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

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25728
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 22:21

I think this 4 page PDF about the 'weight reduction' by SWAT of the F-35 has been posted before but it is posted again in reference to the long quote by 'XC' above from the article at: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 17183/?all
Attachments
Weight Watchers _ Military Aviation _ Air & Space Magazine PRN pp4 Forum.pdf
(481.66 KiB) Downloaded 54 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post12 Apr 2021, 02:35

Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset). Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.

Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post12 Apr 2021, 11:59

There isn’t going to be a ‘stovl NGAD.’ You have been around here long enough to understand why — in terms of both service desirement for such a thing (less than zero) and technical viability (none...at least in the real world).

Move on.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3116
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Apr 2021, 14:13

weasel1962 wrote:Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks?


Like others have told you there's no need or desire for a 'NGAD STOVL'.
Actually from the very scarce information that we have about NGAD (planned to be a long range air superiority aircraft), STOVL is the antithesis of NGAD!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post12 Apr 2021, 15:40

weasel1962 wrote:Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset).


its funny the "pundits" you choose to believe and those you don't.

"probation" was a mostly a symbolic word as used by the SecDef. And yes delays were expected with this program, like many programs.

I will admit though, You are certainly right that in the year 2011 The SecDef would completely invent some meaningless word to describe an unofficial phase. Had Gates put F-35B on "disquisition" it would have been equally baffling, especially since that's a meaningless phrase in official capacity. So you are right, probation was something that no one could have anticipated because it was completely invented and disappeared with Gates.

When critics of the program convinced Secretary Gates to put the F-35B on probation in 2011, the Marines did not waver, even in the face of mounting criticism and wavering support for the plane inside the Pentagon. At the time, then-Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the deputy Commandant for aviation, said: “We knew that the problems with the aircraft were relatively minor and could be easily corrected. We were also confident that the UK would eventually reverse their hasty decision to opt for another JSF variant. For the Marine Corps and our allies, the F-35B represents an exponential increase in operational capability and there never was a moment when we considered taking a different TACAIR path.”

Muh cancelation!!

And it was never at in "real risk of cancellation" for anyone in the know. That was the leap many aviation writers and the internet came to believe. It was basically a symbolic gesture by Gates, that was ended with a new secdef. It was a "slap on the wrist" , and not much really changed on the ground. The goal was to get the F-35B ready for war, just like it was in 2010, like in 2011, like in 2012, like in 2013 and on until it was declared IOC and then from there keep making it better.

You'd be surprised how many people in the F-35/JSF program are either completely unaware of the rumors and jumped conclusions posted about it online, and those who are aware of the "prognostications" online are amazed at their inaccuracy. not surprisingly those working on the program are more aware of the reality of the program vs the myths.

Weasel fell for it though! I hope the bait was tasty, but what you are going to do with that hook in your mouth I have no idea. Trying putting your foot in your mouth to pull it out. I hear that works.

The "two year probation" lasted barely one year, and disappeared as quickly as it came with a new boss. It was a nothingburger blown out of proportion to the point where people thought the B and possibly the whole JSF would be canceled via domino effect.

TL:DR? your bad argument is bad and its not really true to people in the know. the Marines I knew weren't sweating it anymore than they had with JSF before, during, and after probation. And of course the USAF was never planning to bother with STOVL even on the F-35.


I do enjoy the parroting, just keeping repeating whatever you heard. It has to be true while whining about "pundits"

Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.


Throw it at a wall, and see what sticks?


*Sigh* lets break it down again:

A troll post joked about a STOVL NGAD

Weasel says "thats not likely"-- a position here everyone agrees with, if only because the USAF has never expressed interest in STOVL at all. Quite doggedly in fact.

Where it all went wrong: Weasel starts posting disproven (though oft repeated BS) that the USAF F-35 performance, then delays, then production ( the goal posts never stop moving, and of course there was for some silly reason no mention of how the F-35C could have caused compromises-- thats always fine) suffered thanks to a program that had always had STOVL in it. From day one.

Theres no way of knowing how the USAF "feels" about the F-35 and STOVL, since we have no idea what their feelings were in the first place vs how they "feel" about it now

There was no other competitive program to even measure it against. Unlike the viable YF-23, theres no "coulda shoulda woulda" to even really talk about, since JSF was the only game in town, and the X-32 which is also a JSF, sucked out loud.

So weasel started making lots of assertions and pulling anything he could find in an effort to prove himself right. Even lots of stuff that he has no idea what really happened about,

Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.


I don't think anyone thinks NGAD is going to be STOVL, Just like I don't think anyone thinkg NGAD will be CVN capable. the problem and argument was when you decided to drag JSF into it. :roll:


My point regarding the USAF/JSF/STOVL, was simply that you can't really know or prove what you claim. Which is why you're clutching at straws now, and in that desperation youre posting whatever you can find in an effort to refute myself and others that actually have some better info, thank to our work, experience, our buddies or both.

I hate to bother you with logic, but in order to know someone's expectations were not met, we must first know their expectations correct?

Image

and of course no one is even saying their expectations weren't met in the first place. :roll:
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 01:22

lol, when someone takes a stand that EVERYONE from the DoD, secdef + entire government is lying about STOVL issues, what's the point of any sauce? Taking it bland and Moving along.

Nice f"lying" concept pic of NGAD attributed to the USAF has arisen. Twin engined.
NGAD pic.jpg
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 02:30

weasel1962 wrote:lol, when someone takes a stand that EVERYONE from the DoD, secdef + entire government is lying about STOVL issues, what's the point of any sauce?


pot meet kettle:

weasel1962 wrote:After all the criticism of the USMC requirements restricting the F-35 from achieving its full potential, the USAF isn't going to, and rightfully has not distracted NGAD with this requirement.



"EVERYONE from the DoD, secdef + entire government" never said "USMC requirements" were ":restricting the F-35 from achieving its full potential" either-- which by your own measure would make weasel the liar about STOVL issues as the official position of the above entities is that what he says is false and have never suggested such :mrgreen:


Don't shoot self. Smart!


pure irony, as he is undone by his very own words




Image

why its practically its own flying tanker!!! :lmao:
Last edited by XanderCrews on 13 Apr 2021, 03:38, edited 4 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25728
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 02:41

NGAD UNclear Graphic may be found Physical page 28 (or numbered pages 55-55): https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/ ... _final.pdf (10.3Mb)
"Next Generation Air Dominance
A highly advanced dynamic threat demands a different way of doing business. Next Generation Air Dominance is a family of capabilities that enable Air Superiority in the most challenging operational environments by enforcing the development pillars of digital engineering, agile software development, and open architectures. By executing shorter technology development cycles, the program matures technology and reduces risk through prototyping and operational experimentation. This delivers enhancements in survivability, lethality, and persistence for a highly-contested
environment.

Designed to complement the F-35, F-22, joint, and partner forces in the Air Superiority role, Next Generation Air Dominance is an advanced aircraft program for development of penetrating counter air platforms with multi-domain situational awareness, agile resilient communications, and an integrated family of capabilities. The program uses a non-traditional acquisition approach to avoid traditional monolithic program schedules and exorbitant life-cycle sustainment costs. This strategy, called the Digital Century Series approach, creates a realistic business case for industry to adopt
commercial best practices for key design activities - before a part is even manufactured."
Attachments
NGADconceptUSAF2021.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 03:20

lol. That's a new addition to the weasel dictionary on the meaning of "lying" albeit with good intentions i.e "symbolic gesture to critics". Clinton-esque.

What I found interesting as well from Spaz's sauce (pg 28/29, pdf pg 15).

The Skyborg Vanguard integrates Artificial Intelligence (AI) with autonomous Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) to enable airborne combat mass by building a transferable autonomy foundation for a family of layered, unmanned air vehicles....If successful, Skyborg will transition AI-enabled, low-cost, attritable aircraft technology (LCA AT) via the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program or new program of record. In March 2019, the first LCA AT, the XQ-58A Valkyrie, demonstrated high subsonic speeds at operationally relevant altitudes and payload capacities.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 03:56

weasel1962 wrote:lol. That's a new addition to the weasel dictionary on the meaning of "lying" albeit with good intentions i.e "symbolic gesture to critics". Clinton-esque.



I'm still not connecting the probation with what you claimed in the first place, and you have no official sources to back your claims as it is. its just another attempt at finding anything bad and posting it. for some reason Gates using probation is considered "evidence" somehow, even though there's no connection to what you claimed ever mentioned there.

Even more Damning Steve and others were posting articles that directly refuted your claim to begin with

so on one hand we have specific sources speaking specifically against the original assertion, and on the other side, we have someone just posting everything he can and moving the goal posts with no connections to the assertion as "proof" and anyone who disagrees with him is somehow going against official government sources that....


wait for it....


Also don't support the original assertion

why are you posting about probation when you should be finding official government sources like you listed that support the assertion. The Burden of proof is on Weasel. He's provided none that say what he claims, just tangents
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 04:20

weasel1962 wrote:Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset). Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.

Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.


No one said ‘no issue’ but you; F-35B problems in early flight test are well documented in at least two DOT&E Annual Reports — 2011 and 2012. Here’s the link to the 2011 report; see page 7 of the document. All were eventually favorably resolved, but halfway thru the prescribed ‘probation’ period, progress was deemed sufficient for the new SecDef to remove the jet from its probationary status.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 112220-457

As a friend who once worked on the USG side of the program told me at the time — “...these are not mortal wounds. American engineers sent men to the moon over 40 years ago; we can fix a few doors in 2011.”

However, the point here today (that you don’t seem to understand) is that no one in the USG is asking for a stovl ngad variant —no one. Not the Marines, not the Navy (they would rather eat raw chicken), and certainly not the USAF.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 15:59

quicksilver wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset). Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.

Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.


No one said ‘no issue’ but you; F-35B problems in early flight test are well documented in at least two DOT&E Annual Reports — 2011 and 2012. Here’s the link to the 2011 report; see page 7 of the document. All were eventually favorably resolved, but halfway thru the prescribed ‘probation’ period, progress was deemed sufficient for the new SecDef to remove the jet from its probationary status.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 112220-457

As a friend who once worked on the USG side of the program told me at the time — “...these are not mortal wounds. American engineers sent men to the moon over 40 years ago; we can fix a few doors in 2011.”

However, the point here today (that you don’t seem to understand) is that no one in the USG is asking for a stovl ngad variant —no one. Not the Marines, not the Navy (they would rather eat raw chicken), and certainly not the USAF.


Yep, and this is my problem This is why I'm frustrated. Weasel made a claim. theres no direct evidence to back that claim. So he is finding any problem he can regardless of a lack of connection. No one is saying theres no problems with STOVL, the original claim was not that there was "no problems" the original claim was that the F-35 failed to live up to its "potentional" thanks to STOVL. Seeing as the F-35A, and F-35C also had problems, (not to mention the USN's big impact on requirements) and our other "control group" of F-22, Super Hornet, hell even F-16 (which liked to lawn dart), F-15, and F-14 (crashed on its maiden flight) also had problems, one can assume that means they are flawed permanently, compromised and never lived up to their potential. STOVL is such an odd ball in the public mind, that a lot of people fail to see plenty of other programs, even the perfect mission specific, USAF only, no jointness, little multi-role F-22 suffered severe problems. Did the Marines sneak STOVL onto that one when I was looking before the UK signed on? I completely missed it.

This is why i say Weasel moved the goal posts. it would be extremely hard at even first blush to say the USAF was upset at STOVL after deliberately signing up to a STOVL program, and even harder still without a competing program to actually play the "coulda shoulda woulda" game, and it would be exceltionally difficult indeed to actually get real insider info that specifically spells out how STOVL, and STOVL alone hurt the F-35 within the USAF's expectations-- without the USAF ever having published such specific expectations to begin with. In other words Weasel is sharing his opinion and then using anything he can find on the F-35B as a confirmation bias. We've watched him go through several iterations of the argument from performance to commonality over the last few pages, because he got unglued at being called a liar and started clutching at straws.

The onus in on Weasel to prove his claim, and others have already posted their own evidence contradicting the claim within 1 post of him making it. Again I look forward to seeing the evidence because it would extremely insightful, and would shed new and interesting light on the JSF program.

its exceedingly difficult to prove even if true because one starts "dealing in futures" and other hypotheticals and alternate realities. I got to hear how the Sikorsky S-92 would be a great Osprey alternative and would be safer, but as reality as played out S-92 liked to crash and kill people too, but without the V-22 benefits. Funny how things work out. I'm also reminded of the "half as much" Super Hornet in Canada. How did that work out again?

lastly I am a little mad at myself, because as Weasel sent up every distraction action he could, I allowed myself to be distracted instead of demanding that very specific proof of his original argument. Weasel even went so far as to claim anyone who disagreed or had a different perepective about the edicts handed down from on high was acquiescing people of being liars in a classic fallacious appeal to authority. as we all know officials never get things wrong! look at the JSF! so anyone pointing out that they're not really being accurate, or ham-fisted, or indeed even being less than honest-- is equivalent to calling them a liar. This is a very interesting tack to take on a program that has seen a lot of lets say "changes" over the past 2 decades. If everything official said about the F-35 is to be taken as flatly true, then things are going to be really dull around here. In a incredible turn, the DoD has often contradicted even itself on many occasions, with the USMC (I'm pretty sure theyre in the DoD) not agreeing with the SecDef. The USAF had a huge brawl over the F-22 with the exact same secdef in fact. You can imagine my confusion here, as Weasel tells me the US military (Indeed "EVERYONE" in the the "entire government") is one massive hive mind akin to the Borg in Star Trek, that there couldn't possible being multiple opinions. The USAF and USMC simply can't disagree with Gates-- that would be against their programming. So the USMC saying something as bland as "yeah probation didn't really change much" (and yes I posted a quote that said pretty much that) must mean theyre liars? or is it gates? are they all liars? none? Even within the entire government we have contradictions. I can't help but notice that what DOT&E say is often at odds with the JPO. Which of these definitive sources are lying, and how is it possible for the Borg to disagree in the first place?

As you can imagine Weasels "logic" has landed me in an existential philosophical crises. The drinking is helping of course, but I'm running out of rum. If the government is never wrong, then the F-35 was always at its full potential from the start.


So once again Weasel, Sauce on your original claim?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2021, 17:03

quicksilver wrote:https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 112220-457

As a friend who once worked on the USG side of the program told me at the time — “...these are not mortal wounds. American engineers sent men to the moon over 40 years ago; we can fix a few doors in 2011.”



Yep and there's significant lag, more than a few times I've gotten to hear complaints about how DOT&E is publishing problems that have been fixed in the meantime. This isn't a surprise as the test reports are submitted to DOT&E after the test have found problems and solutions are being implemented. Many times huge stinks have been raised about things that are already solved, and well after the original problem was discovered. "Probation" changed very little, the priority was to fix the airplane, just like before probation, during probation, and after probation. Probation somehow meant the USMC and partners were supposed to "fix it harder!!" and of course "if we can't get it to work, it will be canceled" is an ever present and obvious summary isn't it?

Its not unlike one of the famous battles surrounding the hills at Khe Sanh where an officer later noted he had no idea how politically charged and controversial the battles were until after he got back to the US and learned later, stating at the time "my job was to take the hill" in terms of engineering and wrench turning the objective was the exact same, and the stakes were the exact same as well. There was a A Marine officer in the early 2010s who publicly stated their "Plan B" with F-35 was "try even harder" and so it was no secret what the priority level was and still is for the USMC.

As you point out as well, none of these were show stoppers anyway. For all the things that could have gone wrong with the STOVL liftfan system its been amazing in terms of its function and reliability. Teething issues are annoying and occasionally frustrating, but engineers seek solutions in the end, not doomsday despair.

“We knew that the problems with the aircraft were relatively minor and could be easily corrected. We were also confident that the UK would eventually reverse their hasty decision to opt for another JSF variant. For the Marine Corps and our allies, the F-35B represents an exponential increase in operational capability and there never was a moment when we considered taking a different TACAIR path.”

Now, with the decision by Gen. Joseph Dunford, Marine Commandant, to declare the F-35B operationally ready, one should focus on how the plane will impact the other US services and the allies. The declaration of IOC is not a huge event in and of itself. Instead, it is the starting point on a decade of fundamental transformation made possible by the emergence of an F-35 global fleet.

This global fleet will build a foundation for a fundamental change in the way air power operates in overall combat concepts of operations. The impact of an integrated fleet with fused data for pilots and also distributed information to other sources, will allow the US and its allies to rethink how to do 21st century air-enabled operations.

Core US allies soon to go IOC with their own F-35Bs see the Marines as change agents. A key example is Britain’s Royal Air Force, which is training with the Marines in the United States, and will build their first operational squadron in the United States and then fly to the UK in 2017 to embark on their new carrier.

The UK Case

At Beaufort, as at Luke AFB between the USAF and the RAAF, planes are pooled. As Squadron Leader Hugh Nichols from the RAF and based at Beaufort noted: “Our aircraft are pooled with those of the Marines, and we fly aircraft in the pool, not just the UK jet.”

He then went on to note that: “The Marines have done a fantastic job working through previous program difficulties and have blazed a trail towards bringing this next generation capability into service. They are Marines, and if anything gets in the way, they deal with it.
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post15 Apr 2021, 07:52

quicksilver wrote:However, the point here today (that you don’t seem to understand) is that no one in the USG is asking for a stovl ngad variant —no one. Not the Marines, not the Navy (they would rather eat raw chicken), and certainly not the USAF.


Since when did I say that any service wants a STOVL for NGAD? Really where?

How many variations of
Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.
do I need to post before someone stops attributing falsehoods to what I'm saying.

Its especially galling considering some other pundit appear to claim I can't prove that NGAD will not exclude STOVL.

Might be useful to clarify again what I don't seem to understand. I'm not the one claiming NGAD should have STOVL.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post16 Apr 2021, 06:58

weasel1962 wrote:Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset). Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.

Asking myself would the USAF want to go thru that with an NGAD STOVL and take that kind of risks? I sincerely doubt so. I don't see the benefit and haven't read anything that would suggest otherwise.


FYI, the F-35's width was based on its ability to carry 2000lb class weapons internally. The lift fan was designed to fit the constraints of the airframe, not the other way around. That's why the engineer to who designed the lift fan won an engineering award for the development of the lift fan and shaft.

Another FYI, to generate lift you can have a bigger fan or higher RPMs on the fan. The engineer opted for higher RPMs so the fan could be smaller. That's also why the F-35B has a lower range, because the lift fan occupies space that is reserved for fuel in the other variants.
Last edited by kimjongnumbaun on 16 Apr 2021, 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 34 guests