The loosing team was briefed on the program and the source selection process last week. The GAO will look into the entire source selection process and rule on some of the charges leveled by Boeing. We don't get access to source selection but Boeing got a full briefing on why they lost and why NG won.
 
"Fundamentally flawed". More buzzwords. I hope they kick Boeing to the curb with a bill for wasting everybody's time and money.
 
sferrin said:
"Fundamentally flawed". More buzzwords. I hope they kick Boeing to the curb with a bill for wasting everybody's time and money.

And quite right too! After what is happening to the F-35 and the KC-46 tanker programs I am glad that Northrop Grumman got the contract.
 
We can probably regard this as a quasi-official statement of the grounds behind the protest:


Quite a lot of detail in there that is not in the press release.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boeing can't even deliver a tanker, based on an existing design, on time. Why should they be surprised when the DoD doesn't shower them with confidence when it comes to "risk"? I just hope they stick Boeing with the bill for paying for this farce rather than the taxpayer.
 
Given the level of classification we can't really form an opinion. I doubt Northrop will have its lobbyists issue a full explanation of its position like Boeing seem to have done through Thompson. My only hope is that the GAO delivers its decision well before the 100 day limit they have to do so. The political angle looks like an area where I am sure Boeing will try to drum up support though...
 
So Boeing is claiming they can design and develop LRSB for $11bn when minor mods to a 767 cost them about $6bn to develop. WTF are they smoking?
 
bring_it_on said:
Given the level of classification we can't really form an opinion. I doubt Northrop will have its lobbyists issue a full explanation of its position like Boeing seem to have done through Thompson. My only hope is that the GAO delivers its decision well before the 100 day limit they have to do so. The political angle looks like an area where I am sure Boeing will try to drum up support though...

Not all that up with the US processes in this area but how common is it for them to take the full amount of time to reach a decision & can this be appealed or is that it done & dusted?
 
red admiral said:
So Boeing is claiming they can design and develop LRSB for $11bn when minor mods to a 767 cost them about $6bn to develop. WTF are they smoking?

Well it is Seattle. . . ;) What makes it even worse is other countries are already flying the KC-767.
 
LowObservable said:
We can probably regard this as a quasi-official statement of the grounds behind the protest:


Quite a lot of detail in there that is not in the press release.

"Which brings me to the most unsettling feature of how the bomber award unfolded. It appears the Air Force chose its winning bomber team six months ago, based largely on the rock-bottom price Northrop Grumman bid to perform bomber development and early production. Northrop’s development bid was so low that the service never got to the point where it rigorously analyzed the cost for most of the production program or subsequent life-cycle support. Boeing and Lockheed were knocked out of contention for the first phase of the program, based on Northrop’s willingness to bid a development cost divorced from likely risks. It did much the same thing in the first round of the tanker competition."

First off, where did he get the impression that the selection was made six months ago? I doubt the government team would admit that even if it were true.
And yes, the irony of Boeing losing a contract because a contender bid rock bottom is almost palpable. Remind me who's losing billions of dollars on a contested program after underestimating risks. ::)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
red admiral said:
So Boeing is claiming they can design and develop LRSB for $11bn when minor mods to a 767 cost them about $6bn to develop. WTF are they smoking?

The way I read the Thompson article, NG apparently had an even more aggressive bid for development and production.

I get the impression that there is something very enticing about the NG proposal from a capabilities standpoint (say excellent survivability at loiter)
such that the higher CPIF contract is worth the government's potential exposure.
 
There was also no credit given for supply chain innovations, system integration skills, and a host of other advanced industrial capabilities in which Boeing and Lockheed lead the world. The reason that matters is because Northrop Grumman lacks similar capabilities, and thus is much less likely to execute the program to the Air Force’s planned budget and schedule.

Ah, that's why LM has chose NG as principal subcontractor for F-35 and Super Bugs.
 
AeroFranz said:
LowObservable said:
We can probably regard this as a quasi-official statement of the grounds behind the protest:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/11/06/boeing-protests-bomber-award-finds-process-fundamentally-flawed/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix

Quite a lot of detail in there that is not in the press release.

"Which brings me to the most unsettling feature of how the bomber award unfolded. It appears the Air Force chose its winning bomber team six months ago, based largely on the rock-bottom price Northrop Grumman bid to perform bomber development and early production. Northrop’s development bid was so low that the service never got to the point where it rigorously analyzed the cost for most of the production program or subsequent life-cycle support. Boeing and Lockheed were knocked out of contention for the first phase of the program, based on Northrop’s willingness to bid a development cost divorced from likely risks. It did much the same thing in the first round of the tanker competition."

First off, where did he get the impression that the selection was made six months ago? I doubt the government team would admit that even if it were true.
And yes, the irony of Boeing losing a contract because a contender bid rock bottom is almost palpable. Remind me who's losing billions of dollars on a contested program after underestimating risks. ::)

Apparently Boeing doesn't know the history of their own tanker program. To reiterate, Northrop won the tanker contract, which Boeing protested, then lobbied to have the contract rebid in a manner that greatly favored their design by changing the requirements of the contract. Boeing doesn't seem to be able to win the contract on the drawing board, so they're hoping their lawyers can win it for them again. That's just sad and pathetic.
 
Yes and the same with Lokcheed with the F-35 unable to dogfight a F-16 with delay and delay , if I was a USAF general I will be very angry about Lockheed unable to build their new generation fighter, and they have problem with Northrop ? its un-believable, I hope Northrop will win the F/X contest too :mad:
 
i am ignorant of law and as it relates to bidding on federal government business. Where or what is the law that gives corporations the right to be assholes with defense dept contracts? We just hear about the heavy hitters like bombers, but I imagine this is common practice with everything from toilette paper to HPM munitions.

I also imagine or rather hope that the defense dept takes into consideration there will be a protest, and they themselves lawyer up ahead of time to create a an airtight case for their decision.

Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?
 
Airplane said:
i am ignorant of law and as it relates to bidding on federal government business. Where or what is the law that gives corporations the right to be assholes with defense dept contracts? We just hear about the heavy hitters like bombers, but I imagine this is common practice with everything from toilette paper to HPM munitions.

I also imagine or rather hope that the defense dept takes into consideration there will be a protest, and they themselves lawyer up ahead of time to create a an airtight case for their decision.
Probably about 1000 years of common/contract law as there has to be some type of dispute mechanism if you believe you were treated unfairly.
 
Airplane said:
Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?

Because there will always be a bought understanding politician eager to garner attention from the press by riding to the defense of the "wronged" contractor.
 
Airplane said:
Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?

If there are only two or three suppliers capable of producing widgets and no new entrants into the widget market in a generation you don't have a lot of bargaining power as a buyer.

When it comes to big ticket items like fighters, bombers, and the like the US defense industry increasingly resembles Germany or France where the handful of "national champions" are guaranteed work no matter how poorly they perform. Because otherwise the capability to produce those things could be lost entirely.
 
Void said:
Airplane said:
Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?

If there are only two or three suppliers capable of producing widgets and no new entrants into the widget market in a generation you don't have a lot of bargaining power as a buyer.

When it comes to big ticket items like fighters, bombers, and the like the US defense industry increasingly resembles Germany or France where the handful of "national champions" are guaranteed work no matter how poorly they perform. Because otherwise the capability to produce those things could be lost entirely.

All the more reason to give it to NG. LM already has the F-22 and F-35. Boeing has the tanker and any future F-15/F/A-18 sales. Really, the choice is a no-brainer all things considered. Unless Boeing had some kind of Romulan Warbird up it's sleeve I don't think it had a prayer of winning this.
 
sferrin said:
Void said:
Airplane said:
Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?

If there are only two or three suppliers capable of producing widgets and no new entrants into the widget market in a generation you don't have a lot of bargaining power as a buyer.

When it comes to big ticket items like fighters, bombers, and the like the US defense industry increasingly resembles Germany or France where the handful of "national champions" are guaranteed work no matter how poorly they perform. Because otherwise the capability to produce those things could be lost entirely.

All the more reason to give it to NG. LM already has the F-22 and F-35. Boeing has the tanker and any future F-15/F/A-18 sales. Really, the choice is a no-brainer all things considered. Unless Boeing had some kind of Romulan Warbird up it's sleeve I don't think it had a prayer of winning this.
Not to mention the P-8A, EA-18G Growler and the new Air Force One. -SP
 
sferrin said:
Void said:
Airplane said:
Furthermore, in my profession, if a supplier pisses us off too many times, we boot them out the door and forbid them from doing business with us in the future. Why can't the defense dept do that?

If there are only two or three suppliers capable of producing widgets and no new entrants into the widget market in a generation you don't have a lot of bargaining power as a buyer.

When it comes to big ticket items like fighters, bombers, and the like the US defense industry increasingly resembles Germany or France where the handful of "national champions" are guaranteed work no matter how poorly they perform. Because otherwise the capability to produce those things could be lost entirely.

All the more reason to give it to NG. LM already has the F-22 and F-35. Boeing has the tanker and any future F-15/F/A-18 sales. Really, the choice is a no-brainer all things considered. Unless Boeing had some kind of Romulan Warbird up it's sleeve I don't think it had a prayer of winning this.

Re: all the comments above by all the users at moment we literally don't know the basis for the decision. I hope all was above board with that decision and everything else being equal I can see the logic of giving the contract to NG; however the US airforce has repeatedly and very clearly stated that industry aspects was not a criteria for the decision.

And as stated above anyone giving this issue any thought would recognize that there needs to be a efficient effective legal avenue if a bidder has reasonable grounds to consider themselves to having been treated unfairly (this legal avenue also shouldn't be abused by losing bidders). We need to let the process in place do its job.

Now to the important stuff.
sferrin re: your Romulan Warbird comment; D'deridex-class I assume :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kaiserd said:
Now to the important stuff.
sferrin re: your Romulan Warbird comment; D'deridex-class I assume :)

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D%27deridex_class

Yes indeed. :)
 
flateric said:
There was also no credit given for supply chain innovations, system integration skills, and a host of other advanced industrial capabilities in which Boeing and Lockheed lead the world. The reason that matters is because Northrop Grumman lacks similar capabilities, and thus is much less likely to execute the program to the Air Force’s planned budget and schedule.

Ah, that's why LM has chose NG as principal subcontractor for F-35 and Super Bugs.

Perhaps LM and Boeing have started F-35 and Super Bug future production lot negotiations early and indirectly with their protest.
 
I can see how there would be grounds for protest if the evaluation criterion were not crystal clear from the beginning; however you'd think the AF would have bullet-proofed those. And assuming a 100% increase in cost, while not very rigorous, is in line with historical trends.

As for Boeing having Black-Diamond-Magic manufacturing processes, it's a nice story, but i would want to make sure it had demonstrated itself on a relevant scale. Claiming it is revolutionary without substantiation is a bit hollow.
 
AeroFranz said:
I can see how there would be grounds for protest if the evaluation criterion were not crystal clear from the beginning; however you'd think the AF would have bullet-proofed those. And assuming a 100% increase in cost, while not very rigorous, is in line with historical trends.

As for Boeing having Black-Diamond-Magic manufacturing processes, it's a nice story, but i would want to make sure it had demonstrated itself on a relevant scale. Claiming it is revolutionary without substantiation is a bit hollow.

Especially since it would be almost a must to use existing technology / manufacturing techniques to keep costs under control.
 
AeroFranz said:
As for Boeing having Black-Diamond-Magic manufacturing processes, it's a nice story, but i would want to make sure it had demonstrated itself on a relevant scale. Claiming it is revolutionary without substantiation is a bit hollow.

You'd expect Boeing would have made an announcement to their shareholders that Black Diamond has increased the profit margin on its commercial airliners. Until that time, it is merely "Bullshit Diamond".
 
I don't want to disparage it too much either; there may actually be something there, but until they demonstrate it on a production line at representative rates (maybe on T-X?) it's an unknown quantity, i.e. a risk in the eyes of any government evaluation team.
 
sferrin said:
AeroFranz said:
I can see how there would be grounds for protest if the evaluation criterion were not crystal clear from the beginning; however you'd think the AF would have bullet-proofed those. And assuming a 100% increase in cost, while not very rigorous, is in line with historical trends.

As for Boeing having Black-Diamond-Magic manufacturing processes, it's a nice story, but i would want to make sure it had demonstrated itself on a relevant scale. Claiming it is revolutionary without substantiation is a bit hollow.

Especially since it would be almost a must to use existing technology / manufacturing techniques to keep costs under control.

All of which makes the justification for a Cost-Plus development contract look very flimsy.
 
"LRSB: (Yet Another) Tale of Two Protests"
Nov 6, 2015 by Amy Hillis in Ares

Source:

Not surprisingly, the Long-Range Strike Bomber protest is on. Boeing and Lockheed Martin claim the Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman for the development and early production work – worth $23.5 billion – was bungled. The service failed to conduct a proper assessment of the risk for both teams to execute the work and neglected to account for modern advances in manufacturing and life-cycle maintenance, all of which would reduce the cost of such a program, according to Loren Thompson, a Washington DC-based analyst. Thompson’s think-tank receives funding from both Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and the latter employs him as a consultant; he publicly endorsed the Boeing/Lockheed Martin bid despite the requirements and source-selection criteria being classified. Thompson receives no funding from Northrop Grumman.

The losers filed their protest with the Government Accountability Office Nov. 6 after receiving their debrief Oct. 30 from the Air Force.

And, not surprisingly, the other protest is on. You see, in Washington, there’s the protest – filed with GAO and subject to a 100-day audit – and there’s the Protest – the political campaign to disparage the agency that made the alleged flawed choice and its entire strategy. The latter is designed as an end run to whatever the GAO may rule. By undercutting the agency and its strategy at the knees in Congress, pressure can force an agency into submission regardless of a GAO ruling.

These are two parallel but separate avenues in any defense contractor’s red book for major programs; all the contractors keep war plans for protests alongside the process of bidding for programs these days. I’ll outline the two strategies below.

But, before I get into that, it is worth noting the ink on the protest isn’t even dry and we are already learning more about this secretive program, likely to the chagrin of an Air Force claiming details equate security violations and jeopardize the capabilities of the bomber before it even gets built. It is worth noting one PA officer told me when I asked what the actual contract value was (only the independent cost estimate of $23.5 billion has been released, not the actual money to be paid to Northrop), that sharing the actual value could allow adversaries to forensically decipher what the bomber looks like. I found that to be a bit of an overstatement, at the least.

One new data point: The estimated price of the bids! Ta-da! Thompson said in his Nov. 6 Forbes piece that the Air Force unfairly doubled the estimate at completion for the work of both contractors. He later told me that each bidder was in the $10-$11 billion range, far below that $23.5 billion independent cost estimate, with Northrop coming in at a lower cost. He did not, however, have the cost of the actual contract.

If this is true, and the Air Force padded both contractors’ bids by 100%, this would certainly be unusual and worth a second look.

This leads to another new data point: Boeing objected to this because these price adjustments relied upon historical data from legacy programs – such as the botched B-2 development – for ground truth, not proposals from both teams on how to incorporate modern manufacturing and maintenance techniques. If Boeing’s claims are right, then the Air Force wasn’t sure enough of its own “bending the cost curve” initiative and ability to rely on innovations to reduce cost to put its money where its mouth is.

You see, the service has to budget – or earmark money -- to the official independent cost estimate – in this case that $23.5 billion figure. If it budgeted to the far less $10-$11 billion range cited by Thompson as realistic, there’d be a whole lot less wiggle room for overruns and margin. And, it would be a whole lot more painful to address overruns because the service would have to go to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress, which, at best, is not pleasant. At worst, it tanks programs.

It seemed evident from the outset of the source selection announcement Oct. 27 that the cost estimates would raise eyebrows. The Air Force’s own fact sheet notes that a program requirement since fiscal year 2010 was to produce the units for under $550 million apiece in those dollars (that’s $606 million in today’s money). But, its independent cost estimate cites a target of $564 million in today’s dollars. That is a huge difference of $42 million, roughly the cost of some Pentagon helicopters. Those numbers prompted me to wonder just why the independent cost estimate was so “low” in comparison. But, what Thompson is saying is that the bidders’ proposals were even lower.

This begs the question: Is the Air Force’s high cost estimate a brilliant sleight of hand that could keep detractors off its back by providing an overrun shelter (this is a cost reimbursable contract) and, possibly, set the stage for a “low(er than estimated)-cost bomber” story at the end of the day? Or, could this be a colossal political misstep that will actually draw fire by giving the losing bidder grounds to raise the question early in the program’s progress, when it is most vulnerable to a kill?

Which brings me back to the two protest campaigns. On the latter point above, Boeing and Lockheed are already on the advance by way of Thompson. He unabashedly acknowledges this is the way things are done in DC. His piece not only outlines the basic protest claims of the losing team. He seeks to elevate the discussion beyond the strict avenue outlined for a GAO protest review. He is questioning he entire procurement system and if it was used to get a truly good deal for the taxpayer. In doing so, he also casts doubt on whether the Air Force is capable of making good on its bending the cost curve initiatives, as LRS-B has been cited as a poster child program for it.

This is a noble, valid and reasonable question to ask. And, it picks at an Achilles heel for the Pentagon. Its procurement system is known as inefficient and slow. And, recent missteps for the Air Force – including the repeated problems leading to a KC-46 source selection and similar problems attempting to buy an HH-60G replacement – have already eroded its credibility in Congress. It’s not hard to capitalize on mistrust for the system in Congress; it’s almost like fishing from a barrel! Keep in mind Boeing successfully overturned its last major protest against Northrop. When the latter won the first KC-135 replacement competition, protests eventually led to a full recompete. Despite years of delay, Boeing eventually won the program. Granted, the GAO upheld the protest, but the company also pilloried the Air Force’s process publicly, sparking congressional ire and reviews.

So, Thompson and Boeing are working off of that sentiment to attempt to turn the entire procurement on its head. But, this is not a surefire way to turn the selection decision around.

A negative GAO ruling would, however, do just that. The auditors have 100 days to review the very specific claims that the Air Force unfairly scored risk in the source selection. GAO’s remit is to rule on whether an agency clearly and fairly articulated its source selection rules and whether that agency followed its own rules. It cannot touch on the savvy of an agency in pursuing a buy. While narrow in its focus, its impact can be vast. An adverse GAO ruling could send the Air Force back to the drawing board for a competition, costing years of delay toward the bomber’s entry into service.

On this point, Boeing and Lockheed Martin could have an uphill battle. Aside from the obvious avenue ahead for the GAO review, questions I have are:

*Did the Air Force articulate that it would use these legacy program models to assess risk?

*If so, did Boeing and Lockheed Martin raise objections about those models throughout the procurement?

*If so, did the Air Force try to address them?

Bottom line, If Boeing and Lockheed Martin failed early in the program to understand how the use of legacy program models could impact their bid, it could very well be a chink in the team’s protest.

So, happy holidays, folks. We are in for another protest season.
 
I hope Boeing gets a nice fat bill for this colossal waste of time.
 
How would we know its a waste of time? I mean it may well be if the protest is upheld, but the provision for a protest exists as a right granted to all loosing bidders to have their day (or 100) with the GAO through a formal framework.
 
bring_it_on said:
How would we know its a waste of time? I mean it may well be if the protest is upheld, but the provision for a protest exists as a right granted to all loosing bidders to have their day (or 100) with the GAO through a formal framework.

The reason it's already taken so long is because the powers that be wanted to make sure it was a bullet proof decision. These days though, it's virtually a given that there will be a protest whether it's legitimate or not. As the author of the article points out:

"You see, in Washington, there’s the protest – filed with GAO and subject to a 100-day audit – and there’s the Protest – the political campaign to disparage the agency that made the alleged flawed choice and its entire strategy. The latter is designed as an end run to whatever the GAO may rule. By undercutting the agency and its strategy at the knees in Congress, pressure can force an agency into submission regardless of a GAO ruling."

So even if the GAO says "Boeing is high" they could still end up dragging this out for political theater and getting the competition redone. That's what's got me so annoyed over this. Like I said, a colossal waste of money. And you know it won't be Boeing footing the bill, no. It'll be the taxpayer.
 
That's why, if I was the Air Force, I would order Northrop to continue work on their design, and if for some reason the bid is overturned, I would make Boeing pay for the work already done on the Northrop design. Otherwise, this kind of crap will continue until there is a severe penalty for this type of behavior.

Also, Thompson is basically admitting that it doesn't matter if their design was inferior, they can win it with their lobbyists. It's also interesting to note that apparently Boeing thinks it's the only company that knows how to save costs. Which is also nonsense.

I have a feeling that Boeing is eventually going to end up with the Pentagon's boot up it's ass. The only reason they eventually got the KC-46 was the political buy American sentiment. They can't get away with it on the bomber. Hell, if Boeing tries to pull that crap, Northrop should turn around and show that Boeing is so committed to the buy American sentiment that they have much of their 787 built overseas.

In fact, I hope Northrop goes after them with both barrels. I think that is where Northrop has been weak before. They really need to go after how sad and pathetic Boeing is for doing this.
 
The DoD cold cut orders from Boeing and delay if not cancel other programs with Boeing or subsidiaries as contractors.
It could also lash out and mercilessly release damaging reports about poor quality of Boeing products, including Super Bug issues - which would hurt Boeing's export sales.

A protracted legal battle as with the C-46 or A-12 cancellation would be really bad.
 
lastdingo said:
The DoD cold cut orders from Boeing and delay if not cancel other programs with Boeing or subsidiaries as contractors.

Like stopping this nonsense of delaying the F-35C ramp-up and then canceling all future F-18 buys.

Win, Win
 
Sundog said:
That's why, if I was the Air Force, I would order Northrop to continue work on their design, and if for some reason the bid is overturned, I would make Boeing pay for the work already done on the Northrop design. Otherwise, this kind of crap will continue until there is a severe penalty for this type of behavior.

Also, Thompson is basically admitting that it doesn't matter if their design was inferior, they can win it with their lobbyists. It's also interesting to note that apparently Boeing thinks it's the only company that knows how to save costs. Which is also nonsense.

I have a feeling that Boeing is eventually going to end up with the Pentagon's boot up it's ass. The only reason they eventually got the KC-46 was the political buy American sentiment. They can't get away with it on the bomber. Hell, if Boeing tries to pull that crap, Northrop should turn around and show that Boeing is so committed to the buy American sentiment that they have much of their 787 built overseas.

In fact, I hope Northrop goes after them with both barrels. I think that is where Northrop has been weak before. They really need to go after how sad and pathetic Boeing is for doing this.

Cost is the only quantitative element of the program that's been (kinda) publicly disclosed and probably the only thing Thompson and the other parties can
openly discuss. What else would you expect for articles/statements geared towards the general public? "Our mid-mission gust alleviation is da $hit while Northrop Grumman's is teh sux"

Why not call on NG to do its patriotic duty and execute the development as a fixed-price incentive contract?
Otherwise, we're living in a parallel dimension where mature processes + mature materials + the highest level of design maturity pre-award == cost-plus development.

I really don't understand the vitriol and outrage over the protest given that it was widely expected to occur no matter who won.
 
I have to disagree. In fact, I can't remember the last major program that Northrop protested when they lost.

Maybe they should tell Boeing and L-M that trust in management was also considered, and they lost significantly in that regard. After all, that was one of the major considerations when awarding the ATF program to LM over Northrop. I don't recall Northrop protesting the decision.
 
marauder2048 said:
I really don't understand the vitriol and outrage over the protest given that it was widely expected to occur no matter who won.

Because Boeing had the time and ability to address all of this before the decision was made. All of these questions they are supposedly asking for the first time now could have been asked before. Why didn't they? If the cost of this side-show, and the added costs due to delays due to Boeing's protest, were ALL born by Boeing it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Unfortunately, as we can already see, this is turning yet another procurement effort into a 3-ring circus. And so-called "journalists" will fan the flames as much as possible for those clicks. The politicians will be killing each other fighting for the mic to get their time in the limelight with this. All for nothing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom