CRAM.

Having said that, the main weakness of long ranged SAMs is the reliance on radar. Take out the single (and maybe back-up) radar, the site is ineffective, no matter how many launchers there are. In practice, its impossible to defend against a determined saturation attack. There will always be something that gets thru, and it only needs 1 PGM to hit.

There will also likely be decoys to sort through and the fact that the system itself is capable of relocating as it sees fit.

That said, taking out the Grave Stone FCR should nullify the site for all intents and purposes, or at least significantly handicap it. Once that is down the remaining pieces ought to be a lot easier to find and kill, providing an opportunity to induce the collapse of the local enemy IADS.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1865
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 03:26

boogieman wrote:- I also take Russian info with a mountain of salt, but I found that particular article entertaining. There was a video from RT circulating a couple of weeks back that showed two Pantsir vehicles pitted against a single small prop driven UAV. After unloading an ungodly amount of 30mm at the thing they hit nothing but air. This ultimately led to one (presumably frustrated) gunner finally bringing it down with a 57E6. I can't find it any more - I guess the Kremlin's people may have pulled it from the net. Brownie points for anyone who can re-locate it.

I think this is the video
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 03:52

eloise wrote:I think this is the video

:lmao:
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. :notworthy:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 04:41

boogieman wrote:There will also likely be decoys to sort through and the fact that the system itself is capable of relocating as it sees fit.

That said, taking out the Grave Stone FCR should nullify the site for all intents and purposes, or at least significantly handicap it. Once that is down the remaining pieces ought to be a lot easier to find and kill, providing an opportunity to induce the collapse of the local enemy IADS.


There is an advantage in decoy utility for the attacker, rather than the defender. Cheap static decoy for the defender is less useful if the attacker uses EW to detect. Whilst using simple antenaes to simulate signal is feasible, the FCR operates on certain frequencies. Hence any signal decoy would need to sync with the FCR signal to avoid disruption. Not easy.

Whereas for the attacker, the defender doesn't have time to separate the chaff from the wheat. That's why Israeli styled Bekaa kind of attaks, with drone and today's MALD decoys etc makes life even worse for the defender. There are other defensive games that can be played but overall, IADS should only be seen as a delay or supplment rather than something that can fully defend against a determined aggressor, especially one with significant air power like the US. Its also a reminder for ignorantly placing too much emphasis on a Taiwan SAM defence scenario, instead of a proper IADS with air cover.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 13:23

boogieman wrote:Hmm, I’m not sure how much we can read into this without knowing how the effect was achieved. For example if the F35 was providing escort jamming it may have needed to stay in close physical proximity to the F16s (obviously not possible with the SDBs). We also don’t know what kind of radar system the jamming was performed against – was it comparable to Grave Stone? Big Bird? Nebo-M? Hard to say.


Yes, we really don't know much of the details. But I would assume that it probably was against other fighter aircraft radar and/or western SAM sites, namely Patriots or it could even have been against radars/transmitters simulating systems such as the S-300/400.

Anyway, my point above was that the F-35 does have excellent standoff jamming capability. Basically you hardly need a dedicated EW aircraft like the Growler for example because and since the F-35 can get closer to the SAM site (due to its Stealth) the F-35 standoff jamming capability is most likely better/more effective compared to a EW aircraft like the Growler against the Grave Stone radar and potentially even better against a Big Bird radar while a dedicated EW aircraft like the Growler would be better against the Nebo-M VHF radar due to covering a much wider band.
So, I would say that the F-35 EW would certainly make the task of detecting incoming SDBs by Grave Stone radars and potentially by Big Bird radars a very, very hard one.
Due to the SDB small size, I would say that there's a considerable probability that SDBs can't be detected by the Nebo-M VHF radar since this radar works with the metric wavelength.

With the above being said, I would say that a weapon like SiAW would be excellent against the Nebo-M VHF radar since it would allow the F-35s to get even closer to a S-400 site (and with all the already discussed benefits of this).


boogieman wrote:I’m not so sure. It would certainly be shortened but it’s almost impossible to say by how much without knowing (for example) the RCS of SDB and the effectiveness of F35 EA against Grave Stone. The Grave Stone is a modern AESA in its own right, so it will have significant resistance to EW built in.


It's well known that the F-35 radar (APG-81) is able to jam the F-22 radar (APG-77) which except for the F-35 own radar is the most advanced AESA radar in existence today (and in the foreseeable future). So, if the F-35 radar can jam the F-22 radar then I would say that jamming the Grave Stone radar would be a "relatively easy" or in a "worse case scenario", a quite feasible task.


boogieman wrote:I’m not confident that the SDB’s physical size alone would afford it much protection. Most S400 missiles have pretty big warheads. That said I agree that a multi-axis attack would be ideal. This is probably one of the big advantages of SDB over AARGM-ER – you can set them all to approach from different vectors and arrive simultaneously.


Well, as you can see from the video which you originally referred to (and eloise later posted) shooting down small targets is indeed a hard task. And as opposed to that drone, SDBs wouldn't be flying circles around or near the SAM site just waiting to be shot down :wink:

Nevertheless and independently of what would be the actual S-400 missile effectiveness or PK against an incoming SDB (granted that it can detect it on a timely manner) I believe we can agree that such effectiveness or PK would never be 100%, right?


boogieman wrote:My personal view is that you really need to use all the systems available to tackle the S400 and the systems that support it. ISR aircraft to sniff out and locate the site, Compass Call to provide standoff jamming, F22 to provide CAP/escort to strikers, F35 to perform SEAD/DEAD, possibly UAS to act as decoys and even long range MLRS (TACMS/PRSM) to help deplete the site’s available missile stocks etc etc.


Here's probably where I would disagree with you the most since it's in fact the S-400 that "needs to use all the systems available" (S-400 missiles, Pantsir, Tor, Krasukha, Nebo-M, you name it...) this just to barely be able to survive (let alone be able to shoot down an actual F-35)! And again, nothing of this remotely guarantees that the S-400 can survive even a small volley of SDBs.

Basically if you're building an Air Defense System that the best it can do is to barely survive a small volley of incoming munitions then I'm afraid that you already lost. :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1299
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 16:44

This may be a good place to make distinctions once again as to what "5th Gen" architecture is all about (especially description of "Sensor fusion" et al)

While the IADS systems of today have some remarkable abilities they tend towards lego style stove pipes in many regards. "A" is for long distance, "B" is for short distance, "C" is for fast ... "D" is for high altitude etc. Add them all together and they are deadly for everything, far away, close up, fast, high. BUT the actual implementation is more of a "kill chain" structure in that every link must work to stop all attacks.

Fifth Gen attackers (F-35) Is more of a mesh network. In fact often with the F-35, the operator/pilot doesn't even know which system is "systeming." Did radar or EOTS pick that up? Was it me or my wing man? We really don't know. Do we need to ... or did we .. use our missiles or a 4th gen aircraft missiles or some from a ship? Many or most of the warriors in the fifth gen formation don't know. Instead of a chain it is more like a fishing net that might get a hole in it, but you can move it around and it still catches the fish from the good sections.

The applications (apps) sit atop the overall robust and redundant architecture.

Since the IADS set up, (like S-400) is the former configuration it will always be vulnerable to a 5th Gen "App" like the F-35.

BTW this is why our (US) IAD systems (like AEGIS in the fleet) also NEED actual air dominance provided by the F-35 and other networked systems to truly defend. The SM-6 on a DDG is just a anti aircraft stove pipe in a the fleet chain ... UNLESS .. it is networked into the F-35's above and joins the fifth gen "mesh." Then it becomes truly deadly in every way, against low skimming cruise, high flying ballistic, slow sailing surface ships or whatever the network tasks it to do. In fact we might never know that the reason the Network sent that SM-6 against the surface ship was the harpoon was stopped by an IADS response. The mesh just replies, SM-6 fires and ship dies. Simple as that.

MHO FWIW,
BP
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 19:00

boogieman wrote:The Russian claim is that the Pantsir repelled multiple waves of Delilah missiles before being hit while it reloaded, and that only one Pantsir was ever lost. I am obviously very skeptical of this claim.


You definitely should be sceptical of the Russian claim; there's two Pantsir destroyed in that video, one of which was actively defending itself with multiple missile launches, all of which failed to take down the incoming Delilah.
Offline
User avatar

underscan

Banned

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2020, 00:40

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 19:11

So is using 30mm rounds always useless or only efficient when directly coming at you? I am just wondering because there is alot of media circulating around Syrian air defenses shooting down Turkish drones(showing alot of images on the web)along with a viral online meme showing Erdogan signing a drone for a mission that was shot down later.

I got some s-400 questions listed a page back(admin gave the greenlight today) if anyone wants to share their ideas ideas with me on those 4 points I listed.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 19:49

underscan wrote:So is using 30mm rounds always useless or only efficient when directly coming at you? I am just wondering because there is alot of media circulating around Syrian air defenses shooting down Turkish drones(showing alot of images on the web)along with a viral online meme showing Erdogan signing a drone for a mission that was shot down later.

I got some s-400 questions listed a page back(admin gave the greenlight today) if anyone wants to share their ideas ideas with me on those 4 points I listed.


Any relation to Overscan? :D
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 624
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 19:59

knowan wrote:
boogieman wrote:The Russian claim is that the Pantsir repelled multiple waves of Delilah missiles before being hit while it reloaded, and that only one Pantsir was ever lost. I am obviously very skeptical of this claim.


You definitely should be sceptical of the Russian claim; there's two Pantsir destroyed in that video, one of which was actively defending itself with multiple missile launches, all of which failed to take down the incoming Delilah.


Keep in mind that Russian MOD spokesman said via official russian government TASS outlet that only two Pantsirs were damaged and were "being repaired to return into service". They don't even pretend to care to make believable statesments. The point is to flood the air with multiple statesmens, preferrably controversial and contradictory.

sferrin wrote:
underscan wrote:obvious incoherent wewuz bullshit


Any relation to Overscan? :D


It's his cousin from the top secret ROFAR devrlopment facility.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 23:00

ricnunes wrote:Yes, we really don't know much of the details. But I would assume that it probably was against other fighter aircraft radar and/or western SAM sites, namely Patriots or it could even have been against radars/transmitters simulating systems such as the S-300/400...

...Basically if you're building an Air Defense System that the best it can do is to barely survive a small volley of incoming munitions then I'm afraid that you already lost. :wink:


I think there are a few things to consider here:

- I have no doubt that the F35 has a potent jamming capability – both via the APG81 and I suspect (though it is not publically acknowledged) through other apertures around the airframe that allow for wide angle jamming in the beam and aft sectors.

- Jamming Nebo-M would be tough given its wavelength, possibly even for Growler. The fact that Growler is not a VLO aircraft would force it to conduct standoff jamming from outside the reach of 40N6, which could be prohibitively far. You might very well need Compass Call to be sure the job gets done... NGJ at the very least.

- The APG77 is certainly an excellent radar, and rightly represents the gold standard for fighter radars the world over. That said, it is completely different to Grave Stone, which uses a far larger and more powerful array. It is probably more analogous to a suitably scaled SPY6 in this regard. Could the F35(s) jam it? Certainly. What effect would this have? Not sure.

- I’m not convinced that the S400 would be quite so easy to destroy for the simple reason that there are a number of important questions we simply can’t adequately answer in the public domain.

- For example; what effect would jamming from the F35(s) (and enablers) have on the S400’s sensors? At what range would the S400 be able to start engaging the F35’s weapons? How effective would the S400’s missiles be at intercepting LO/VLO targets like SDB and F35? Would Russian EW assets be able to provide soft kill options against weapons like AARGM-ER or SDB? All of these (and more) would need to be answered before I could give a definitive assessment.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 01:28

boogieman wrote:- I have no doubt that the F35 has a potent jamming capability – both via the APG81 and I suspect (though it is not publically acknowledged) through other apertures around the airframe that allow for wide angle jamming in the beam and aft sectors.


Correct, the APG-81 will be the main source of the F-35's most potent jamming capability (although not the only one).


boogieman wrote:- Jamming Nebo-M would be tough given its wavelength, possibly even for Growler. The fact that Growler is not a VLO aircraft would force it to conduct standoff jamming from outside the reach of 40N6, which could be prohibitively far. You might very well need Compass Call to be sure the job gets done... NGJ at the very least.


Actually (and if my memory isn't failing me) the bigger the wavelength is, the easier it is to jam and metric wavelength radar are notoriously vulnerable to jamming. The 'difficulty' of jamming a radar with big wavelength (such as metric) is that if you also need at the same time be able to jam shorter wavelength radars (which you do since the vast majority of radars on the battlefield use shorter wavelength such as centimetric) then you'll need specific and bigger wideband equipment for this, equipment which is carried by dedicated EW aircraft such as the Growler (being such equipment, its EW pods).
In theory the Nebo-M VHF radar being AESA and modern could make the jamming task a little bit harder for an EW aircraft like the Growler with current EW pods but then again the NGJ should take care of this.


boogieman wrote:- The APG77 is certainly an excellent radar, and rightly represents the gold standard for fighter radars the world over. That said, I don’t think it is terribly comparable to Grave Stone. Grave Stone uses a far larger and more powerful array. It is probably more analogous to a suitably scaled SPY6 in this regard. Could the F35(s) jam it? Certainly. What effect would this have? Not sure.


This has actually been discussed here at F-16.net several times. For example members like Hornetfinn for example clearly explained how the F-35 will be extremely effective in jamming even the more powerful radars.
Basically it doesn't matter much that the Grave Stone radar is more powerful than the F-35 APG-81 radar because:
1- The APG-77 radar while technically less powerful than the Grave Stone it is still more advanced and as such technically harder to jam.
2- The F-35 EW jamming signal using the APG-81 radar as an antenna would be directional and narrow while the signal emitted by the Grave Stone radar would usually be wide (it must be or else it wouldn't be able to cover a significant airspace when scanning for targets in several directions effectively). And a lower output but narrow signal is still more powerful than a somehow higher output but wider signal.
3- A directional EW signal will be more effective if it's closer to the radar source it intends to jam as opposed to being located farther away. Due to the F-35 Stealth, the F-35 can send its directional EW signals against a Grave Stone radar while being closer to it and thus making the F-35 EW/jamming much more effective against this or any other kind of similar radars even compared with dedicated EW assets like the Growler which as you correctly mentioned must stay further away from the radar source.
4- Due to the laws of physics the lower the RCS of an object is the less powerful EW signal you'll need to hide such low RCS object from a much more powerful radar. And remember that not only the F-35 but also the SDB have low RCS.

Anyway, I believe that hornetfinn could explain the above better (specially with technical details) than I. So, lets hope that he sees this thread/post.


boogieman wrote:- I’m not convinced that the S400 would be quite so easy to destroy for the simple reason that there are a number of important questions we simply can’t adequately answer in the public domain.

- For example; what effect would jamming from the F35(s) (and enablers) have on the S400’s sensors? At what range would the S400 be able to start engaging the F35’s weapons? How effective would the S400’s missiles be at intercepting LO/VLO targets like SDB and F35?


Well, for my part I'm certainly not convinced at all that the S400 can survive even a small valley of SDBs.
Think for a second: Even the most modern and best Air Defense Systems have a hard time in dealing or being able to destroy big and not that fast cruise missiles then imagine against very small and low RCS (and with hardly any IR signature) incoming glide bombs.
So everything that I've seen, read, learned and mentioned above and before, gives the advantage/edge to the SDB and definitely not to the S-400.


boogieman wrote:Would Russian EW assets be able to provide soft kill options against weapons like AARGM-ER or SDB? All of these (and more) would need to be answered before I could give a definitive assessment.


Nope, at least not against the SDBII/GBU-53. The GBU-53 besides the GPS guidance has a Tri-Seeker mode (Active-Radar, IR and Laser) so even if the Russian EW assets are for some reason able to jam the incoming SDBs radar seeker, they still have their own IR seekers to home on their targets. By combining, GPS/Radar/IR seekers (you could also add Laser but for this lets assume that the F-35 still stays away from Laser Designator range) which the GBU-53 really does and then the difficulty in jamming such weapons becomes extremely hard or even almost impossible.
Moreover the GBU-53 active radar seeker uses millimeter wavelength which is very hard (the hardest) to jam. By the way, AARGM-ER and SiAW also carry millimeter wavelength radar seekers.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 01:51

Yes, essentially agree with all of the above. My only remaining thoughts are:

- Can Growler/NGJ even jam in the VHF band? I would have thought it was too small (physically) to produce a waveform of that size.

- I am certainly interested in hearing expert input on how AN/ASQ239 would match up against a large and powerful radar like Grave Stone.

- I don't take it for granted that APG77 is necessarily more advanced than Grave Stone per se. They are both modern AESAs so it would be great to hear a break down of the features of both including what features make the APG77 more technologically sophisticated.

- On SDB/PGMs vs Russian EW. Russian sources regularly claim the ability to produce false thermal images as a feature of their more modern jamming equipment (ref SAP-14 and L175). Whether this is even possible I have no idea. I am skeptical but then again I would have been skeptical of their ability to defuse incoming artillery rounds via EW until they did it to the Ukrainians:

https://youtu.be/14LMmBsDw-g?t=1642

Russia's capacity to disrupt both GPS and RF based guidance via EW is obviously well documented. It would be great to get some expert insight on this as well.

https://medium.com/dfrlab/russian-gps-j ... 4ff7d8dcb8
https://defensionem.com/russian-electro ... e-systems/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3223
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 11:37

boogieman wrote:Yes, essentially agree with all of the above. My only remaining thoughts are:

- Can Growler/NGJ even jam in the VHF band? I would have thought it was too small (physically) to produce a waveform of that size.


I'd say that the low band version definitely can. You don't need big antenna to produce a waveform with that long wavelength but naturally the antenna directivity/gain (and thus effectiveness) are not very good with small antennas. For example there are a lot of handheld VHF radios. That's why VHF radars are huge (like a tennis court or so) as they won't be useful without such a big antenna to give narrow enough beam. Of course jammers don't need to be directional to be useful but higher directivity also means better performance against certain radar.

boogieman wrote:- I am certainly interested in hearing expert input on how AN/ASQ239 would match up against a large and powerful radar like Grave Stone.


I'd say that the combination of VLO stealth and AN/ASQ-239 is using APG-81 antenna for jamming, it will likely be very effective. VLO stealth allows it to do stand-in jamming at close ranges while APG-81 has a lot higher effective radiated power (ERP) than normal self-protection jammers. Of course a lot depends on what it's protecting and how each unit is positioned. For example F-35 jamming Grave Stone from close range while protecting F-22s or other F-35s far away will have pretty easy time. But if itself is far away from the radar and is protecting fully loaded F-15Es flying closer to radar, it will have tough time protecting them from such a powerful radar system.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 16:21

boogieman wrote:- I don't take it for granted that APG77 is necessarily more advanced than Grave Stone per se. They are both modern AESAs so it would be great to hear a break down of the features of both including what features make the APG77 more technologically sophisticated.


Well, the Americans are far more advanced than the Russians in Electronics specially when it comes to miniaturization of components, which includes Radar Systems (as well as other systems such as EW). Heck, not even the Chinese which have far more money and R&D and builds much more electronic components compared to the Russians, don't have Military Electronics as advanced as those from the US.
As such, it would be a shocking surprise if the Russian Grave Stone was similarly as advanced as the APG-77 (let alone more advanced).


boogieman wrote:- On SDB/PGMs vs Russian EW. Russian sources regularly claim the ability to produce false thermal images as a feature of their more modern jamming equipment (ref SAP-14 and L175). Whether this is even possible I have no idea.


I would say that there's a problem with "producing false thermal images" as you mentioned above as a mean of 'jamming' the target's IR signature against a GBU-53 which is: The IR seeker of the GBU-53 is IIR (Imaging Infra-Red) which means that what the bomb sees is basically what you and I (or human eye) would see but the image is generated using IR spectrum instead of Light Spectrum. The imaging of older IR seekers are basically composed by "IR blobs" but not those generated by IIR which and again are very similar to what a human will see.
With this in mind, IMO the way to jam incoming IIR weapons (GBU-53 and others) would be to generate something like a "massive flare" which could hide the entire S-400 battery from the direction where the bombs are incoming. But I would say that this wouldn't be feasible since it would be extremely hard if not next to impossible.
Another way would be to use a laser to blind the IIR seeker. This could indeed be feasible (and a human eye could be blinded using the same method) however the downside is that first you need to detect the bomb and then aim the laser precisely against it or more precisely against its IIR seeker. But what happens if for example, there are eight (8) incoming GBU-53? Let's say the Russians manage to blind one of them and how about the remaining 7 bombs?
Would the EW vehicle have 8 lasers which could be independently aimed? I don't think so!
And what if there are more than 8 incoming GBU-53s?

Moreover, there are reasons why munitions like the GBU-53 have multiple seekers. One of them should be to make them harder to jam. Also, considering that no jammer is 100% foolproof then using a combination of multiple seekers such as Millimeter-wave Active Radar (remember the harder RF frequencies to jam) with IR (as you can read above, very hard to effectively 'jam' specially in numbers) and with GPS will give the GBU-53 a much better picture of the target and as such be much, much harder to be effectively jammed.


boogieman wrote:I am skeptical but then again I would have been skeptical of their ability to defuse incoming artillery rounds via EW until they did it to the Ukrainians:

https://youtu.be/14LMmBsDw-g?t=1642


Interesting the video that you posted. However what was the real effectiveness of that system? Or resuming, how many rounds were jammed against a total number of incoming rounds?
And also I find strange why such artillery rounds don't have a backup impact detonator? :?
This way even if an EW system is able to defuse an electronic detonator artillery rounds then a (backup) impact detonator would still grant success (if the intention isn't an airburst detonation).

Moreover, you also have to notice that the Ukrainians use Soviet era weaponry which is extremely well known by the Russians and so developing an EW against Soviet era (and old) equipment by the Russians should be a "no brainer".
Now developing EW against modern western similar equipment would be a "different ball game".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests