UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 08:32

popcorn wrote:As long-term Typhoon replacement the A makes sense.


Tornado replacement may be a better fit for its capabilities and the Tonkas are very much reaching the end of their service lives so its a more natural replacement schedule.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 09:53

whitewhale wrote:
popcorn wrote:As long-term Typhoon replacement the A makes sense.


Tornado replacement may be a better fit for its capabilities and the Tonkas are very much reaching the end of their service lives so its a more natural replacement schedule.


Yeah, Tornado first, followed in due time by Typhoon. The F-35 will be able to supplant both.
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 17:12

popcorn wrote:
I'm not questioning Typhoon's capabilities. I cited"long term" in the context of affordability, sustainability and growth path to future technology. Being an older 4G design, Typhoon will be less and less viable going into the future and it would make sense for the UK [edit] to,eventually standardize on a common platform.

The future will probably be UCAV. The Typhoon was to be the last manned fighter according to people at BAE. I would like to see the Typhoon rebuilt as a stealth fighter with internal weapons carriage but that isn't likely to happen. People planes are too expensive. I see the Typhoon and F-35 being in-service until maybe 2050 and then probably UCAVs of something new.
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 20:00

popcorn wrote:
whitewhale wrote:
popcorn wrote:As long-term Typhoon replacement the A makes sense.


Tornado replacement may be a better fit for its capabilities and the Tonkas are very much reaching the end of their service lives so its a more natural replacement schedule.


Yeah, Tornado first, followed in due time by Typhoon. The F-35 will be able to supplant both.


To be honest by the time the typhoons run out of air miles I would hope that the focused has switched entirely to unmanned capabilities with the RN B's and the Tonka replacements making up the last of the manned fleet, typhoons have such a different role that a direct swap for the 35 doesn't always fit.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 22:15

If you search the forum, we've already had this discussion on UCAV's and the future of aerial combat.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post08 Feb 2013, 22:44

mcraptor wrote:
popcorn wrote:
I'm not questioning Typhoon's capabilities. I cited"long term" in the context of affordability, sustainability and growth path to future technology. Being an older 4G design, Typhoon will be less and less viable going into the future and it would make sense for the UK [edit] to,eventually standardize on a common platform.

The future will probably be UCAV. The Typhoon was to be the last manned fighter according to people at BAE. I would like to see the Typhoon rebuilt as a stealth fighter with internal weapons carriage but that isn't likely to happen. People planes are too expensive. I see the Typhoon and F-35 being in-service until maybe 2050 and then probably UCAVs of something new.


UK's SDR has suggested the Eurofighter will be phased out by 2030 and replaced by the F-35. Main reason is the continued problems with the jets and their very high cost of operation.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post09 Feb 2013, 00:14

hb_pencil wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
popcorn wrote:
I'm not questioning Typhoon's capabilities. I cited"long term" in the context of affordability, sustainability and growth path to future technology. Being an older 4G design, Typhoon will be less and less viable going into the future and it would make sense for the UK [edit] to,eventually standardize on a common platform.

The future will probably be UCAV. The Typhoon was to be the last manned fighter according to people at BAE. I would like to see the Typhoon rebuilt as a stealth fighter with internal weapons carriage but that isn't likely to happen. People planes are too expensive. I see the Typhoon and F-35 being in-service until maybe 2050 and then probably UCAVs of something new.


UK's SDR has suggested the Eurofighter will be phased out by 2030 and replaced by the F-35. Main reason is the continued problems with the jets and their very high cost of operation.


Indeed. Southwest Airlines got it right
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2013, 00:36

The TWISTS and TURNS of the CVF saga OVER A VERY LONG Time indeed have my memory addled for sure. There is this claim from 'The Register' that seems to be somewhat answered by another post elsewhere as indicated. Anyway I throw it in here - just for the record - so to speak. Sorry for long post - perhaps worth looking at original 'Register' article but what interests me is excerpted below... [Misspellings of the NavWeaps poster 'FCNoVA' left as is.]

The truth on the Navy carrier debacle? Industry got away with murder
Sold 'adaptable' ships which couldn't be adapted
6th Feb 2013 Lewis Page

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06 ... r_badness/
Excerpt below from page 2:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06 ... page2.html

"...Minister Peter Luff was a bit more honest. He said:
I want to make it quite clear ... there was some increase in the cost of the equipment, but that is not actually the total picture of the cost. The cost is also a reflection of various other issues ... the cost of the conversion itself was the real issue ...

In other words the huge bulk of the cost increase didn't come from General Atomics and EMALS. Instead it came from the British shipyards who would have to put the US equipment into the ships. Luff went on to explain that in fact the carriers had not been designed to accept catapults and arrester gear at all.

The fundamental misunderstanding that many of us had was that these carriers would be relatively easy to convert and had been designed for conversion and for adaptability. That is what we were told. It was not true. They were not.

Mr Arbuthnot, reasonably enough, asked:
Having been “designed for conversion”, and conversion having proved far more expensive than we expected, do we have any comeback against those companies that did the design?

Mr Gray answered:
Because the decision to go STOVL [that is the initial decision for jumpjets] was taken in, from memory, 2002, no serious work had been done. It had been noodled in 2005, but no serious work had been done on it. It was not a contract-quality offer; it was a simple assertion that that could be done, but nobody said, “It can be done at this price”, and certainly nobody put that in a contract.

This is a very strange position to take. The decision that was taken in 2002 was not to "go STOVL". It was to choose the design option then referred to by the government [ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 214-34.htm ] as the "adaptable CVF Delta design", with "adaptable" specifically to mean that catapults and arrester gear could be added to the ships - not just during construction, but afterwards. A STOVL [jumpjet] only, non-adaptable design was also considered, and the "adaptable" design cost a hell of a lot more. In 2002, Parliament was told: [ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 909w08.htm ]

The estimated cost based on a STOVL [only] design was around £2 billion ... The estimated procurement cost of the future aircraft carriers using the innovative, adaptable design is around £3 billion.

The "innovative, adaptable" ships are now projected by the National Audit Office to cost £5.35 billion, so it's plain that around a third of that, some £1.8bn, comes from them being "adaptable" rather than STOVL-only. Except that it turns out they aren't adaptable at all - fitting them with catapults and arrester gear would, apparently, cost as much as buying two entire new ships.

That has to be a colossal contract violation by the builders: there's no way it can't be, provided the word "adaptable" is actually on the contract somewhere (this is a secret of course, like all MoD contracts). No matter what, the shipbuilders cannot realistically claim that the MoD didn't specify that it should be easy to put in catapults and arrester gear, and they cannot realistically claim that there is any adaptability at all in a ship which costs as much to adapt as it would to just buy a new ship. But the MoD just bends over and bites the pillow held out for it...."
________________________

'FCNoVA': http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ply-329435

"It is my understanding that the adaptability of the current design primarily meant that the ship was being designed and built large enough to accommodate the later fitting of catqapults and arrestor gear, while also accomodating the additional manpower and powering requirements of fitting this equipment, as well as any ancilliary items as well, without requiring any "insertion of a parallel midbody", "bulging of the hullform", "stripping of the ship down to its main deck and rebuilding of its upperworks", or "re-engining". It is not my understanding that any part of the "adapatability" of the design was intended to include "providing any big, open empty spaces for the later fitting of equipment" nor the "pre-fitting of any equipment needed only for CATOBAR operations" as this would unnecessarily drive up the initial procurement price of the ship and likely would have meant that the ship was being used sub-optimally when delivered.

It is my understanding that the design, as being built meets all these requirements, and that major parts of the added costs of conversion fall into a number of categories. First, the fitting of the EMALS catapults and arrestor gear requires a fair bit mo space, and impacts to some degree more compartments than originally anticipated. Second, the costs of these pieces of equipment are more expensive than originally anticipated. And third, by attempting to redesign and convert the ships while building there would be a subtantial delay and impact on the construction of the ships further pushing out delivery,and adding to costs (due to the unanticipated impacts this would have on the shipyards and vendors of the various pieces of equipment) and likely would also require changing spaces on the ship already designed and in some cases already built (or being built).

As to the fitting of steam catapults in lieu of EMALS equipment it is probably worthwhile noting that while the intial cost and conversion estimates may have been lower for them than for EMALS currently it is my understanding that they are no longer in production, and as such support and repair equipment may be in short supply (as the USN probably wants to keep as much as it can for its existing fleet in the event that they need those spares etc) and all the talk of a "donkey boiler" may be a bit misleading, as the ability to provide enough steam to keep the catapults fully operational at anytime would likely require a fairly substantial system. And since providing adequate steam when needed is not just a matterof turning a system on or off, there would likely be a need to keep a head of steam up at all (or perhaps most all) times to ensure its ready when necessary, which may have a fair impact on fuel and manning rquirents etc. And in addition to this there is an issue with availability where, I believe, EMALS systems are supposed to have a fair bit more reliability than a steam system.

It is also my understanding that a large part of the purported 1B GBP difference in the costs given for a pure STOVL design and an adaptable design was due in part to the fact that a pure STOVL design could be smaller than an adaptable design and because at the time of that decision, selecting an adaptable design would push out the design and construction of the ship longer leading to increased costs, etc.

In the end then, I believe that the design of the current ships appear to basically meet their requirments to be an adaptable design but that perhaps there is/was a fair bit of confusion as to what that "adaptability" meant and/or what its cost would be, but any attempt to blame the contractor for "not giving us what was promised" might be a bit misdirected.

[Edit] PS. I probably should have added above that one of the biggest parts of making the CVFs adapatable probably dealt with making sure the flight deck was big enough and arranged suitably to eventually support CATOBAR operations.

In addition, although it may seem a bit counter intuitive, its possible that "in the middle of construction" may be one of the worst times to try and make a major modification to a design because it is likely to have a major impact on so many issues. Specifically, in general thousands of people are likely involved in the destial design and construction of a ship this size and the shipyard will typically try very hard to schedule the design and construction of the various modules, as well as the purchase of the materials and equipment needed in such a way as to make a good a use of the resources and money available at any given time. This doesn't men that they ave everything planned perfectly but rather that they will likely have (or will be trying to) plan everythin out as best thay can.

As such, when/if the government comes along and says "hold up we're making a major change" and this change will require the purchase of some equipment that needs to be fitted, but which may not be available for awhile, then you've thrown a "monkey wrench" into the system and now the yard has to 1st start trying to assess the impacts, figure out how to re-joggle the building schedule, and such while still trying to keep everyone gainfully employed and doing worthwhile work, while also waiting for details o exactly what needs to be fitted, as well as waiting for either the money to be released to buy that equipment and/or for the governmeent to purchase it directly for them. In this respect any sch change can bseen to likely have a major impact on the overall program and my end up being very costly in comparison to other possible options.[/Edit]"
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2013, 11:27

On page 51 of this thread there is mention of a now 6 part series.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-750.html
Below is no.5...

Looking Forward to an F35 Future – Part 5 (By Sea By Land) Think Defence | February 10, 2013

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/l ... a-by-land/

"Thought I would nick the Royal Marines motto, Per Mare, Per Terram or By Sea, By Land because this perfectly encapsulates the operating potential of the F-35B, no, nothing to do with Bunker Hill or the colour of their berets!

After looking at the dim and distant past in Part 2, the aircrafts potential in Part 3 and the painful reality of ‘today’ in Part 4, this is a post about how the UK might operate the F-35B fleet, oh, and a handful of side issues....

...I read that the vast majority of the UK’s AM-2 matting stock went down with the Atlantic Conveyor but we used a large quantity for RAF Stanley soon after although I don’t think we have purchased any since then although we have trialled products from Faun.

I am going to look at expeditionary airfields in a separate post but on the wish list would be an expansion in the UK capacity and capability for expeditionary airfield survey, repair and construction to support not only the F-35B but other aircraft as well."

Another long post with many historical examples of Harrier use in various environments - particularly FOBs. First and last paras excerpted above only. There is a bunch of info that is not to be missed.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post16 Feb 2013, 12:39

On the carrier adaptability issue, to copy myself from another forum-

The issue started a while ago (as far back as the 60's!), back near the turn of the millennium both BAE and Thales UK submitted carrier designs for proposal, both around 70,000t and 300m long, the BAE shape was very traditional looking and the Thales vessel had the unique twin island layout we are now familiar with and also had the 'adaptable' tag for V/STOl and CAT capabilities. The Thales bid won the process but for a variety of reasons from political to concerns about the ability to undertake such a large project BAE were awarded status as primary contractor, essentially they were to build the Thales design.

BMT actually did most of the design work involved along with Thales but at this point with BAE's involvement things were getting complicated as the companies disagreed on various ideas, BAE wanted to go with pod propulsion while the BMT design was traditional etc.

Eventually with the bulk of the design work done the project was about ready to start with a fixed budget, the government being a bunch of prats predictable changed their minds and slashed the budget, this predictably slowed everything down and the whole R+D process had to start again at great cost to us taxpayers (yay! thanks government of the time!). The next design that was proposed was much smaller down to 50,000t and most of the propulsion had been stripped back to a pair of MT30's, fortunately design studies at the time revealed that for every 10% you shrink a carrier you lose 40% of its capability. Such a small design would only be as half capable as the original 70k and only cost a few hundred million less.

(Steel is cheap, air is free, the greater the size of a carrier the better its capabilities to cost ratio, so if anyone says 'why didn't they just build a couple of cheaper 40,000 tonners!?!?' give them a slap, we would need at least 4 of them to have the same capabilities and sortie rate* as the larger design but the production of all 4 would end up massively more expensive.)

With the realisation that such a compromise would lead to a fairly pathetic carrier force the design was increased again to today's 65,000t design but the designers still had to fit it in the new smaller budget and as such many features were cut back, the final ship would only be powered by 2 MT30 gas turbines assisted by a set of diesel generators and the 'adaptable' idea was dropped all together, the government were aware of this and gave the project got the go ahead.

When the next lot of prats got into power and tried to change the design they had to act surprised that the design was no longer adaptable and that the whole project was over budget and schedule due to political interference.

If the project had continued as was originally planned with no interference we would have two better more capable carriers being finalised at the moment with a total bill far less then what has been sunk already. The reality is that labour tried to save a few pennies in a badly thought out way, failed then blamed the project that they themselves had sabotaged only to have the next lot come in and try to fiddle with the design mid build. So don't blame the builders, blame the politicians who Ok'd the adaptable design being dropped only to conveniently forget that fact a couple of years later.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2013, 14:06

Thankfully water under the bridge at this stage. But... who knows what meddling awaits.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2013, 00:23

On page 12 of this thread [ http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... &start=165 ] for some odd reason there is a discussion (with graphics) about the F-16 AoA Indexer workings compared to the USN standard. Here is some more...

A Navy Test Pilot’s Perspective [F-16 vs F-18] By Lcdr John “Toonces” Tougas
Air Age Publishing Jun 2003

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfar ... ctive.html

"...The main instrument panel is centrally located, compactly organized and easy to scan. The Viper is a fly-by-wire electric jet, but it still has what are considered old-fashioned, round airspeed and altitude dials, tape gauges for vertical speed indicator (VSI) and angle of attack (AoA) and an analog attitude indicator. These are the primary flight instruments because the HUD is technically not certified for IFR (instrument flight). In the Hornet, I use the HUD as my main information source and crosscheck the steam gauges during instrument approaches. The Viper HUD gives the same data as the Hornet HUD does, but the format’s different. Adapting was easy except for one important item: the angle of attack bracket. The two indicators look exactly alike, but they work exactly opposite; when landing, one tells the pilot to pull when he should push, and vice versa. It’s potentially very confusing. Flying AoA “backward” was tough at the beginning, but I eventually figured it out. The rest of the Viper’s HUD symbols are busy but easy to interpret. By flipping a few switches, the pilot can customize HUD information as needed for the mission....

...LANDING
As I dirty up for landing (lowering the gear handle is the only pilot action, all other configuration changes are automatic), the Viper becomes a blended-rate command, AoA-command flight-control system. I can trim the aircraft hands-off to the approach AoA of 11 degrees, and the flight-control system should maintain that AoA. In my experience, the Viper is very pitch-sensitive — especially in the flare.

Landing the Viper is easy, but landing the Viper while making it look good is far from easy. The airspeed is controlled with the throttle, and the glideslope is controlled with the stick (at least on the front side of the power curve). The pilot must use the throttle very judiciously on final; with the huge General Electric motor, it’s easy to gain excess airspeed rapidly and then float a quartermile down the runway. If the pilot misjudges and gets slow, he can scrape the tailpipe or prang the landing gear, with a bounce back into the air below flying speed (very bad).

The Hornet, by contrast, is very easy to land. The aircraft is trimmed for on-speed, and the glideslope is flown with the throttles until touchdown at 650 to 700fpm. Both aircraft have a HUD flight-path marker (FPM) to tell the pilot where the jet is going. The pilot places the FPM on the piece of runway he wants to touch down on, and that’s where he’ll land. In the Hornet, the throttle is the primary control for the FPM; in the Viper, it’s the stick. The vertical-G load on an average trap at the boat is about 2.7G. The longitudinal deceleration from grabbing an arresting cable is about 4G. That landing is actually a precisely controlled crash. It’s easy to nail the glideslope in the twin-engine Hornet by adjusting one throttle at a time by “walking the throttles.” Precise glide-slope control is really handy when landing on the boat. As a Navy carrier pilot, I’m not the best at flaring the Viper; I usually bounce once or twice, which I’m told isn’t bad...."

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_16nad ... er_175.gif
&
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/usnstan ... er_169.gif

Image Image
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

azimuth

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2013, 11:50

Unread post22 Feb 2013, 11:53

spazsinbad wrote:The Viper HUD gives the same data as the Hornet HUD does, but the format’s different. Adapting was easy except for one important item: the angle of attack bracket. The two indicators look exactly alike, but they work exactly opposite; when landing, one tells the pilot to pull when he should push, and vice versa. It’s potentially very confusing. Flying AoA “backward” was tough at the beginning, but I eventually figured it out. The rest of the Viper’s HUD symbols are busy but easy to interpret. By flipping a few switches, the pilot can customize HUD information as needed for the mission....


From the images above, both AoA indicators seem to to light up in the same manner for the respective speeds (i.e. "fast" lights up the low ^ symbol, and "slow" lights up the top "v" symbol, indicating to push down or up the same way for both planes). What am I missing?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2013, 13:16

Perhaps if a graphic showing the F-16 HUD and the F-18 HUD side by side will make the difference clear. I may be some time..... This phrase is the key: "...when landing, one tells the pilot to pull when he should push, and vice versa...." (apart from the colours being different).

In the USN standard (F-18, A-4 and all recent USN aircraft) the 'chevron pointing down' which is GREEN shows the pilot to put the nose down because the aircraft is slow (which for carrier landing is not as bad as being FAST which is RED with the 'chevron pointing up'. Being fast may break the arrestor gear apart from all the other bad things for either not being ON SPEED at the Optimum Angle of Attack (being the orange doughnut).

THE DIFFERENCES IN THE HUD AoA Display for the aircraft is the key Difference (with other differences) but as indicated the 'velocity vector' is reversed in the HUD.

In a 'coarse' sense when indicating FAST in the F-18 with velocity vector at low end of scale then 'pull the nose up'. Which is not the case in the F-16 HUD - for example.
Attachments
F-16HUDdisplay+Growler.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 22 Feb 2013, 17:32, edited 2 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23185
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2013, 14:07

This HORNET HUD Video shows the aircraft turning onto Finals (the GROOVE) being slow in the turn with the VV Velocity Vector (circle) at top of the AoA bracket. As the aircrafts rolls wings level the VV goes to Opt AoA. Then the aircraft gets a little fast as the VV shows slightly below the medium position of being at Opt AoA. 'Eagle Rock' is a song by "Daddy Cool".

One of the things the pilot has to do is lower the nose when being slow if that is what it takes to get back on speed but usually there are other factors such as being low perhaps to also add power and the dance goes on and on - quicktime.

The screengrab at the end is actually a bit inaccurate because it is showing 'slightly fast' but close enough. The middle position is Optimum AoA. See NATOPS HUD SYMBOLOGY GUIDE from NATOPS top of next page.
Don't forget when video playing 'right click' on the video to select ZOOM > FULL SCREEN.
Attachments

HornetCarrierLandingHUDview.wmv [ 5.47 MiB | Viewed 58695 times ]

Last edited by spazsinbad on 22 Feb 2013, 18:16, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: magitsu and 15 guests