History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4656
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Francis Urquhart wrote:
The F-20 was a wholly Northrop project while the F-18L was seen as a MacDac transplant.

Which is ironic, because the F-18L is actually just a Northrop P-530 that's been through a cycle of McDonnell Douglas making it into a Navy plane then Northrop undoing all the changes.

One can't help but wondering how badly Northrop screwed up on the F-20 that it cost the same as an aircraft twice the size, capable of twice the payload and rather more than twice the range.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
RLBH wrote:
One can't help but wondering how badly Northrop screwed up on the F-20 that it cost the same as an aircraft twice the size, capable of twice the payload and rather more than twice the range.

Not necessarily a screw-up (although the F-20 was all of that) but the F-18L has some 71 percent commonality with the F/A-18A and all the major (ie expensive) systems are common. So, the F-18L benefits a lot from economy of scale due to the big Navy orders. The F-20 has to carry all its own costs - its essentially a new aircraft with a superficial resemblance to the F-5.

Despite the F-20 cliques claims, there really is almost no difference in costs between the F-20, the F-16 and the F-18L. That's the real secret behind the death of the F-20; everybody who looked at it knew the F-16 was the better deal and as soon as Carter was out the way, guess what they bought.

If its any consolation, the F-18L does crop up in the TBOverse but its made in India (The Hindustan Hornet F.(something) with the navalized version being the Hornet FGR (something).

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 pm
Posts: 6173
How did the F-16/79 come out in comparison?

_________________
Faugh a Ballagh


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Behind a computer
Well gents... I think I have found my fighter aircraft for the story. Would the Cambodians opt for a two seater or single seat F 18L?

_________________
"Fight and Flourish"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:39 am
Posts: 335
Location: UK
RLBH wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
The F-20 was a wholly Northrop project while the F-18L was seen as a MacDac transplant.

Which is ironic, because the F-18L is actually just a Northrop P-530 that's been through a cycle of McDonnell Douglas making it into a Navy plane then Northrop undoing all the changes.


Not really, the P-530 Cobra was the Northrop entry to the LWF programme, which was just to see what could be done with existing technology, a 'proof-of-concept/technology demonstrator' design. The follow-on F/A-18 is very much based on the Cobra but is a rather larger machine; as near as I can equate it, if the P-530 were the Mirage 2000 (but with two engines), the F/A-18 would be the Mirage 4000.

. . . but in service.

The F-18L was essentially the F/A-18 with all the water-borne bits taken out; lighter nosewheel assembly (no need for tow-bar attachment), no wing-folding, no under-fusalage store stations, no carrier-compatible arrestor hook, and so on. At seven thousand pounds lighter I would expect a correspondingly small, but still noticable, increase in performance across the board.

I do remember seeing photos of it, or at least a mock-up, in a USAF 'Nevada Desert' -style paint job while the aircraft was being touted to Israel, the UAE and possibly Egypt as a next-generation swing-fighter. Despite being lighter than the stock navy machine it would still have straddled the middleweight ground between the heavy-weight F15 and lightweight F16A. In which case I doubt very much the IDF would have been interested, and Egypt got ex-USAF F16 later in the decade.

However, if we can get rid of McDonnell's corporate sabotage and an early admission by Northrop the F-20 is a non-starter, then we have a much better chance of F-18L sales to the Middle East, with potentially harmful effects on the British military aircraft industry.

IF Northrop can swing sales of the F-18L to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, several things start to happen. The Omanis get a replacement for their Jaguars, and this time a proper fighter and not a good strike aircraft that can double as a fighter. The UAE get the same aircraft, so we have a common pool of aircraft with a possible sharing of assets and maintenance; a Northrop support and maintenance franchise in the Gulf?

Importantly if the Saudis choose the F-18L will they then still succumb to BAe's bribery attempts to get them to buy the Tornado GR and F models. Will they then still need to buy the F15 Strike Eagle? If not, will the Israelis be a little less touchy about the 'threat' from the Saudis? Will they then show more interest in the F-18L ("well if they've all got it, what do they know that we don't" sort of thinking)?

With a potentially massive buy of F-18Ls in the Gulf Northrop will be in a position to tout the aircraft to the Far East, as well as shadow the upgrades McDonnel make to the F/A18 fleet. How well, I wonder, would a Northrop Sandbug/Super Sandbug fare in the South Korean, Malaysian, Indonesian and Japanese programmes to replace their legacy aircraft?

How would BAe cope without anyone to bribe?

Just a thought . . .

_________________
Andy L

"Never trust anything you have to sign for. Look what happened to Neville Chamberlain...."
(Albert Arkright, as reported by Gerald Whiley)

"Leave Us . . . We Are DECORATING!" (Miss Quill, as recounted by Katherine Kelly)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:23 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
Andy L wrote:
The F-18L was essentially the F/A-18 with all the water-borne bits taken out; lighter nosewheel assembly (no need for tow-bar attachment), no wing-folding, no under-fusalage store stations, no carrier-compatible arrestor hook, and so on. At seven thousand pounds lighter I would expect a correspondingly small, but still noticable, increase in performance across the board.

There was a bit more to it than that; although losing 7,700 pounds is a lot on a 30,000 pound aircraft. Some of the weight saved was reinvested in beefing the structure up (at different points from the navy version). The under-fuselage hardpoint thing isn't strictly true; the F-18L had a centerline point that was actually braced for heavier loads than the F/A-18. What it did lose were the under-glove hardpoints since one of the structural weight investments was stiffening the wings and the tip points on the F-18L could handle an AIM-7.

Quote:
IF Northrop can swing sales of the F-18L to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, several things start to happen. The Omanis get a replacement for their Jaguars, and this time a proper fighter and not a good strike aircraft that can double as a fighter. The UAE get the same aircraft, so we have a common pool of aircraft with a possible sharing of assets and maintenance; a Northrop support and maintenance franchise in the Gulf? Importantly if the Saudis choose the F-18L will they then still succumb to BAe's bribery attempts to get them to buy the Tornado GR and F models. Will they then still need to buy the F15 Strike Eagle? If not, will the Israelis be a little less touchy about the 'threat' from the Saudis? Will they then show more interest in the F-18L ("well if they've all got it, what do they know that we don't" sort of thinking)? With a potentially massive buy of F-18Ls in the Gulf Northrop will be in a position to tout the aircraft to the Far East, as well as shadow the upgrades McDonnel make to the F/A18 fleet. How well, I wonder, would a Northrop Sandbug/Super Sandbug fare in the South Korean, Malaysian, Indonesian and Japanese programmes to replace their legacy aircraft?

We call this sort of thing "Couldashouldawoulda." Yes, what you say is possible but real life is so much more complex, its impossible to say with certainty what would happen. Each of the sales would have been a bitterly fought competition with highly-irregular goings on. Even a US-only competition would be very complex with a three cornered fight between the F-16, the F-18L and the F-15. Add in international competition and it gets to be a Charlie Fox beyond compare. One ironic thing that might well happen is that the F-18L would have had a quite formidable strike capability even though it was primarily a fighter. Certainly much more than the Mirage 2000 could offer (The Mirage 2000 has three air-to-surface attack modes. Bomb It. Strafe It. Crash on It.) So, in a competition where two of the three US aircraft are formidable strike aircraft and one is a bit less than that, there may be a lot of pressure on the French to come up with a real strike aircraft. They will not sell the Jaguar (the hatred in the French aviation industry for the Jaguar is pronounced even today) so what do they offer? Could we see the Mirage 4000 actually becoming a bit more real?

Perhaps not, but situations like this are very unpredictable. Fanboys like to plot out a route by which their favored aircraft of the month conquers the world but in reality things just don't work that way. The one thing we can say with confidence is that the critical (++ critical) is to get that first sale. If the first sale effort isn't successful, the next becomes much harder and if that isn't successful, the next is exponentially harder still. Three or four unsuccessful sales in, the project is effectively dead. That's why most projects fail. That mechanism is why the F-16 killed off a whole generation of alternatives. It had its first sale, it was being used by the domestic Air Force; that placed it in the pole position for any sale. Even then it didn't win them all.

La Rouge Beret wrote:
Well gents... I think I have found my fighter aircraft for the story. Would the Cambodians opt for a two seater or single seat F 18L?


Both!. Mix of single and two-seaters. Two seaters used for conversion training, pilot familiarization and as the lead aircraft for PGM strikes. Single seaters for general duties. 16 singles and 2 twins is a good structure; if one is using the twins more extensively, 12 + 4 is worth considering.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4656
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Andy L wrote:
Not really, the P-530 Cobra was the Northrop entry to the LWF programme, which was just to see what could be done with existing technology, a 'proof-of-concept/technology demonstrator' design.

The P-530 was really an evolution of designs, starting with a souped-up F-5 and becoming an all-weather multirole fighter aimed at replacing the F-104G. It was cut down to make the day-only, air-to-air only P-600 for the LWF program - essentially a stalking horse to get the F-16 signed off by Congress. If the USAF had been serious about an F-16 competitor they'd have gone for the Boeing competitor (basically an F-16 clone) or the smaller, lighter, single-engined P-610.

In turning the YF-17 into the F/A-18, it put on 11,000 pounds between adding back the multirole capability and navalising it. The F-18L was to have been 7,700 pounds lighter than the F/A-18A, essentially reversing the navalisation but keeping the multirole capability. That makes it the ultimate P-530 to my mind.

The Greeks seriously liked the F-18L - it actually beat the F-16 and Mirage 2000 in their fighter competition, but politics beat technical considerations so the buy was split between the second and third place. Canada was interested too, but didn't want to be the first buyer of a new type; Northrop felt that Australia, the Netherlands and Norway were also good prospects and proposed co-production arrangements.

There was also a recce version proposed, if that's of any use....

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2013
Location: Georgia
At least based on the mockup, it looks like the intake stations were kept for targeting pods. At that point (to me) I'd think you might as well keep AIM-7 capability there, too, but I don't know what they actually did or why.

It still amuses me that the popular "lesson" of the LWF program is that a stripped-down lightweight maneuverable airplane without all the gee-whiz stuff is what you want... when both competitors wound up getting all that stuff later on, and it's that stuff that made them as successful as they are.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13326
Location: At the computer, or tablet.
The only issue I can see with the F-18L is that it was not bought by America. The whole 'as used by the USAF/USN/USMC' does seem to matter when selling products. Similarly several British warship designs have failed to sell because they were not used by the RN.

Do wonder as well if it would not simply be easier and cheaper for Cambodia to do what Canada, Spain and Australia did. Buy what was pretty much the bog-standard F/A-18A.

_________________
Adrian Carton de Wiart, VC wrote:
Frankly I had enjoyed the war...and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Behind a computer
Some excellent points raised by some very knowledgeable posters, the sheer level of competition between the F 16 / FA 18 / F 18L for orders would drive down profit margins for all manufacturers. It would also spur production line efficiencies, earlier application of six sigma? Potentially, the F 18L unit cost could be lower than the original F/A 18.

Two questions would the Hornet / Cobra squadron train 60 / 40 breakup of air to air vs air to ground, and what are some cost effective force multiplier options for the Hornet / Cobra?

Secondly, is anyone able to provide some thought on the Strategic Reserve OOB?

_________________
"Fight and Flourish"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 1574
One big issue with F-18L is the need for a large launch order for someone to become the design owner. A complex military system like a fighter jet needs a parts and logistics system set up, procedures written and maintained, airframes tested for fatigue at a range of configurations and mission profiles, and the inevitable life extensions tested, accidents investigated and modifications recommended, weapons systems integrated and tested, training procedures set up and maintained and upgrades specified, developed and rolled out.

Buy F16 and the USAF does this all for you. Buy F18A and the USN/Marines do it for you. I am sure Northrop would do this for you too, for the life of the aircraft, at cost +30%.

Buy 20 or 40 one off fighters, and the costs and the risks are yours alone. Find a well resourced launch order, then other small orders can follow much more easily.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Behind a computer
My initial thought was that the RAAF could be the launch customer for the F - 18L, a fleet of 80 - 100 airframes would seem large enough to develop the doctrine / procedures etc. Now if Australia purchases the F - 18L, then it is likely that the RCAF IMO would as well and perhaps RNZAF replaces rather than upgrades their Scooters. In this scenario there are approximately 200 aircraft in service, which would seem sufficient for the kinks to be worked out.

_________________
"Fight and Flourish"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 1192
Francis Urquhart wrote:
So, in a competition where two of the three US aircraft are formidable strike aircraft and one is a bit less than that, there may be a lot of pressure on the French to come up with a real strike aircraft. They will not sell the Jaguar (the hatred in the French aviation industry for the Jaguar is pronounced even today) so what do they offer? Could we see the Mirage 4000 actually becoming a bit more real?
Francis, can you elaborate on the hatred for the Jaguar by the French aviation industry?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:50 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
James1978 wrote:
Francis, can you elaborate on the hatred for the Jaguar by the French aviation industry?

Basically, the problem with the Jaguar always was that it wasn't produced by Dassault. The French originally wanted a basic trainer to replace the Fouga Magister; the British wanted an advanced trainer to replace the Gnat and Hunter with the ability to serve as a strike aircraft. The basis was the Breuget 121 but by the time the aircraft had been modified to meet British requirements, there wasn't much left of the original. Then, the design was further modified into a front-line strike aircraft.

Now, at this time, Dassault were pushing the Super Etendard and the Mirage F.1 hard and Dassault do not like competition or rivals. However, the worst crime the Jaguar committed was that it was an Anglo-French product which meant the French companies only got half the profits from each aircraft sale. Dassault hate splitting profits even more than they hate competition. Now, things got ugly when Dassault took over Breuget and this Breuget's share in SEPECAT. Dassault sales people were caught using confidential sales information from SEPECAT to further sales of the Mirage F.1 and, particularly using bid data on Jaguar to underbid with their F.1. When they were accused of this, they laughed it off and said British companies did the same thing with sales of the Hunter (!!!).

To this day, the French aviation industry gets quite nasty if people mention Jaguar. It was regarded as a scheme to trick them out of sales of French aircraft and replace those sales with half-French/half-British aircraft. Dassault still regard Jaguar as having cheated them out of the sales that should have gone to the Mirage G.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6017
Location: Cambs, UK
But isn't that French SOP?

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4656
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Francis Urquhart wrote:
To this day, the French aviation industry gets quite nasty if people mention Jaguar. It was regarded as a scheme to trick them out of sales of French aircraft and replace those sales with half-French/half-British aircraft. Dassault still regard Jaguar as having cheated them out of the sales that should have gone to the Mirage G.

To which the only reasonable response is that the British aviation industry of the day didn't seem to be capable of building aircraft that met the specification, schedule and budget - much less engage in a cloak-and-dagger scheme to undermine the French aviation industry!

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1106
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
Would Mirage G have been any good?

24-30 Mirage G.1E would IMO be a very nice air group for the French carriers.

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Behind a computer
If the Cambodians commence the tender process for fighter aircraft in 1984, what aircraft would form part of the competitive process? Noting the competitiveness of the tender proposal, what political / economic packages could be included as part of the deal by the competitors? Just a thought prompted by the discussions of other posters, perhaps leading to an outcome, whereby the politicians end up at odds with the military's preferred choice.

_________________
"Fight and Flourish"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5530
La Rouge Beret wrote:
If the Cambodians commence the tender process for fighter aircraft in 1984, what aircraft would form part of the competitive process? Noting the competitiveness of the tender proposal, what political / economic packages could be included as part of the deal by the competitors? Just a thought prompted by the discussions of other posters, perhaps leading to an outcome, whereby the politicians end up at odds with the military's preferred choice.

Essentially, they'd be looking at three main competitors and a minor one.

For the US, it would be the F-16.
The French would be trying to sell the Mirage 2000.
The Soviets would be boosting the MiG-29 or the Su-27, probably the former.

The minor competitor would be the SAAB JA-37, but that plane is getting long in the tooth.

Considering the location of Cambodia, and the closeness to Vietnam in @, the Soviets are almost certain to get the bid. Given the GDP and numbers, they will most likely provide the MiG-29, plus a decent spares inventory, in exchange for 'technical advisors' and general support for Soviet activities in the region. The US bid will not likely be a real competitive one, because of Cambodia's position in the Soviet sphere of influence. The French will sell to pretty much anyone, but will compete on price, so forget about good support packages, much less political/economic packages.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: OOB feedback
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Behind a computer
KDahm wrote:
La Rouge Beret wrote:
If the Cambodians commence the tender process for fighter aircraft in 1984, what aircraft would form part of the competitive process? Noting the competitiveness of the tender proposal, what political / economic packages could be included as part of the deal by the competitors? Just a thought prompted by the discussions of other posters, perhaps leading to an outcome, whereby the politicians end up at odds with the military's preferred choice.

Essentially, they'd be looking at three main competitors and a minor one.

For the US, it would be the F-16.
The French would be trying to sell the Mirage 2000.
The Soviets would be boosting the MiG-29 or the Su-27, probably the former.

The minor competitor would be the SAAB JA-37, but that plane is getting long in the tooth.

Considering the location of Cambodia, and the closeness to Vietnam in @, the Soviets are almost certain to get the bid. Given the GDP and numbers, they will most likely provide the MiG-29, plus a decent spares inventory, in exchange for 'technical advisors' and general support for Soviet activities in the region. The US bid will not likely be a real competitive one, because of Cambodia's position in the Soviet sphere of influence. The French will sell to pretty much anyone, but will compete on price, so forget about good support packages, much less political/economic packages.


I always had a soft spot for the Mig 29, and when the platform was mated with Western / Indian electronics as per the RMAF Fulcrums. Then the end result was quite a capable platform.

I might elaborate further on TTL, there is still a surviving rump South Vietnam, centred upon III and IV Corps. The North Vietnamese and the Cambodians fought a war in 1976, that only ended when the Cambodians utilised chemical weapons on the attacking PAVN soldiers, some ninety miles north east of Phnom Penh. This is after a three month campaign, that saw the north east of the country devastated, and their manoeuvre elements nearly destroyed. After that engagement, cooler heads prevailed on both sides and the relationship remains glacial. Border clashes, artillery duels and the occasional SAM shot at Cambodian aircraft are infrequent, rather than common. President Carter then imposed an arms embargo on Cambodia due to their use of chemical weapons, which was subsequently repealed with President Reagan / Bush (I haven't decided which one yet).

Noting that would your suggestion change?

_________________
"Fight and Flourish"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group