USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsport said:
wow, thank you for sharing. Unmanned ASW didnt see that till now..
Click to expand...
Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?

jsport said:
Seems in the end a FA-XX would be a " low density" asset ie not many. It is worth the development a new plane rather something F-35 based?
Click to expand...
Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.
 
Ozair said:
Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.
Click to expand...

It will end up being a larger program than that if the Navy meets its design and program goals. At some point in the early to mid 2030s (once F/A-XX exits low rate production), the Navy would be looking to transition from buying F-35C's to buying F/A-XX so it will be the only game in town with hundreds of Super Hornets needing replacement between then and the early 2040s. Some of the ways this won't happen...

* Navy does not secure funding to pursue F/A-XX as originally intended
* Navy does not execute well on the program severely limiting it or leading to outright cancellation
* Navy gold plates the requirements and is unable to afford to produce it at reasonable annual rates or buy a substantial inventory
* There's a breakthrough in autonomous unmanned aircraft and/or other external pressures (budgets, CONOPS etc) which forces the Navy to substantially alter its manned / unmanned fleet mix
* The Navy dramatically reduces its future carrier fleet and air wings

I think the Navy is likely to pursue a 5+ generation concept for F/A-XX. Some elements of next generation technologies mixed in with large amounts relatively proven technology baseline that's already flying on the F/A-18E/F or F-35C. The hope here being to field something that is better than the F-35C in some ways (range, payload, Space/weight/power & thermals perhaps) while being similar in other (stealth and avionics perhaps).

This approach they would hope keeps unit cost to within reasonable levels (for a post 2030 fighter) and enables them to replace at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the Rhino fleet (remaining going the unmanned way) over time without breaking the bank. This is not too different from what its also doing on the DDG (X) effort where its looking to take the current state of the art in mission systems and field it on a larger, more optimized hull with plenty of power and thermal margin for future growth. A similar path makes sense on F/A-XX. While one could say that an F-35C with AETP could meet some of that demand for increased mission system performance, power and thermals it would still be approaching maxing out the potential of the platform. A clean sheet, larger F/A-XX could start at a baseline that is similar to or better than what ann F-35C with AETP could deliver in terms of power, cooling and mission system perofrmance with plenty of margin for future growth. That, along with greater range and larger payload would justify a $10-$15 Bn RDT&E expense vs spending $2-3 Bn to re-engine the F-35C.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?


Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.
Click to expand...
Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.
 
dark sidius said:
B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.
Click to expand...

F/A-XX is a 'strike fighter'. Strike fighters have a range of performance attributes they are optimized around. Efficient supersonic cruise without reheat is cool but also a very expensive attribute to chase in terms of impact on cost and other attributes. To say, that a strike fighter that can't supercruise is of no use to the Navy in the Pacific is quite a bold statement especially since F/A-XX alternatives probably look something like an unmanned subsonic flying wing and more F-35C's which both won't supercruise or in the case of the UCAV even fly supersonic.

I think the Navy would be quite comfortable trading away supercruise and supersonic perf (high Mach flight) in general for more range and payload on F/A-XX. Going for all three, while still requiring at least F35 level LO would lead to a very expensive aircraft and thus be totally unaffordable as a Rhino replacement. If the Navy had high confidence or was more deeply invested in autonomous / semi-autonomous unmanned strike systems (like if it had X-47 /NUCAS in production) one could make a case for a higher performing more expensive F-XX to be purchased in smaller quantities. But that's not the case. USN appears to be taking a crawl - walk - run approach with unmanned (MQ-25 by 2030 followed by some ISR capability and then strike systems sometime after that) and thus probably sees F/A-XX as a platform that has to replace majority of SH's fielded at the moment. That imposes a very real cost ceiling.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.
Click to expand...
If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).
 
Both the counter-TEL missiles & missile firing planes themselves are best served w/speed in dealing with the vastness of the Asian landmass & Pacific Ocean..IMHO.

...would imagine the philosophy of NGAS & carrier unmanned tankers is to allow both endurance and speed. Time Critical Targeting (TCT) requires both.
 
Josh_TN said:
Presumably the B-21 is similarly useless?
Click to expand...
Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.
 
Josh_TN said:
Seems to me if engine development is a go, what is likely the most expensive/high risk piece of manned NGAD is already being paid for?
Click to expand...
It's not quite as certain as that, but this announcement keeps the propulsion program alive and moving forward. Both NGAP bidders had warned their programs were at risk without this move, so it's good to see. They could still ice PCA, or punt it down the line to a time when decision-making is in a less.....uncertain situation. But keeping NGAP alive is a good thing.
 
_Del_ said:
If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).
Click to expand...

T3?
 
jsport said:
Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.
Click to expand...

The B-21 is the only game in town; full stop. The B-1A was only supersonic for sprints on reheat. As noted above, even super cruising sans afterburner is always going to come at a cost, and one of those costs is fuel efficiency.
 
dark sidius said:
I don't see why invest in new engine if they don't know for the futur of the NGAD fighter?
Click to expand...
Because the engine is the most difficult component to develop. That's why they start doing research on engine tech as soon as a new engine goes into service. There will be a new fighter. They can design the engine for the size they think the USAF will want. If they have to resize it due to changing requirements, that's not as big a deal as just developing the technology in the first place.
 
Josh_TN said:
T3?
Click to expand...
Variable targeting capability for the same missile. AAM/ARM/ASM. I'm speaking broadly of the capability, not the specific T3 that was a DARPA program.
 
Josh_TN said:
The B-21 is the only game in town; full stop.'
Click to expand...
Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
Cold war nuclear bomber tactics openly expressed how B-1s (speed) & B-2s (stealth) would complete complex attacks in order to infiltrate the Soviet Union. Attacks mixing drones & missiles & aerial attacks is what one sees in one current conflict.
Josh_TN said:
The B-1A was only supersonic for sprints on reheat. As noted above, even super cruising sans afterburner is always going to come at a cost, and one of those costs is fuel efficiency.
Click to expand...
In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
If ongoing engine development is combined w/ drastic weight reductions one can never count out the possibility of even a much faster B-21.. There has to be more of a positive outcome of smaller than B-2, B -21 than just better stealth.
 
jsport said:
Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
Cold war nuclear bomber tactics openly expressed how B-1s (speed) & B-2s (stealth) would complete complex attacks in order to infiltrate the Soviet Union. Attacks mixing drones & missiles & aerial attacks is what one sees in one current conflict.

In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
If ongoing engine development is combined w/ drastic weight reductions one can never count out the possibility of even a much faster B-21.. There has to be more of a positive outcome of smaller than B-2, B -21 than just better stealth.
Click to expand...

I think you will be sorely disappointed. Right now it is not clear that even manned NGAD gets paid for. USAF has no plans for an additional bomber type until the 2040s; they have said quite explicitly they are downsizing to B-21/52.
 
bring_it_on said:
It will end up being a larger program than that if the Navy meets its design and program goals. At some point in the early to mid 2030s (once F/A-XX exits low rate production), the Navy would be looking to transition from buying F-35C's to buying F/A-XX so it will be the only game in town with hundreds of Super Hornets needing replacement between then and the early 2040s. Some of the ways this won't happen...

* Navy does not secure funding to pursue F/A-XX as originally intended
* Navy does not execute well on the program severely limiting it or leading to outright cancellation
* Navy gold plates the requirements and is unable to afford to produce it at reasonable annual rates or buy a substantial inventory
* There's a breakthrough in autonomous unmanned aircraft and/or other external pressures (budgets, CONOPS etc) which forces the Navy to substantially alter its manned / unmanned fleet mix
* The Navy dramatically reduces its future carrier fleet and air wings
Click to expand...
The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.

bring_it_on said:
I think the Navy is likely to pursue a 5+ generation concept for F/A-XX. Some elements of next generation technologies mixed in with large amounts relatively proven technology baseline that's already flying on the F/A-18E/F or F-35C. The hope here being to field something that is better than the F-35C in some ways (range, payload, Space/weight/power & thermals perhaps) while being similar in other (stealth and avionics perhaps).

This approach they would hope keeps unit cost to within reasonable levels (for a post 2030 fighter) and enables them to replace at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the Rhino fleet (remaining going the unmanned way) over time without breaking the bank. This is not too different from what its also doing on the DDG (X) effort where its looking to take the current state of the art in mission systems and field it on a larger, more optimized hull with plenty of power and thermal margin for future growth. A similar path makes sense on F/A-XX. While one could say that an F-35C with AETP could meet some of that demand for increased mission system performance, power and thermals it would still be approaching maxing out the potential of the platform. A clean sheet, larger F/A-XX could start at a baseline that is similar to or better than what ann F-35C with AETP could deliver in terms of power, cooling and mission system perofrmance with plenty of margin for future growth. That, along with greater range and larger payload would justify a $10-$15 Bn RDT&E expense vs spending $2-3 Bn to re-engine the F-35C.
Click to expand...
It is a hard decision point for the USN as at the moment the money isn't really available, given other priorities. I agree, and said as much in the other thread, that this platform is really a 5.5 gen aircraft.

jsport said:
Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.
Click to expand...
As other have said, there is more to life than supercruise, especially if the CONOPS includes using CCA to bulk numbers.
 
Ozair said:
The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.
Click to expand...

That's great but its CSBA not the Navy (for good or bad). The Navy is pursuing a clean sheet design for FA-XX. At least that's their desire. They've stopped buying the SH now, and would have fielded 2/3 of intended F-35Cs by the turn of the decade. The only way I don't see them going all in on F/A-XX from the early-mid 2030s onwards is if the program fails to deliver (I mentioned a few where I think it can stumble) and/or there is a breakthrough in unmanned or overall cultural approach to it within the Navy. Short of that, Navy wants a fast jet program it owns..now that SH is exiting production. I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. But the Navy wants to replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the SH fleet with a manned F/A-XX from what I can tell. That alone will influence how much capability it can design in w/o breaking the bank. If that's the goal, the decision to avoid adaptive engines, and probably generation leap in LO seems logical. This will be a 5/5+ gen weapon truck with morerange, power, space, and thermal management capabilty vs F-35C..
 
Josh_TN said:
I think you will be sorely disappointed. Right now it is not clear that even manned NGAD gets paid for. USAF has no plans for an additional bomber type until the 2040s; they have said quite explicitly they are downsizing to B-21/52.
Click to expand...
it is bizarre to say I will be disappointed, as if national security is my purview, I have no influence over congressional / contractor complex in the first place. Downsizing under the new administration seems less likely and the future is unwritten and full of continuous tumult.
 
bring_it_on said:
That's great but its CSBA not the Navy (for good or bad). The Navy is pursuing a clean sheet design for FA-XX. At least that's their desire. They've stopped buying the SH now, and would have fielded 2/3 of intended F-35Cs by the turn of the decade. The only way I don't see them going all in on F/A-XX from the early-mid 2030s onwards is if the program fails to deliver (I mentioned a few where I think it can stumble) and/or there is a breakthrough in unmanned or overall cultural approach to it within the Navy. Short of that, Navy wants a fast jet program it owns..now that SH is exiting production. I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. But the Navy wants to replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the SH fleet with a manned F/A-XX from what I can tell. That alone will influence how much capability it can design in w/o breaking the bank. If that's the goal, the decision to avoid adaptive engines, and probably generation leap in LO seems logical. This will be a 5/5+ gen weapon truck with morerange, power, space, and thermal management capabilty vs F-35C..
Click to expand...
"I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. "
would agree w/ that approach in dealing w/ widely dispersed defended tgts as well, but CVNs will again, look more like self-licking ice cream cones (carrier primarily carries their own defense) as the majority manned on board are craft would be tasked for counter air and fleet defense. What do these expensive manned F-Xs provide for joint area denial anti access effort and are they the best fleet defense against the hypersonic cruise & BM threat?
Unfortunately for the political relevance of the CVN expenditure, a larger craft w/ internal bays and the ability to mothership as close as possible to these 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS should remain a priority.
 
Ozair said:
Great addition but now the question is can they keep the cost down enough to make it viable for an attritable airframe?
Click to expand...

The answer would be a yes as long as that is the focus. You will probably see a range of variants across the cost / capability spectrum. Some equipped with mission systems that cost several millions of dollars (RF sensor, EO/IR sensor and EW gear), while others are essentially just adjunct weapon carriers that will be at a much lower cost point and mostly relying on the buddy manned or unmanned assets for targeting. Ideally you would want that sort of mix in your CCA fleet if your intention is to build thousands of these.

Joint Soviet Fighter said:
If the drone requires an AESA radar, my guess would be probably not, as they tend to be quite expensive.
Click to expand...

A small AESA front end like that (600 module air cooled array) would probably run something like $1-$2 Million if built at scale. Nor add a similar amount on top of that to enable CCA to carry a radar and you are probably looking at something like $2-4 MM cost add for a capable RF sensor. Phantom strike is in production now for F/A-50 and other applications. I think there will be a variant of it offered for the Apache podded AESA radar effort as well..so by the time CCA sensor question comes up, it will be an in service product at least internationally.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that not all CCA will have the same sensors. Some will carry AESA, some passive sensors and other next to nothing but a radio and act as bomb/missile truck.
This certainly will help to keep the average unit cost down.
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
If the drone requires an AESA radar, my guess would be probably not, as they tend to be quite expensive.
Click to expand...
Since the same with the poor kinematics performance , it will become expensive for not a big value of performance. Subsonic speed in time of high speed and hypersonic weapon and futur drone is not the better response and Fury have a lack of stealth too, this is a waste of money making the mass with poor performance aircrafts. Instead buying a mass of long range missile will be cheaper and will have the same result. Fury will face supercruise ennemy fighters I don't see how it can win in a confrontation. At a time of China are building high performance fighter the USAF response is a reusable cruise missile with a radar.....Taking hours and hours going in the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Don't forget that not all CCA will have the same sensors. Some will carry AESA, some passive sensors and other next to nothing but a radio and act as bomb/missile truck.
This certainly will help to keep the average unit cost down.
Click to expand...
Yes agree that there will definitely be a sensor mix as you and others have said. Correspondingly though there is value in volume production. RTX making 1000 radars at a rapid rate, instead of 400 slow, could reduce the average unit price by as much as 40% (based on typical 10-15% reduction in cost for doubling production). That would also allow the US to stockpile these for future buys and for situations where the CCA fleet has to grow quickly. Bending the metal to make the airframe is cheap and relatively quick but the higher tech parts have longer lead times.
 
dark sidius said:
Since the same with the poor kinematics performance , it will become expensive for not a big value of performance. Subsonic speed in time of high speed and hypersonic weapon and futur drone is not the better response and Fury have a lack of stealth too, this is a waste of money making the mass with poor performance aircrafts. Instead buying a mass of long range missile will be cheaper and will have the same result. Fury will face supercruise ennemy fighters I don't see how it can win in a confrontation. At a time of China are building high performance fighter the USAF response is a reusable cruise missile with a radar.....Taking hours and hours going in the battlefield.
Click to expand...

The concepts of operations, and ultimately the performance attributes and requirements for CCA's will be very different from traditional manned fighter jets. The CCA's will never be required to defeat in 1 v 1 combat, a $100+ Million Chinese stealth fighter. These serve a very specific role and mission. They need to capable enough to be credible and a value add and simple enough to be cheap and allow for mass. The sort of CCA vs CCA conflict is going to happen years down the road once autonomy is developed and advanced enough to field full-fledged unmanned fighters. Until then it will be about play calling and using the adjunct sensors and magazines to accomplish missions which would otherwise be very hard or very expensive (or both) if done using $200 Million plus next gen fighters. The first few increments of CCA's will probably not be fast, nor very stealthy..they will need to carry a reasonable sensor and/or weapon load and have the computing and autonomy to add value as sensor and/or magazine extenders for NGAD PCA, F-35's etc.
 
bring_it_on said:
The concepts of operations, and ultimately the performance attributes and requirements for CCA's will be very different from traditional manned fighter jets. The CCA's will never be required to defeat in 1 v 1 combat, a $100+ Million Chinese stealth fighter. These serve a very specific role and mission. They need to capable enough to be credible and a value add and simple enough to be cheap and allow for mass. The sort of CCA vs CCA conflict is going to happen years down the road once autonomy is developed and advanced enough to field full-fledged unmanned fighters. Until then it will be about play calling and using the adjunct sensors and magazines to accomplish missions which would otherwise be very hard or very expensive (or both) if done using $200 Million plus next gen fighters. The first few increments of CCA's will probably not be fast, nor very stealthy..they will need to carry a reasonable sensor and/or weapon load and have the computing and autonomy to add value as sensor and/or magazine extenders for NGAD PCA, F-35's etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with you , but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ? CC-2 will be in 10 years ? at this time China will surely have plenty of 5th gen and 6th gen squadron in PLAAF , I understand the concept but for me me the timing is not good, we are losing a lot of time with NGAD , losing a lot of time with F-35 and in the same time China are building more and more advanced capacity , and I m afraid that China could built a hypersonic striker soon in a ultimate capacity. I don't understand why we are losing so long time to develop advanced programs.We can't win a power like China with a discount Air Force. We are February and still no decision on how to build the NGAD we have lost 6 months since July in the same time we saw 2 Chinese demonstrator flying in public and one over a higway , who say it is more advanced than we think.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you are backing into these timelines. CCA Inc 1 will fly this year. I think how the two vendors perform, and how the mission autonomy suits, being developed for these, evolve will determine how quickly we can field force structure. As it is, NGAD isn't even expected till 2030s and the idea that you'll be able to deploy CCA's in bulk with F-35's and F-15EX's in the next few years is dodgy if not extremely unproven at scale. So, I don't expect CCA's to be a 'real' credible capability until well into the 2030s. But once they do, the individual Increments should be absorbed into the mix pretty easily as these are role and capability variations and not technology or generational leaps in capability.
 
bring_it_on said:
I don't know how you are backing into these timelines. CCA Inc 1 will fly this year. I think how the two vendors perform, and how the mission autonomy suits, being developed for these, evolve will determine how quickly we can field force structure. As it is, NGAD isn't even expected till 2030s and the idea that you'll be able to deploy CCA's in bulk with F-35's and F-15EX's in the next few years is dodgy if not extremely unproven at scale. So, I don't expect CCA's to be a 'real' credible capability until well into the 2030s. But once they do, the individual Increments should be absorbed into the mix pretty easily as these are role and capability variations and not technology or generational leaps in capability.
Click to expand...
We must choose NGAD this year to be in the 2030 timing. CCA-1 this year ok , but realy in squadron ? surely more years.
 
dark sidius said:
We must choose NGAD this year to be in the 2030 timing. CCA-1 this year ok , but realy in squadron ? surely more years.
Click to expand...

My point was that it is too early to tell. How quickly CCA's can be fielded depends on what the maturity on the autonomy side of the program is, and what plans are being funded to allow existing fighters to control them and how mature these plans are. We know very little on who is developing the autonomy side of the CCA program and what sort of timelines we are working with. So if the assumption is that CCA's race into the inventory ahead of NGAD then we need to learn a quite a bit more on those two issues. If CCA induction in numbers is aligned with NGAD induction then we can expect early to mid 2030s when NGAD platform is likely to become operational realistically so CCA's will stay mostly experimental and/or low production volume efforts for the next 6-8 years under such a scenario (that won't stop the program evolving and going through multiple increments of the capability).
 
Ozair said:
Yes agree that there will definitely be a sensor mix as you and others have said. Correspondingly though there is value in volume production. RTX making 1000 radars at a rapid rate, instead of 400 slow, could reduce the average unit price by as much as 40% (based on typical 10-15% reduction in cost for doubling production). That would also allow the US to stockpile these for future buys and for situations where the CCA fleet has to grow quickly. Bending the metal to make the airframe is cheap and relatively quick but the higher tech parts have longer lead times.
Click to expand...
Rate of production is a huge issue, but it is too easy to distract some decision-makers with fancy power points showing how much cooler a $60m CCA that will take forever to develop and produce would be, rather than these "disposable cheap CCA's that can't do all these things".
The big primes have lots of money to make power points to lobby congresscritters and promise jobs to generals advocating the "next whizbang do everything drone" which will be a two-decade gravy train for the giant.
 
I don't that sensor production is any serious limitation when it comes to rate of production. Both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each delivered over a 1,000 airborne AESA radars to date and we consistently produce 200 or more each year. Adding capacity will not be hard or very expensive.
 
bring_it_on said:
Adding capacity will not be hard or very expensive.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this part, but I agree that with a proper production run, you can drive the costs strongly in the right direction for sensors. As Ozair notes, securing long lead items in quantity is half the battle. The smaller the subs making components are, the harder it is to ramp up production without a large commitment.
 
_Del_ said:
Disagree with this part, but I agree that with a proper production run, you can drive the costs strongly in the right direction for sensors. As Ozair notes, securing long lead items in quantity is half the battle. The smaller the subs making components are, the harder it is to ramp up production without a large commitment.
Click to expand...

It really isn't for the type of sensors we are talking about here (leveraging commercial components and other in-production or about to enter in production products). You want a 100-200 such radars a year..RTX should be able to ramp up and deliver. You want more, you have two OEM's working to supply it instead of just one. There are no requirements to produce CCA's at that scale in the near term so that buys you the 3-5 year ramp to establish the production program for mission systems.
 
bring_it_on said:
It really isn't for the type of sensors we are talking about here
Click to expand...
Systems integration is now the cost/time, not the hardware. The reason the F-35 is taking forever to get to block 4 is not hardware. The more stuff you pack in, the more stuff you have to make code for. We are hopefully moving into open architecture that makes that easier, but nothing rides free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom