Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs

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

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2533
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 01:04

XanderCrews wrote:
...except for what exactly happened (no plan survives first contact).


Because the Marine Corps’ Harrier fleet was reaching the end of life before the Air Force and Navy fleets

The underlined part is completely untrue, before we even get to my main point. in fact even some basic research would do wonders on that claim.

I think you've moved the goal posts here. After being schooled on performance compromises you had to dig somewhere and find development delays instead. But I don't consider Delays and Flight Performance to be in the same ball park at all, but you had to find "something" instead of just dropping it.


Firstly, if you have a problem with the source, go to the source. That's CRS, not weasel1962.

Secondly, you are putting words into my mouth. Since when did I only claim development delys? That's lying and trying to paint a lying picture whilst accusing other people of lying. or Worst, you don't even understand the problems.

Thirdly, you're incorrectly citing on development delays and flight performance. Those are not the only constraints.

I don't go around intentional lying. Huge difference between making mistakes and lying here. The personal attacks from start clearly reflect your intent to go personal upfront and nothing to do with facts. Once you start going wrong, you double down with personal attacks. Not cool.

XanderCrews wrote:What? Do tell me exactly and precisely CTOL Vs STOVL what was envisioned vs what took place. Be specific.

before you say anything, I'll counsel that "commonality across all variants" is more than just sharing the same section of tubing somewhere in a bay. The most expensive parts of an airplane in the 21st century is engines and avionics. The people looking at the relatively simple parts like common undercarriage doors and such are on the wrong track.

And theres a lot of wrong tracks with the JSF and F-35 since the internet makes it up as it goes and several narratives that were never true have taken hold.


You're asking me to define F-35 design commonality and lol expecting a one post answer, not realising the changes that the so-called original F-35 commonality that have taken place! If you understood the difficulties that F-35 design commonalities have imposed on the variants to the extent that they have decided not to proceed on, you would be right, I wouldn't even bother to answer because its too much!

XanderCrews wrote:changes in production & assembly strategy especially during early development.- That never happens!!!


So you don't know what happened with quick mates either. lol

XanderCrews wrote:please don't hit me with this it was "16 years ago", while acting like some of this stuff is somehow unique and only JSF?F-35 problem.


That's where you are displaying your ignorance. Which other program combined USMC STOVL with USAF CTOL from design with the intention for all 3 services to procure? lol.

What you refuse to accept is what STOVL limitation imposes on a CTOL. The lift fan either results in a bigger plane or a compromise on weight e.g. Its physically impossible otherwise.

XanderCrews wrote:clearly You don't even really know what the experience is.


Lies.

XanderCrews wrote:You can control the lies and assertions and flat out wild a$$ guesses. in the age of the internet ignorance is no excuse, but as you said, you're lazy.

untruths-- Thats what I have issue with


Which of my statement was a lie? You try to paint a picture of me lying without even citing a quote and allowing me a chance to defend that statement. That's LOW, man.

XanderCrews wrote:is it like how you "pretended" there was any mention of tankers at all in the PDF you provided of what we "know"?


Since where did I pretend there is no mention of tankers? My statement clearly is there is benefit from not needing tankers. I still fail to see why tankers must be used if there isn't a need. But you are twisting my words and clearly continuing to try and do so.

XanderCrews wrote:The same person telling me "no plan survives first contact" is telling me definitely what a NGAD concept demo will do when its service years from now and the emphasis that has been selected, but as for the F-35 "well things change, 16 years ago was a long time" Its important to note one of the first compromises on F-22 was range.


Again, you're twisting my words. NGAD won't involve STOVL. Sure, I can acknowledge we don't know what NGAD will finally look like. My opinion is that it won't involve STOVL. You want to claim otherwise, that's your choice, don't twist my words to suggest I think so please.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2533
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 01:50

On the issue of F-35 commonality, I've decided to get off my butt and start with exactly the CRS.

Original design
The program’s operational requirements call for 70% to 90% commonality among all three versions. Many of the three versions’ high-cost components—including their engines, avionics, and major airframe structural components—are common.Overall, however, commonality has fallen well short of that goal; see “Devolution of Joint Program Office,” below. More details on the merger of the programs can be found in “F-35 Program Origin and History” below.


What ultimately happened
and further that the F-35 is functionally three separate aircraft, with much less commonality than earlier envisioned. “[E]ven the [then] Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are only 20–25 percent common.”


I think it would be difficult to argue that F-35 design commonality wasn't an intent upfront. I also think that the end result speaks volumes on the difficulties in trying to achieve that. That % difference doesn't comprise just delays or flight performance.

One can of course claim that the CRS is lying to congress but consider then their source...Regardless, that's a major contributory factor why I think NGAD will not be distracted by a STOVL requirement.
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 03:55

When reality doesn’t work, just create your own narrative. Very 21st Century stuff...
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 04:21

A little refresher —

The reality is that the Navy was the outlier, requirements-wise. They needed/wanted more range and more internal weapons carriage; that’s gonna be a bigger, heavier aircraft. The USAF and the USMC, in general terms, wanted less of those — the USAF for cost (something to replace F-16s in large numbers), and the USMC because “larger/heavier” doesn’t get ‘em STOVL. If one goes back to ASTOVL, the only internal weapons carriage envisioned was for A-A weapons. Early USAF JAST weapons carriage was 1000# JDAM, not the 2K#. No one in the USAF envisioned OWEs at or above 30K# back in the 90s; no one. The USMC got snippy with one contractor when they briefed an early STOVL design with an OWE of 26K# (!!; it weighs ~33k# today).

The old axiom held true — you buy jets by the pound. The USAF sure as s___ didn’t need ‘more expensive’ and the USMC similarly didn’t need less STOVL/VLBB. So how did those jets get so heavy?
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 04:49

Re: ‘commonality.’

Commonality was not an ‘operational requirement.’ It was, however — to the degree that it was going to be achievable — a means to achieve the primary goal of ‘affordability.’ What few discuss anymore are the elements of ‘cost commonality’ — what are the largest components of cost, and to what degree are those elements common across the each of the variants? Which of those drive the most cost in terms of LCC? Most of the time everyone defaults to commonality of structural components, which I’m guessing is not even close to a driver in LCC.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3503
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 06:30

weasel1962 wrote:On the issue of F-35 commonality, I've decided to get off my butt and start with exactly the CRS.

Original design
The program’s operational requirements call for 70% to 90% commonality among all three versions. Many of the three versions’ high-cost components—including their engines, avionics, and major airframe structural components—are common.Overall, however, commonality has fallen well short of that goal; see “Devolution of Joint Program Office,” below. More details on the merger of the programs can be found in “F-35 Program Origin and History” below.


What ultimately happened
and further that the F-35 is functionally three separate aircraft, with much less commonality than earlier envisioned. “[E]ven the [then] Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are only 20–25 percent common.”


I think it would be difficult to argue that F-35 design commonality wasn't an intent upfront. I also think that the end result speaks volumes on the difficulties in trying to achieve that. That % difference doesn't comprise just delays or flight performance.

One can of course claim that the CRS is lying to congress but consider then their source...Regardless, that's a major contributory factor why I think NGAD will not be distracted by a STOVL requirement.


So given that they have exactly the same avionics, engines and major airframe structural components, how is it possible to not have very high commonality? Avionics includes things like radar, EO DAS, EOTS, EW system, CNI system, HMD, sensor fusion system, the whole avionics architecture, processors, memory systems, internal networks etc. Those are by far the most important things in a military aircraft. All three variants are also being produced on the exact same production lines. How is it possible to do that without very high commonality? Even far simpler products like are often produced in separate production lines even with rather small differences between different variants.

I'd say the commonality between variants is effectively very high although naturally there are differences due to different operating environments. Especially since probably the most important and difficult thing, software, is common to all the variants. Another point is that the cost of each aircraft would be far higher if they weren't very common especially given the rather small production numbers for B- and C-models.
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 11:03

“So given that they have exactly the same avionics, engines and major airframe structural components, how is it possible to not have very high commonality?”

Because they’re talking principally about structures and some vehicle systems.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 11:31

If that is just about the airframes and structures, no one should seriously expect to have 80 percent commonality across the three variants. All those doors and actuators on B. Those bigger wings and tails on C. Different IPP exhaust. Different aerial refuelling hardware. Have or not have a gun. Landing gears. Those are just superficial differences. The 70% to 90% commonality goal/plan was set too optimistically.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3503
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 11:44

zhangmdev wrote:If that is just about the airframes and structures, no one should seriously expect to have 80 percent commonality across the three variants. All those doors and actuators on B. Those bigger wings and tails on C. Different IPP exhaust. Different aerial refuelling hardware. Have or not have a gun. Landing gears. Those are just superficial differences. The 70% to 90% commonality goal/plan was set too optimistically.


Agreed. It really depends on how you calculate commonality. I think all three variants are something like over 90% common in avionics and engines. But airframe and structures are not identical mostly, although they are so closely related that all three variants can be efficiently assembled on the very same assembly line. Nobody could build AV-8, F/A-18 and F-16 on the same assembly line, they are way too different.
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 11:56

“If that is just about the airframes and structures, no one should seriously expect to have 80 percent commonality across the three variants. All those doors and actuators on B. Those bigger wings and tails on C. Different IPP exhaust. Different aerial refuelling hardware. Have or not have a gun. Landing gears. Those are just superficial differences...”

x2.

“The 70% to 90% commonality goal/plan was set too optimistically.[“

Although an oft-repeated catechism, not sure anything was ever ‘set.’
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 12:02

“It really depends on how you calculate commonality. I think all three variants are something like over 90% common in avionics and engines. But airframe and structures are not identical mostly, although they are so closely related that all three variants can be efficiently assembled on the very same assembly line.“

Hence my observation about “cost commonality.”
Online

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 12:16

Here’s a post-PDR release from LM, 18 years ago this month —

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2003-04 ... ch%2024-27.

How’s this for some foreshadowing —

“As with all tactical aircraft programs, the most significant immediate challenge is weight reduction and control.”

And these from the same release —

“Two of the open issues were related to volume constraints in the highest- density areas of the fuselage: the weapons bay and engine cavity. Weapons clearances and the routing of wiring/plumbing posed the main challenges. In recent weeks, engineers incorporated configuration adjustments to resolve those issues.”

“The remaining significant issue involves higher-than-expected preliminary weight estimates of F-35 structural elements. The issue -- mostly attributable to structural arrangement, load paths and design immaturity (owing to the early stage of the program) -- is under intense study.”
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6986
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 20:35

weasel1962 wrote:[

Firstly, if you have a problem with the source, go to the source. That's CRS, not weasel1962.



Can't be held responsible for your references and posts, got it. I'll just passively post whatever here and no matter how easily disproven, thats not Xander! the USMC was still getting harriers into the 2000s.

thats some real quality "research" there, and surely the only error-- take the rest to the bank!

Secondly, you are putting words into my mouth. Since when did I only claim development delys? That's lying and trying to paint a lying picture whilst accusing other people of lying. or Worst, you don't even understand the problems.

Thirdly, you're incorrectly citing on development delays and flight performance. Those are not the only constraints.

I don't go around intentional lying. Huge difference between making mistakes and lying here. The personal attacks from start clearly reflect your intent to go personal upfront and nothing to do with facts. Once you start going wrong, you double down with personal attacks. Not cool.


I think when someone reports a myth long after its been verified as a myth, the problem because with the person continuing that myth as if it was the truth.

If that bothers you, you could try not repeating myths. lots of aviation sites for myths. Keypubs is superb i hear

You're asking me to define F-35 design commonality and lol expecting a one post answer, not realising the changes that the so-called original F-35 commonality that have taken place! If you understood the difficulties that F-35 design commonalities have imposed on the variants to the extent that they have decided not to proceed on, you would be right, I wouldn't even bother to answer because its too much!


LOL there are so many things why I cant name even one!

So you don't know what happened with quick mates either. lol


uh huh

A major blow to the JSF manufacturing concept, leading to an increase in production costs, was the abandonment of “quick-mate joints.” The idea was to attach interlocking parts to individual components that would make the final assembly of the fuselage, wings, and engine easy, like snapping and soldering jigsaw puzzle pieces. But the interfaces drove the weight up by about 1,000 pounds, so a traditional, time-consuming joining system was adopted. All three F-35 variants lost their quick-mate joints to preserve production commonality.

The JSF team had earlier hatched a new idea to cut cost—use “cousin parts” instead of the sometimes heavier common ones. The concept was going to be applied to trim weight as well as cost.

A cousin part is manufactured using the same machine, but the computational design information is altered to produce a part unique to a variant. If a part is designed to handle certain stresses arising only during a carrier landing, it can be remade with the same tool for the conventional takeoff-and-landing variant, with only a minor cost increase. A commercially available part can be shaved to save room, offering, in some cases, a direct route for a hose rather than a circuitous one. Less hose equals less weight. Unique items cost more to manufacture and to replace, but the weight savings sometimes necessitated the higher cost.

Enewold says the production cost of F-35s has risen slightly due to implementations of SWAT plans. The effect on supportability cost is yet to be seen.

In October 2004, the Defense Acquisition Board signed off on more than 500 recommendations, officially making the STOVL weight loss attack team a success.

In eight months, the Lockheed engineers cut a total of 2,700 pounds from the F-35B. The effort also trimmed 1,300 pounds from the other variants.


My point was that the Quickmate joints while convenient weren't the end of the world to lose, saved weight, and as for quick you saw last years production numbers.

production was simply optimized in other ways. Once a new strategy was formed, it became about making that new production strategy as efficient as possible. Simply put quickmate wasn't a deal breaker, and good riddance.

That's where you are displaying your ignorance. Which other program combined USMC STOVL with USAF CTOL from design with the intention for all 3 services to procure? lol.

What you refuse to accept is what STOVL limitation imposes on a CTOL. The lift fan either results in a bigger plane or a compromise on weight e.g. Its physically impossible otherwise.


I'll try and explain it like this.

Man-1: You can marry my only daughter but she is a blonde.

Man-2: Thats great I like Blondes

They marry. He knew he was getting a blonde, he liked blondes. theres no surprises. You're complaining that by marrying a blonde he failed to marry a redhead. Which is true, but he was fine with that from the start.

Theres never been a JSF program that didn't have STOVL baked in from the start


the issue here may be semantic, but its important. If not, then we are discussing alternate realities. simply put:

1. as Quicksilver said there was no real "set" commonality

2. we are entering into shrodingers JSF Wherein the commonality compromised the design, but also the its not very common!

3. unless you have some particularly specific and likely not publicly available information that really explains why the USAF couldn't get some wish list it had then we really can't know how it compromised-- in other words, in order for you to know exactly how much was "lost" you must first know how much was "desired" in the first place.

4. On alternate reality, maybe the USAF compromised by not going with YF-23. so does that mean the F-22 is compromised? are elements of the F-22 compromised? could the USAF have asked for more, or made different decisions regarding F-22? This could go on into infinity

5. lastly you seem to be intermixing your criticisms between performance, delays, commonality. sop first you said the performance was compromised, me and others said that wasn't really the case, then you moved onto delays, and now we are at commonality.

Lies.


pot meet kettle, unless you want to share with the class.

Which of my statement was a lie? You try to paint a picture of me lying without even citing a quote and allowing me a chance to defend that statement. That's LOW, man.


here's your chance. go right ahead. I get a little of sick of readin the same trash tropes over and over again, and it takes too long to explain it. so at one point it just becomes easier to say "its more complicated than that, and you're wrong, and you should no better by now"

Since where did I pretend there is no mention of tankers? My statement clearly is there is benefit from not needing tankers. I still fail to see why tankers must be used if there isn't a need. But you are twisting my words and clearly continuing to try and do so.


1. I pointed out that the tanker thing was to quote the Great Lebowski, "just like, your opinion, man" and you couldn't actually know that-- in other words you confused your opinion with fact about NGAD.

2. When I pointed that the claim was unverifiable, you got your knickers in a twist and said that must mean I think (now attributing opinions to others) that the USAF wants support aircraft in harms way.

this is silly.

Again, you're twisting my words. NGAD won't involve STOVL. Sure, I can acknowledge we don't know what NGAD will finally look like. My opinion is that it won't involve STOVL. You want to claim otherwise, that's your choice, don't twist my words to suggest I think so please.


good god LOL no comment
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6986
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 21:14

weasel1962 wrote:
Original design
The program’s operational requirements call for 70% to 90% commonality among all three versions. Many of the three versions’ high-cost components—including their engines, avionics, and major airframe structural components—are common.Overall, however, commonality has fallen well short of that goal;


the double speak is intense.

again how do we measure commonality? is the engine "one part" ? or is it tens of thousands of parts?

What ultimately happened
and further that the F-35 is functionally three separate aircraft, with much less commonality than earlier envisioned. “[E]ven the [then] Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are only 20–25 percent common.”


structure?

That % difference doesn't comprise just delays or flight performance.


what are you trying to say here?

One can of course claim that the CRS is lying to congress but consider then their source...


indeed Its the definitive source, except when its not. people are only ever honest with congress, and the congresspeople even more so.

Regardless, that's a major contributory factor why I think NGAD will not be distracted by a STOVL requirement.


I think the only one still stuck on that troll post is you at this point.


quicksilver wrote:When reality doesn’t work, just create your own narrative. Very 21st Century stuff...
[/quote][/quote]

indeed

quicksilver wrote:A little refresher —

The reality is that the Navy was the outlier, requirements-wise. They needed/wanted more range and more internal weapons carriage; that’s gonna be a bigger, heavier aircraft. The USAF and the USMC, in general terms, wanted less of those — the USAF for cost (something to replace F-16s in large numbers), and the USMC because “larger/heavier” doesn’t get ‘em STOVL. If one goes back to ASTOVL, the only internal weapons carriage envisioned was for A-A weapons. Early USAF JAST weapons carriage was 1000# JDAM, not the 2K#. No one in the USAF envisioned OWEs at or above 30K# back in the 90s; no one. The USMC got snippy with one contractor when they briefed an early STOVL design with an OWE of 26K# (!!; it weighs ~33k# today).

The old axiom held true — you buy jets by the pound. The USAF sure as s___ didn’t need ‘more expensive’ and the USMC similarly didn’t need less STOVL/VLBB. So how did those jets get so heavy?


correct, and well put to boot.

quicksilver wrote:Re: ‘commonality.’

Commonality was not an ‘operational requirement.’ It was, however — to the degree that it was going to be achievable — a means to achieve the primary goal of ‘affordability.’ What few discuss anymore are the elements of ‘cost commonality’ — what are the largest components of cost, and to what degree are those elements common across the each of the variants? Which of those drive the most cost in terms of LCC? Most of the time everyone defaults to commonality of structural components, which I’m guessing is not even close to a driver in LCC.


exactly:

Many of the three versions’ high-cost components—including their engines, avionics, and major airframe structural components—are common. Overall, however, commonality has fallen well short of that goal

other than the expensive high-cost components— like engines, avionics, and major airframe structural components, "WTF have you done for me today??"


zhangmdev wrote:If that is just about the airframes and structures, no one should seriously expect to have 80 percent commonality across the three variants. All those doors and actuators on B. Those bigger wings and tails on C. Different IPP exhaust. Different aerial refuelling hardware. Have or not have a gun. Landing gears. Those are just superficial differences. The 70% to 90% commonality goal/plan was set too optimistically.


This is where Shrodingers F-35 comes in. what is and what isn't? As you mention, if we wanted to keep things common that means the USAF and the USMC would be slaved to the USN's undercarriage. But theyre not, thus performance it presevered by commonality is now "compromised"

critics are constantly complaining the airplane is too joint, but also not joint enough. I'm not even sure what weasel is arguing at this point.

quicksilver wrote:
Although an oft-repeated catechism, not sure anything was ever ‘set.’...

...Hence my observation about “cost commonality.”


You're on a roll today 8)

The remaining significant issue involves higher-than-expected preliminary weight estimates of F-35 structural elements. The issue -- mostly attributable to structural arrangement, load paths and design immaturity (owing to the early stage of the program) -- is under intense study.”


Quickmate was a mistake. it was a little bit "too clever by half"

again as many have said, and in differnce to the "if you don't believe the CRS, then you must think they are lying to congress" minefield, how one defines "commonality" is going to be pretty complex.

Image

the structural commonality is peanuts to compared to the real money. Which was the point I made earlier. if one is whining that the F-35C and F-35A are not sharing a common door hinge, then I think you've missed the bigger picture.

as long as I have some people mad at me, I might as well make all people mad at me. The Navy and not the USMC had more influence on the F-35. The unique requirement of crash landing on a ship and being shot off the front, is far more unique and complicated than creating a reliable lift system, keeping weight low, and fixing the tires for lateral stress of a vertical landing. Providing the lift system is good to go, its not the show stopper people claimed. Beyond the unique CVN requirements the USN made an absolute nusence of itself regarding the 2K bomb requirement.

to put it anecdotally, the USMC was more than happy to let the USAF spend big bucks and put fun gizmos on a jet they would never be able to get themselves so long as it STOVLed. the USAF was in the lead and the USMC and USAF were like peas in a pod. As Quicksilver pointed out "we want it lighter more than heavier. We also want it lighter more than heavier! hooray!" It was really the US Navy that threw a lot of that out the window. A lot of the boxes were getting checked with Super Hornet as well, so they wanted more, more, more.

The original plan was "its a STOVL airplane, but instead of a lift fan, we just throw in a gas tank" remarkably straightforward.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6986
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 21:28

if we are saying "only 25 percent is common" thats far lower than hoped. however, if we are saying

$-Engines
$-avionics
$-major airframe structural components

+PLUS+

*25 percent commonality on other less costly airframe components

are common, then I think that paints a very different picture, especially when we remember that engines and avionics are the most expensive aspects of a 21st century fighter. Before we get into other aspects like joint bases, simulators, logistics, personnel training, etc. its essentially unmeasurable success. if they want to have all 3 services do all 3 different pursuits they will pay more and get less, I promise.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests