NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)

red admiral said:
It's surprising that there isn't more discussion of alternative Industrial models rather than just repeating the "Rafale programme good, Eurofighter programme bad" line. There are plenty of alternatives that could be better for the programme. There seems to be little discussion of the pros and cons of different models, bringing in the precious experience of the different companies, to then work out what is the best approach for this particular programme.
Click to expand...
Good point. The obvious alternative would be to create a proper Joint Venture for FCAS, similar to GCAP Edgewing, Eurofighter GmbH or Panavia. The JV becomes the prime contractor, removing many of the leadership battles between individual partners (Airbus or Dassault). Cons are: this dilutes accountability, often puts less qualified people in roles purely to maintain national ratios etc.

Most of all there's a very odd situation here where Airbus ES is basically a vassal of Airbus DS and seems to systematically vote along with Airbus DS, so it's not a balanced partnership like GCAP (with 3 equal partners) or like Eurofighter (with 4+ partners and multiple ways to come to a majority decision.) So is Dassault being unreasonable? Would BAE or Leonardo accept a partnership where they could be systematically outvoted by Airbus DS?

At the opposite end, you could adopt the F-35 or A400M model and give Dassault true prime contractor status, removing Airbus DS/ES's vote (beyond maybe some consultative procedures), while writing into the contract that workshare must follow each country's order quantities (with various levels of leeway possible for the prime, from none at all to complete freedom to choose subcontractors). But no chance that would happen.

What other alternatives would there be?
 
Last edited:
A quite nice thread with an rather unbiased View of the things. For those who don't understand france look at it in Twitter and let it be translated.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1970496311498563654
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970496311498563654

https://twitter.com/x/status/1970496568764563591
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970496568764563591

https://twitter.com/x/status/1970496902144930263
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970496902144930263


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970497502064386120
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970497502064386120


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970498592315187449
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970498592315187449


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970499171326337143
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970499171326337143


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970499460305428779
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970499460305428779


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970501013103620429
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970501013103620429


https://twitter.com/x/status/1970501442822926836
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970501442822926836


https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970501773413720242

https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970502224372502699

https://twitter.com/x/status/1970502978047033415
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1970502978047033415
 
mokahete said:
Would a smaller aircraft be able to have enough electrical power and cooling?
From what i know electrical power generation is one of the primary aspects of 6th gen fighters in development.
Click to expand...
a 15tons empty weight jet is not a small aircraft.

It is not because the single engine F-35 is short on cooling and DC power that a new one, well studied, will have such problems. If the initial specifications are cleverly made it has not to be an issue.
 
BonPlan2 said:
The 15 tons was agreed by ze germans initially. Mu opinion is that it is a move to push the french to move themselves from the project.
Click to expand...
I would argue if its within the possible and it makes sense for all user then it shouldn't be an option disregarded. That said i rather have a 15t fighter than a 0t...
 
H_K said:
he believes that the Eurofighter model led to poor outcomes (high cost, delays, a less suitable aircraft…) due to the violation of several basic good governance principles (eg. clear leader, best athlete, no veto rights etc).
Click to expand...
It's the less suitable aircraft that's the one I find utterly strange. Surely the form of the aircraft (in terms of capabilities) should be set at customer level, not vendor?

I'm beginning to wonder if the national level governance of SCAF isn't as much an issue as the industrial partnership governance. Just how prescriptive is the set of intergovernmental staff requirements for the air vehicle? Because surely it should address carrier capability (and empty weight as a consequence), but Trappier has repeatedly seemed to suggest that's a vendor level decision.

Has France being a military aircraft monoculture for so long led to Dassault achieving a form of regulatory capture on the ability to generate staff requirements?
 
EmoBirb said:
I don't think Trappier is cut out for a program of the magnitude and complexity of FCAS if that's already where he falters. I think it would be in the interest of France, the FCAS and the other partners if he gets replaced by someone more competent and cooperative soon. Which may be a step towards getting this joint program out of the quagmire it's currently in.
Click to expand...
LOL. It is probably the best man in the whole Europe for that.
Mirage 3, F1, 2000, Rafale are or were all great success. More skill in Dassault than in any other in Europe (and even mare than all the others together). It is not without reason than RAND corporation made a study on the Dassault methods to compete with far bigger US competitors (one lesson from RAND was that the sole west competitor of the US jest was Dassault ones).

Trappier spoke yesterday in a french commission (I've seen that this morning on a TV channel) : he said that it is only the Bundestag that want the bigger share possible, even if the result don't meet the air forces needs. I think he is right.
 
H_K said:
Most of all there's a very odd situation here where Airbus ES is basically a vassal of Airbus DS and seems to systematically vote along with Airbus DS, so it's not a balanced partnership like GCAP (with 3 equal partners) or like Eurofighter (with 4+ partners and multiple ways to come to a majority decision.)
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument is it assumes the Spanish government is incapable of expressing an opinion and having Airbus ES execute it, which I don't believe is the case. I've worked within a cross-border subsidiary situation, and there were occasions we had to deliberately subvert the instructions from HQ because they failed to recognise local issues, and even laws, pre-empted them. As a case in point: "Find a way to reword this new diktat from the Americans that doesn't make our CEO personally legally liable for any quality issue."
 
in a french news : https://www.opex360.com/2025/09/25/...se-un-gros-coup-de-gueule-devant-les-deputes/

SCAF: Dassault Aviation CEO gives a big "rant" to MPs

Before moving on to Phase 2 of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project, which is expected to result in the first flight of a demonstrator, Dassault Aviation is demanding a change in governance in order to fulfill its role as prime contractor for the development of a New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft, in the face of Airbus, whose voice counts twice as much thanks to its German and Spanish subsidiaries.

However, Germany and Spain have no intention of satisfying the French manufacturer. Hence the current stalemate in the project. Last week, Politico and the Financial Times revealed that Berlin is considering turning to partners other than France to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft. This would therefore exclude France from the project, even though it was the latter's initiator.

....

in Berlin on September 23, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius denied press reports. Asked about Berlin's intention to find alternatives, he assured that "no such discussions are underway." This does not mean that there won't be any in the future...

In the meantime, the fate of this project is expected to be decided at a trilateral meeting to be held in Berlin in October. "A decision must be made and will be made on whether or not to continue FCAS and its modalities," said Mr. Pistorius.

However, in Germany, several voices are speaking out against France's participation in the project. like that of Volker Mayer-Lay, a member of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a member of the Bundestag's Defense Committee and rapporteur for the opinion on funding for the German Air Force (Luftwaffe).

The French "are not seeking partnership but demanding subordination," this member of parliament declared, referring to Dassault Aviation's demands. "Germany has no reason to bow to this diktat," he insisted in a statement.

Therefore, "Germany must have the courage to draw clear conclusions: either cooperation on an equal footing, or new partners who truly embody the word 'cooperation,'" he added. "Better a catastrophic end than a never-ending catastrophe," he insisted.

Furthermore, Mayer-Lay continued, "anyone who believes that Germany alone is incapable of building the fighter of the future is seriously mistaken," because its "industry is ideally positioned" with "Airbus, MTU, Diehl, Indra Avitech, and Hensoldt," as well as its "research capabilities in artificial intelligence, sensor technology, and cybersecurity."

Incidentally, Mr. Mayer-Lay failed to mention that Germany had obtained the management of the work relating to the "combat cloud" and drones and that France had given in on those concerning the NGF engines, Safran Aircraft Engines having agreed to create the joint venture EUMET Gmbh [therefore under German law] with MTU Aero.
In any case, while the German MP was making his point, Éric Trappier, CEO of Dassault Aviation, once again defended his during a hearing before the National Assembly's Economic Affairs Committee on September 24. And he didn't mince his words.

Regarding the FCAS, the "difficulties are actually of all kinds. And not simply, as you may read in the press, a clash between Dassault and Airbus, even if I don't hide it," Mr. Trappier initially emphasized.

One aspect of the problem is that Dassault Aviation's designated partners for the development of the NGF do not recognize its status as a "leader" in the field of combat aviation. "So, there's no point in writing papers, putting billions on the table" if this "isn't recognized," Mr. Trappier said.

...

It remains to be seen whether certain revelations made to the press are not intended to convince France to abandon changes to the SCAF's governance rules...

"I'm not pulling any punches. I don't know how to do it, and I don't need to. I'm simple. The trick with the SCAF is simple. I'm asking to be able to practice as an architect. […] I'm just asking for clarification," Mr. Trappier repeated.

But he didn't hide his irritation at the apathy of political leaders in this matter. This apathy contrasts with that of their German counterparts, as evidenced by Mayer-Lay's press release.

"I'm not against the SCAF project. But still, when Germany says: 'We're going to exclude the French,' doesn't that bother you, French politicians?" "Germany is going to exclude the French from a fighter jet project, all because Dassault says it would like to have the keys to pilot it. It's strange that you don't react and that I'm the only one to react," Mr. Trappier told the committee's deputies.

"It's definitely a rant. I know the Germans, contrary to what you might think. And it's the Bundestag that's in charge. And what does the Bundestag want? It wants its manufacturer, whom it sees every day, to have more work than the other one. Expertise, knowing whether the aircraft will be efficient, that's not its concern. So, we just have to create a counterbalance," continued the CEO of Dassault Aviation.

...
 
DWG said:
The problem with this argument is it assumes the Spanish government is incapable of expressing an opinion and having Airbus ES execute it, which I don't believe is the case. I've worked within a cross-border subsidiary situation, and there were occasions we had to deliberately subvert the instructions from HQ because they failed to recognise local issues, and even laws, pre-empted them. As a case in point: "Find a way to reword this new diktat from the Americans that doesn't make our CEO personally legally liable for any quality issue."
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and I believe this is why the 3 way FCAS industrial partnership was originally set up this way, with France & Dassault accepting that 2 different parts of Airbus would be involved, each representing different customers and therefore in theory somewhat independent from each other. This should lead to consensus based decision making.

But the increasing level of frustration expressed by Trappier at this late stage, several years into the partnership, makes me believe that in practice something is not working and that Airbus DS and ES are voting as one unit. The alternative is that Dassault is seeking to make unreasonable and unilateral decisions that the Spanish side also systematically disagrees with... I guess that's possible, but less likely.
 
H_K said:
I agree with this, and I believe this is why the 3 way FCAS industrial partnership was originally set up this way, with France & Dassault accepting that 2 different parts of Airbus would be involved, each representing different customers and therefore in theory somewhat independent from each other. This should lead to consensus based decision making.

But the increasing level of frustration expressed by Trappier at this late stage, several years into the partnership, makes me believe that in practice something is not working and that Airbus DS and ES are voting as one unit. The alternative is that Dassault is seeking to make unreasonable and unilateral decisions that the Spanish side also systematically disagrees with... I guess that's possible, but less likely.
Click to expand...
That said maybe there is just a large consent between germany and spain on there goal/ requierments/ demands?
 
H_K said:
What other alternatives would there be?
Click to expand...
There are plenty more ways to tailor partnership models e.g. even with Dasssault as prime then how about having positions within the NGF team for German and Spanish personnel? It's one way of getting a more integrated team rather than a more transactional separate subcontractor status for certain components (e.g. wing design)

On the government side then there's a similar need for how they want to structure themselves e.g. single Joint Programme Office?

Below is one more academic way of looking at collaboration options

1758865446656.jpeg
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
There are plenty more ways to tailor partnership modelsne.g. even with Dasssault as prime then how about having positions within the NGF team for German and Spanish personnel? It's one way of getting a more integrated team rather than a more transactional separate subcontractor status for certain components (e.g. wing design)

On the gocernment side then there's a similar need for how they want to structure themselves e.g. single Joint Programme Office?

Below is one more academic way of looking at collaboration options
Click to expand...

BAe/MDC on Harrier II and early ASTOVL did all these at once. 'The devil you know' works too.
 
Sintra said:
Eric Trappier seems hell bent to kill the entire program... Every time that i read one of his interviews i get a 1985 FEFA "deja vu" feeling.
Click to expand...
but the result is impressive : Rafale whole program costs < GB or Germany or Spain or Italian costs for a best product.
 
Mike Pryce said:
BAe/MDC on Harrier II and early ASTOVL did all these at once. 'The devil you know' works too.
Click to expand...
I spent a lot of time on 757RT/777 PFCS with Boeing QA sitting at the next desk over. Though that was a tightly integrated customer/vendor situation rather than a true integrated team.

But on Eurofighter FCS we had Brits, Germans, Italians and ISTR a solitary Spaniard (+ 1 Greco-Swiss, can't recall who he worked for) all working in integrated teams at Rochester, with a similar arrangement at Manching, and all the way up the management chain.

To be honest, I presumed this is how SCAF would work.
 
TylrrTylrr said:
Does this mean anything?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972013568238170395
View: https://x.com/PetterPse/status/1972013568238170395
Click to expand...
Talk is cheap, especially when it comes to trying to sabotage your competition.

When you read the fine print, what the UK is suggesting is even worse than what Dassault is asking for: Germany would get no R&D, just a final assembly line and some subcontractor work on production items, with the UK dangling the hope of partnering on some future, yet-to-be-specified drone systems.
 
galgot said:
Dunno, hard to guess the exact sizes, but again to me it seemed still much smaller than the latest NGF concept images.
Here a scale plan made back then using all references available at the time :
View attachment 777434
Seems to me more Rafale size (if a bit bigger) than a F-47, J-20 or the other super fighters.View attachment 777435
Click to expand...
Difficult to confirm or not with just a pic.
As far as I know, the "sole" information we have is a empty weight of 15 tons, so 50% more than a Rafale and 35% more than a EF2000.
Without vertical fin, if true, you already have a weight reduction.... specially if there are 2 fins.
 
red admiral said:
Yeah, that's simply not true
Click to expand...
You're wrong.
Cost of the whole Rafale prog : 43 € billions for a revised target of 225 planes (initial target 305, then 286, then 225).
National Audit Office (GB) said the 160 EF2000 of RAF cost a total of 37 £ billions, so nearly 45 € billions. Now add Germany, Italy, Spain.
 
BonPlan2 said:
National Audit Office (GB) said the 160 EF2000 of RAF cost a total of 37 £ billions, so nearly 45 € billions.
Click to expand...
The £37B includes Typhoon lifetime support costs, so this isn't a fair comparison really.

Best I can tell (and cost comparisons are notoriously tricky), based on actual expenditures reported by the UK NAO and French senate budget documents, is that Rafale and Typhoon costs tracked very close to each other from the late 80s through to 2006 (adjusting for exchange rates obviously)... about €15 billion (Rafale) vs. £10.5B / €15B (UK Typhoon).

Basically the Armee de l'Air/Aeronavale and the RAF paid the same amount over 15-20 years to develop, fly prototypes, launch production, and cover initial deliveries of the first 40 Rafales F1/F2s and 40 Typhoons T1s. Except obviously the RAF was only paying ~1/3rd of Eurofighter development costs. And Dassault delivered aircraft to a higher standard (Rafale F2 with air-to-ground features vs. Eurofighter T1 with some hardware limitations, plus the naval Rafale M variant). Personally I'd chalk that as a win for Dassault.

P.S. Take away for FCAS... if the German government & Airbus DS think they have financial leverage over France due to Germany's deeper pockets and ability to fund NGF development, they are probably wrong. Unless they can demonstrate that lessons have been learned from Eurofighter and real efficiencies will be found this time.
 
Last edited:
@H_K It's complicated from a number of factors. Obviously total programme costs are increased e.g. infrastructure build in multiple countries, but as a national % share of these costs then they are lower than doing it alone. This is further complicated by not developing and producing the same aircraft e.g. 10% difference in empty mass has a non neglible cost impact.

There's definite scope for efficiencies over the Eurofighter model for SCAF. e.g. How about a single production line in Spain to benefit from the lower labour costs?
 
red admiral said:
There's definite scope for efficiencies over the Eurofighter model for SCAF. e.g. How about a single production line in Spain to benefit from the lower labour costs?
Click to expand...
That would indeed be how a business would run things! Throw in some production of the most labor intensive fuselage elements in an even cheaper country (Greece or India would make a lot of sense). With German and French factories focusing on the most complex and high value subsystems, avionics etc.

Fat chance of any government agreeing to that!
 
Last edited:
If you gave France’s know-how and it's defense technological and industrial base ( from design&assembly to engines, sensors, and weapons ) to South Korea, India, or Turkey and then asked them whether they’d rather build a 100% sovereign fighter on their own or take a 33% stake in a wonky trinational program with no control over exports ... they’d laugh in your face.
 
Last edited:
I think if Germany leaves, then the stars pretty much almost align for Spain to shift to the Kaan project. The only big obstacle there is engine tech.
 
TomcatViP said:
That would be a curious outcome. Kaan for the army and F-35 or nothing for their Navy? Humm... Where would someone fish such affirmation? Is there any report on that?
Click to expand...
No, that is purely conjecture on my part. Feel free to dismiss. It is based only on 2 factors:
1. No sense of urgency in military buildup in Spain.
2. Spain's political realignment with Turkey.
 
Titus K said:
If you gave France’s know-how and it's defense technological and industrial base ( from design&assembly to engines, sensors, and weapons ) to South Korea, India, or Turkey and then asked them whether they’d rather build a 100% sovereign fighter on their own or take a 33% stake in a wonky trinational program with no control over exports ... they’d laugh in your face.
Click to expand...
Once again it seems to be kinda ignored that with France's know-how and it's defense technological and industrial base they couldn't produce a "sovereign fighter" that's anywhere near as ambitious as the "wonky trinational program".

Because once again: if they could have done something comparable on their own, they would have done so, as they usually do. And they would have laughed in everyone's face. But reality is quite the opposite.

Not to mention that Turkey and South Korea are currently developing indigenous fighters that are on paper more advanced than anything France has developed to a similar stage thus far.
 
Moderator: this thread should be made "NEWS ONLY" like the Rafale or F-47A ones.
 
EmoBirb said:
Once again it seems to be kinda ignored that with France's know-how and it's defense technological and industrial base they couldn't produce a "sovereign fighter" that's anywhere near as ambitious as the "wonky trinational program".

Because once again: if they could have done something comparable on their own, they would have done so, as they usually do. And they would have laughed in everyone's face. But reality is quite the opposite.

Not to mention that Turkey and South Korea are currently developing indigenous fighters that are on paper more advanced than anything France has developed to a similar stage thus far.
Click to expand...
Given how popular the Rafale still is despite being only 4th gen in the dawn of 6th gens, I assume if France pursued a 6th gen on its own and permitted its exports to whomever also bought Rafales (at least), then it would likely become an export success, and easily overcome any financial problems involved.
 
That would be good for France if it did that Big_Zukini, I would think that what is Germanys loss would be France's gain in that respect. Plus the fact that if the US does stop the F-47 from being exported like they did with the F-22 then that would be beneficial to Dassault in the long term.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Given how popular the Rafale still is despite being only 4th gen in the dawn of 6th gens, I assume if France pursued a 6th gen on its own and permitted its exports to whomever also bought Rafales (at least), then it would likely become an export success, and easily overcome any financial problems involved.
Click to expand...
Again, if France could deliver a proper 6th generation fighter in a timely manner alone, even when the investment would only pay off later, they would have done so. If they were that capable and confident, they wouldn't cling to FCAS like they do despite all the trouble.

So clearly, they themselves don't think they could deliver something of the scale of FCAS independently in a similar time frame. A 5th Gen to compete with the likes of the F-35, KAAN, J-35, Su-75 or KF-21 (Block-whatever) is quite possibly achievable for Dassault and the French industry as a whole, completely indigenous and controlled by France. But at least for now it doesn't seem like that's the route they want to take, although it may be, like you pointed out, quite the lucrative option.

After all the Rafale is an export success, so an aircraft that's even more capable and from the same people, utilizing largely the same weapons and being a good offer to countries who already operate Dassault aircraft is a good business case.

But FCAS isn't just about delivering an aircraft, drones, missiles, sensors, cloud and what not. It's about the effort of Germany, France and Spain to keep pace and remain at the forefront of military aviation and not get completely outpaced by the likes of the US, China, UK, Italy and Japan and thus relegated to the same realm as the likes of Turkey and Korea. It's about developing and maintaining key institutional knowledge, industrial capabilities and technology to remain competitive with the biggest players. That's why Germany would only begrudgingly settle for an indigenous 5th Gen, although it would reflect the German needs better, that's why France wants to avoid this scenario as well.

That's also why, if FCAS should fracture, it will most likely split into two next generation programs, one led by Germany and partners and the other by France and partners. And there are in fact many emerging or known players in the industry that could see the opportunity to join in on a project that will benefit their own industry and knowledge base immensely. Be it Saab, KAI, TAI or HAL, even the Saudis are interested (although bringing in mostly money and labor). So it's not like there aren't other options, it's all a matter of commitment and being able to make the deal sweeter than just being a customer which would ultimately be cheaper for most.

If neither Germany nor France make concessions to each other, then this is the route FCAS is heading down. It's not pretty, but it's not the end of the world either. At the end of the day each country is looking out for it's own interests first and foremost and if interests align that's ground for cooperation and then it doesn't matter with whom you're cooperating.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
Once again it seems to be kinda ignored that with France's know-how and it's defense technological and industrial base they couldn't produce a "sovereign fighter" that's anywhere near as ambitious as the "wonky trinational program".
Click to expand...
Who says a program has to be as ambitious from day one ?
If it’s 100% French, it can be tailored precisely to France’s operational needs and export strategy, just like the Rafale.
The current SCAF may be ambitious, but for now, it’s still largely a paper project.

EmoBirb said:
Because once again: if they could have done something comparable on their own, they would have done so, as they usually do. And they would have laughed in everyone's face. But reality is quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
This program was launched by politicians ... you're making it sound like the french industry came to the conclusion that in order to develop a next gen fighter, France desperatly needed Germany and Spain's help

I've listened to all the audits of Dassault/Safran/Thales at the french parliament/senate and they all affirm that France CAN do it alone.

Here is a 2025 quote from O.Andries (Safran CEO) at the french ... btw, he is one of least hostile ones to SCAF :
Thank you for this question, as it is clearly very important and strategic. In the military domain, and particularly in combat aviation, complete sovereignty is essential. A country cannot be truly sovereign without sovereignty in combat aviation. This is what makes a country like France strong: outside of the United States, it is still the only Western country capable of designing a combat aircraft from A to Z.

Sovereignty in combat aviation necessarily includes sovereignty over engines. Achieving this engine sovereignty means mastering the hot sections—the parts that operate at extremely high temperatures. It also requires sovereignty in the development of the materials that make up these hot sections, particularly the high-pressure turbines.

For this major strategic reason, we decided to acquire Aubert & Duval, a company belonging to the Eramet group, which Eramet wanted to sell and which had been struggling after years of operational and quality crises. Airbus supported us in this effort, and we acquired the company in 2020 with the support of Tico and a fund we had created to support the sector.

The primary strategic reason was therefore to work with a French alloy producer, which is absolutely critical for an engine manufacturer. Alloy development, especially for alloys that must withstand very high temperatures, is a highly specialized “craft.” In the Western world, all major alloy producers are American, except for Aubert & Duval, the only French one. It therefore seemed essential to regain control of this expertise to guarantee our sovereignty and to develop the materials needed for next-generation engines, particularly for the SCAF engine.

Historically, it was with Aubert & Duval that we developed the materials needed for the Rafale engine nearly 40 years ago, and it is with them that we will develop the materials for the next-generation SCAF engine.
Click to expand...

EmoBirb said:
Not to mention that Turkey and South Korea are currently developing indigenous fighters that are on paper more advanced than anything France has developed to a similar stage thus far.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget the Mirage-sized stealthy UCAV that will enter service around the same time as KAAN in the early 2030's ... and it won't need an american engine...
I wouldn’t say France is lagging behind, even if Turkey and South Korea are making impressive strides and their efforts have to be applauded !
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom