3
   

The F-35: Flying Symbol of Out of Control Bureaucracy

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 09:24 pm
@oralloy,
What are your "sources" for all these insights?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 01:50 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
What are your "sources" for all these insights?

Regarding the uses of forward canards in enhancing maneuverability, I don't know. I picked it up somewhere.

While I was looking up the other links in this post, I came across this article about European fighters verses the F-22:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

Note: "'We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn't,' German air officer Marc Grune said, according to Combat Aircraft Monthly. 'We were evenly matched. They didn't expect us to turn so aggressively.'"


Regarding the F-35 having the flight characteristics of a block of lead, there has been a steady drumbeat of articles for some years now complaining about it.

I think I first heard about it in the 2008 "clubbed like baby seals - can't turn, can't climb, can't run" report. I'm not sure if the original articles about that are on the internet anymore.

Here is an article comparing the F-35 to the F-111:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/a-tale-of-two-pigs_b_402103.html

Here is an article comparing it to the F-105:
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-Thud-2004.html

A couple articles about the F-35 recently losing a mock dogfight with an F-16 that was weighed down with external fuel tanks:
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/leaked-f-35-report-confirms-deficiencies.html
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-response-to-a-dismal-f-35-test-reveals-the-programs-1715618793

An article predicting that an F-35 could not dogfight successfully even with a Vietnam-era Mig:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russias_MiG_21_Would_Rip_Apart_Americas_F_35_999.html

And a recent article that does into some detail about why the F35 is so bad:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 02:33 am
@oralloy,
in case you did not see this:

Quote:
Goure, Linstead and Flynn seem to be on opposite sides of the same debate, one that started about 30 years ago as fighter traditionalists and stealth purists fought tooth and nail over the requirements for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). One group argued that stealth air combat was like submarine warfare - "the last thing you want to do is surface and use the deck gun" - while the others, with the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile still in development, maintained that there would always be leakers who survived the first beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile exchange and closed within visual range (WVR) where radar stealth would be irrelevant.

The traditionalists won. The F-22 Raptor was designed to be highly agile with a large usable flight envelope (hence its monster tail surfaces) and it had a complex, space-consuming arrangement that allowed AIM-9 missiles to be fired in lock-on-before-launch mode almost anywhere in the forward hemisphere.

The JSF is not as agile, but program leaders say that it will prevail in BVR because of stealth and situational awareness, and in WVR it will use its 360-deg. target-tracking device- the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) - to cue high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles (AAM) on to its adversaries.

What they don't say as loudly is that it can't do both, at least on the same mission. Unlike the F-22 (and the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50) it doesn't have side bays and trapezes for rail-launched AAMs. If the F-35 carries AIM-9s it does so externally, and by Lockheed Martin's own definition it is not stealthy.

This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement. The F-117 Nighthawk had been the hero of the first Gulf War but had three main limitations: it couldn't find targets in-weather, couldn't hit moving targets and had neither the situational awareness nor the armament to survive in daylight. JAST was designed to do all these things as well as having external weapon stations to act as an F-16 on "Day Two" when the defenses had been degraded.

The Air Force in 1995 expected to have 442 F-22s to deal with any fighter threat, and side AAM bays would not remotely fit into the size and weight constraints imposed by the short take-off, vertical landing requirement. Stovl also limited the weight and size of the wing and the length of the body.

But what if the ATF traditionalists were wrong - as Goure and Linstead seem to imply - and WVR combat can and should be avoided? There are two ironies in Goure's citation of Stillion's work. The first is that Stillion was a co-author of the RAND report that drew down Davis' ire in 2008. The second is that Stillion's new study for CSBA suggests that the way to win a future air battle is not to use F-35s or F-22s but to launch AAMs from highly stealthy unmanned air vehicles, controlled from an aircraft that looks like the Long Range Strike Bomber. The logic is powerful: high-performance fighters are almost by definition short-legged, and even if they are not vulnerable, their tankers are. (I'm not the only one to have concluded that the J-20 is aimed directly at tankers and other support assets.)

That view of air combat is bolstered by Stillion's extensive study of air combat history, which shows a steady migration from guns to short-range AAMs to BVR AAMs. But there is an inkling of doubt here. Others have seen different trends - notably, the developers and customers in the MBDA Meteor program predict that BVR battles will involve more maneuvering, at high speeds. History is instructive, but not determinative.

Notably, air-to-air conflicts in the past 30 years have been grossly unbalanced. The U.S. and its allies have had a major advantage in equipment - the West has never faced the Sukhoi family, and the most modern Russian fighter to have been encountered is the early-model MiG-29, which has pitiful range and is locked into the Soviet ground-controlled-intercept doctrine. Training and experience have been on the Western side by a huge margin. And generally, one side has had the support of airborne warning and control, signals intelligence and communications jamming assets and the other has had none of these.

Not surprisingly, then, many engagements have been decided BVR; and adversaries have been given cause to believe that any attempt to get into a WVR engagement is likely to be fatal. But that kind of imbalance is not an eternal reality. Dan Goure's reaction to the F-35's possible lack of agility may be "I say, good," but he's not flying it in combat, is he?

http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-35-air-combat-report

Quote:
But, the F-22 Raptor will have to support the F-35. And here comes another problem. When the Raptor was produced it was flying “with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system.” Still, the U.S. Air Force was forced to use the stealth fighter plane as it was, because that was the way the spec was written. But now, the F-22 must be upgraded through a costly service life extension plan and modernisation program because, “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Time

http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 03:02 am
@hawkeye10,
So let me see if I have this: the 180ish f-22's with a 60% evail rate needing 40+ hours of ground maintenance for every air hour has to protect the f-35's, the tankers and the awacs once the 4th generation forces become obsolete...in less than a decade?

That sounds like a huge problem. It would have been nice if the f-35 could protect itself.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 08:03 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

[
I'd not be surprised if the Century Series fighters proved to be the more maneuverable.


On what basis would you be surprised? Have you flown a F-101, 104, 105 or 106? None (except perhaps the 106) were very maueuverable. All were designed as fast "interceptors" or bombers in the case of the F-105.

Aircraft design and the capability of the air-to-air weapons they use are today profoundly different from what they were in the years in which those aircraft were built.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 09:28 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The JSF is not as agile, but program leaders say that it will prevail in BVR because of stealth and situational awareness, and in WVR it will use its 360-deg. target-tracking device- the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) - to cue high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles (AAM) on to its adversaries.

What they don't say as loudly is that it can't do both, at least on the same mission. Unlike the F-22 (and the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50) it doesn't have side bays and trapezes for rail-launched AAMs. If the F-35 carries AIM-9s it does so externally, and by Lockheed Martin's own definition it is not stealthy.

I noticed in the official response to the F-35's latest failure (the mock dogfight with an F-16 saddled with external fuel tanks), that they no longer mentioned using the F-35's tracking system to launch a heat-seeking missile at a close range adversary.

Instead they talked of the F-35 making long-range shots only, and sort of pretended that close range combat no longer exists.

Given the way they haven't been filling the obvious gaps in their previously-proposed close range tactics. I guess maybe they are just abandoning close range combat altogether for the F-35.


Quote:
But what if the ATF traditionalists were wrong - as Goure and Linstead seem to imply - and WVR combat can and should be avoided? There are two ironies in Goure's citation of Stillion's work. The first is that Stillion was a co-author of the RAND report that drew down Davis' ire in 2008. The second is that Stillion's new study for CSBA suggests that the way to win a future air battle is not to use F-35s or F-22s but to launch AAMs from highly stealthy unmanned air vehicles, controlled from an aircraft that looks like the Long Range Strike Bomber. The logic is powerful: high-performance fighters are almost by definition short-legged, and even if they are not vulnerable, their tankers are. (I'm not the only one to have concluded that the J-20 is aimed directly at tankers and other support assets.)

I downloaded that CSBA study last night when I was looking up all those links.

I haven't had time to look it over though.


Quote:
But, the F-22 Raptor will have to support the F-35. And here comes another problem. When the Raptor was produced it was flying “with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system.” Still, the U.S. Air Force was forced to use the stealth fighter plane as it was, because that was the way the spec was written. But now, the F-22 must be upgraded through a costly service life extension plan and modernisation program because, “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Time

That is the Air Force's plan for how to cope if they end up with 2000 F-35s but no more F-22s.

If they embed their handful of F-22s in a cloud of F-35s, the F-35s can feed all sorts of targeting data to the F-22s, which can then do the actual fighting.


hawkeye10 wrote:
So let me see if I have this: the 180ish f-22's with a 60% evail rate needing 40+ hours of ground maintenance for every air hour has to protect the f-35's, the tankers and the awacs once the 4th generation forces become obsolete...in less than a decade?

That sounds like a huge problem. It would have been nice if the f-35 could protect itself.

The original plan was for the Air Force to have a fleet of 750 F-22s to go with their 2000 F-35s.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 09:28 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I'd not be surprised if the Century Series fighters proved to be the more maneuverable.

On what basis would you be surprised?

On the basis of universal reports of the F-35's complete lack of power and maneuverability.


georgeob1 wrote:
None (except perhaps the 106) were very maueuverable.

Indeed. But being more maneuverable than an F-35 is a pretty low bar. I imagine they might clear it.


georgeob1 wrote:
All were designed as fast "interceptors" or bombers in the case of the F-105.

There seems to be a developing consensus that the F-35's dogfighting characteristics are very similar to those of the F-105.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 09:43 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Quote:
The JSF is not as agile, but program leaders say that it will prevail in BVR because of stealth and situational awareness, and in WVR it will use its 360-deg. target-tracking device- the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) - to cue high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles (AAM) on to its adversaries.

What they don't say as loudly is that it can't do both, at least on the same mission. Unlike the F-22 (and the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50) it doesn't have side bays and trapezes for rail-launched AAMs. If the F-35 carries AIM-9s it does so externally, and by Lockheed Martin's own definition it is not stealthy.

I noticed in the official response to the F-35's latest failure (the mock dogfight with an F-16 saddled with external fuel tanks), that they no longer mentioned using the F-35's tracking system to launch a heat-seeking missile at a close range adversary.

Instead they talked of the F-35 making long-range shots only, and sort of pretended that close range combat no longer exists.

Given the way they haven't been filling the obvious gaps in their previously-proposed close range tactics. I guess maybe they are just abandoning close range combat altogether for the F-35.

My mistake. I just went back and looked again, and they did mention it.

Still no clues as to when they will make their proposed close range tactics actually viable however.

I'm not holding my breath.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 09:56 am
Has anybody tried flying the 35 against an F-86 or a P51?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 03:19 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The original plan was for the Air Force to have a fleet of 750 F-22s to go with their 2000 F-35s.

To paraphrase Rumsfeld we go to war with the planes we have, not the planes we planned to have. With the cost so high on the f-35 I would expect the number to be slashed. We are going to decide that we only need enough forces to protect the USA, that giving up being the global policeman will cut the buy by more than half like we did with the f-22.

It would be interesting to look at the plans for how the pentagon expects to be able to beat China anywhere near the South China Sea. The navy fleet has been decimated by budget cuts, and we elected to go with super expensive aircraft in very small numbers, that is not going to win against China/Russia going with lots of copies of knock-off versions of our planes, they having stolen the blueprints and reverse engineered the work. All they need now is about a decade to train their pilots and to get enough of their aircraft built and then they can do what ever they want to do in Asia. Without enough f-22's to protect the rest of the force on their very long flights (due to our lack of basing in the region) we are toast. Without a lot of in the air gas stations we cant do anything, and each gas station needs a host of f-22's to protect them because the f-35 cant do it.

Quote:
Rapid growth in the capability and quality of guided missiles — mostly Chinese in origin — is causing the U.S. Navy to rethink the number of surface ships it needs to effectively fight a high-end war.

Early estimates based on ongoing war games could mean the current number of 88 large surface combatants — the Navy’s fleet of guided missile destroyers and cruisers — needs to grow to more than a hundred into the 2020s just to keep to today’s current level of risk, USNI News has learned.

However, increasing a fleet of multi-billion dollar ships by almost 25 percent is highly unlikely given declining U.S. military budgets current funding restrictions and the wind-down from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/21/global-guided-missile-expansion-forcing-u-s-navy-to-rethink-surface-fleet-size

We see the same thing with sea craft as we see with air craft, our choice to go with super expensive to build and super expensive to operate units dooms us to very soon not being in a position to challenge China.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 05:01 pm
@oralloy,
There may well be such a consensus and there may be some real substsance to it. I'll readily confess I haven't followed these details for the F-35 closely at all. That said I do know from long experience that there's always a lot of propaganda and BS out there on both sides of the issues on new aircraft procurements. The economic stakes are very high and as the number and frequency of the development of new aircraft types is reduced they get even higher.

The tradeoffs between the maneuverability of air to air weapons and that of the aircraft that launches them have been around for about 50 years. The lessons learned in the 1970s and 1980s may have different applicability today, as missile design improves and tailchase guidance is replaced by intercept control, and the systems doing this become more compact and reliable. The fact that a guy in an F-16 could get in the six o'clock position on an F-35 doesn't necessarily mean the new aircraft can't do its mission.

I'll take the trouble to better inform myself about the current challenges facing the F-35 introduction. However, I haven't seen any commentary here that gives me any confidence in the criticisms so abundant here.

Most military aircraft exhibit disappointments and defects relative to the wishes of their users. Some are later successfully upgraded to correct them. The P 51 Mustang involved a then radical new wing cross section, but the initial model was an underpowered dissappointment. Later it was extensively modified to incorporate a much larger Rolls Royce in line piston engine and the rest is an aviation legend. Others remained failures: the F-102 was designed to be at least transonic, but couldn't do better than Mach 0.92 because of shock wave issues. (Later the so called "area rule" was developed to overcome this problem. It also had a thin delta wing that gave it great maneuverability for a few swconds, but it slowed down very fast in a high g turn and was of limited use. A decade later the F-106 used the same design principles but corrected these defects. The Navy F-4 Phantom was designed as an air-to- air missile only fighter - no guns. It was more maneuverable by far than the F-104 or F-105 and a lot faster than the F-101 or F-102. A MIG 21 could out turn it, but in a fight the Phantom could do a vertical scissors to beat a MIG. Later in use it proved to be also an excellent attack aircraft with a good payload and acceptable range.

The Navy F-14 was an excellent fighter, but the variable sweep wing needed to give it good loiter fuel performance added weight and degraded its maneuverability compared to the contemporary Air Force F-15, which is a truly superior design. An example of the difficult tradeoffs involved here.

The new generations of aircraft incorporating computer augmented fly by wire control systems, lightweight structural materials and now stealth introduce a new set of capabilities, side effects and difficult tradeoffs. It's an imperfect art.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 08:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However, I haven't seen any commentary here that gives me any confidence in the criticisms so abundant here.

Then again you are a navy man, this being the same navy that has put almost all of its marbles on aircraft carriers, which are huge slow hunks that are likely to be sunk in the first days of a major war against a capable opponent. Why would you be concerned about 5th generation fighters that can not evade 4th generation fighters, that put all of their survivability faith on very expensive very complicated weapons systems? And we never run out of ammo right? Those subs during WW2 never ran out of torpedos did they...

This thing does not have the speed of the f-15E and the range is terrible, just the thing that a USN man might love. Me, I am not sure. In any case it is no shock that the chinese figure that they can starve them of fuel and drown them by killing the gas stations.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 10:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
An airfield that can move at 35 kts 24/7 and which is defended by long and short range missile systems and aircraft as well as other more complex and sophisticated systems that we don't talk about, is a good deal harder to take out than one that doesn't move. The canard you recited has been around for over 60 years but hasn't come to pass yet. It could occur, of course, with a sufficiently massive attack, but through all the conflicts of the Cold war, Vietnam and the Middle East it hasn't occurred yet.

The difference between you and me in this area, is that I have done what I am talking about while you have only imagined it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2015 10:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The difference between you and me in this area, is that I have done what I am talking about while you have only imagined it.

Given the failure of our military might since ww2 what you say might advantage me.

Still you might have some useful insights. I have yet to see them on the f-35 however. How is 40 years after the f-15 a jet with slower speeds and ab0ut 1/3 the range that when head to head with a 40 year technology will lose progress? Oh, the f-22 replaced the f-15? We only have 175, they did not replace much of anything.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 02:29 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
To paraphrase Rumsfeld we go to war with the planes we have, not the planes we planned to have.

China hasn't declared war on us. We still have time to build more aircraft.


hawkeye10 wrote:
We are going to decide that we only need enough forces to protect the USA, that giving up being the global policeman

NEVER!


hawkeye10 wrote:
It would be interesting to look at the plans for how the pentagon expects to be able to beat China anywhere near the South China Sea.

B-2 bombers stationed in Guam and loaded with anti-ship missiles could easily make extended patrols over the South China Sea and sweep it clear of all hostile surface ships.

If China aggravates the Philippines enough, we might be invited to reopen our airbase there and start patrolling the South China Sea with fighter jets.

And our nuclear submarines will easily dominate opposing submarines from any other country.


hawkeye10 wrote:
Without enough f-22's to protect the rest of the force on their very long flights (due to our lack of basing in the region) we are toast. Without a lot of in the air gas stations we cant do anything, and each gas station needs a host of f-22's to protect them because the f-35 cant do it.

We have an airbase at Hiroshima and two airbases on Okinawa. That is not relevant to the South China Sea, but it will allow our fighter jets to blockade the East China Sea and Yellow Sea without refueling.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 02:32 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The tradeoffs between the maneuverability of air to air weapons and that of the aircraft that launches them have been around for about 50 years. The lessons learned in the 1970s and 1980s may have different applicability today, as missile design improves and tailchase guidance is replaced by intercept control, and the systems doing this become more compact and reliable. The fact that a guy in an F-16 could get in the six o'clock position on an F-35 doesn't necessarily mean the new aircraft can't do its mission.

In theory once the F-35 sees an enemy plane (or once someone else sees the enemy plane and their computers send the data to the F-35's computers), the F-35 can immediately fire a missile at the enemy regardless of direction or orientation.

The problem is, I keep hearing that the F-35's sensors have been good at seeing ground targets but not-so-good at seeing enemy planes.

Also, the heat-seeking missiles that the F-35 uses for short range combat need to see the enemy plane with their "own" eyes before they are fired, instead of getting the targeting data directly from the F-35's computers the way the radar-guided missiles do. This means the heat-seeking missiles have to be mounted outside the plane (which compromises the stealth).

There is still time to fix these problems before the F-35 enters service, but I kind of expected them to be fixed by now, and am starting to lose faith.


georgeob1 wrote:
Most military aircraft exhibit disappointments and defects relative to the wishes of their users. Some are later successfully upgraded to correct them. The P 51 Mustang involved a then radical new wing cross section, but the initial model was an underpowered dissappointment. Later it was extensively modified to incorporate a much larger Rolls Royce in line piston engine and the rest is an aviation legend.

A more powerful engine would make the F-35 a much better fighter. Even if they get those other problems fixed and the F-35 is able to down enemy planes without maneuvering, greater acceleration would help the F-35 dodge enemy missiles if necessary.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 02:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
aircraft carriers, which are huge slow hunks that are likely to be sunk in the first days of a major war against a capable opponent.

Why does everyone always presume that, if going to war with a major power, the US' first move will be to sail all our carriers to within range of enemy coastal defenses and let them be pummeled???

There are several proposals out there that will allow our carriers to strike land targets from beyond the range of land-based defenses. And even if none of them are ever adopted, carriers can be used for other things besides bombing land targets. For instance, carriers can be used to interdict enemy shipping in the middle of the ocean.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 03:41 am
@oralloy,
Carriers are great for small conflicts, we can get a lot of sorties without needing to negotiate basing, but in a big war against China they are at the bottom of the sea in two weeks.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 04:27 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Carriers are great for small conflicts, we can get a lot of sorties without needing to negotiate basing, but in a big war against China they are at the bottom of the sea in two weeks.

Not possible.

China would only succeed in damaging our carriers if we are extremely foolish in deploying them. I really doubt that we would be so foolish.

Even if we were foolish enough to allow our carriers to be damaged, they still wouldn't be sunk. It would take a direct hit from a tactical nuke to sink one. The worst that conventional weapons could do is put the carrier out of action and send it home for repairs.

Perhaps if a lucky shot caused a nuclear meltdown on board, that would force the carrier to be abandoned and scuttled.

But there is little reason to worry about lucky shots unless we are foolish in how we deploy the carriers.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2015 06:09 am
Aircraft carriers were all but outmoded by the end of WW-II. Today, they are only effective in conflicts between a super-power and some much smaller and less powerful nation. Against Russia and/or China, they'd all be sunk very quickly. UNLESS of course we simply kept them out in the open Pacific 5000 miles from the Asian mainland but, then, what's the point??
 

Related Topics

Soldiers - Discussion by Ionus
The Military-Entertainment Complex - Discussion by wandeljw
Military Unit Motto - Question by millatin
Drones and Dollars... - Discussion by gungasnake
My recruiter told me to lie at meps - Question by waffels
Paul Wolfowitz says, don't harm the Iranians - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Obunga Era Pentagon Training Manual... - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 08:45:16