Military air-to-air combat today vs. back in WWII

zaitcev said:
My Russian acquiantances say that 150 is the limit for useful flying, primarily because the intake of education is drastically degraded after 2 hours in flight if it's an instructional flight and not just tooling enroute to the hot zone and back. U.K. used to have the bottom floor of 180, but they dropped it (I'm sure in part for budgetary reasons).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to make of this……….I don't know what fighter actually has fuel to fly a meaningful "training" flight for 2 hours. How about a 1.0 once or twice every day? That is how you get good.
 
zaitcev said:
My Russian acquiantances say that 150 is the limit for useful flying, primarily because the intake of education is drastically degraded after 2 hours in flight if it's an instructional flight and not just tooling enroute to the hot zone and back. U.K. used to have the bottom floor of 180, but they dropped it (I'm sure in part for budgetary reasons).
Click to expand...

Well I'd agree for instruction that after 2 hrs learning is going to diminish. I's say if you're a qualified pilot and doing 2 hrs a flight, you'll have well over 150 hrs a year. If those two hours are meaningful training and not flying from A to B, you're gonna be more proficient than that 150 hr / yr pilot.

The bean counters would like to solve the proficiency problem with increased sim time. Just can't simulate real world joint ops in a sim. It's good for basic instruments & EPs but you gotta get out in SUA to really learn your craft.
 
Velocity173 said:
The bean counters would like to solve the proficiency problem with increased sim time. Just can't simulate real world joint ops in a sim. It's good for basic instruments & EPs but you gotta get out in SUA to really learn your craft.
Click to expand...
One bet Russians have made here is to rack hours in Yak-130, which is significantly cheaper to operate than a Flanker. So they are putting all the real IR and radar gear on the poor thing.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well I'd agree for instruction that after 2 hrs learning is going to diminish. I's say if you're a qualified pilot and doing 2 hrs a flight, you'll have well over 150 hrs a year. If those two hours are meaningful training and not flying from A to B, you're gonna be more proficient than that 150 hr / yr pilot.



The bean counters would like to solve the proficiency problem with increased sim time. Just can't simulate real world joint ops in a sim. It's good for basic instruments & EPs but you gotta get out in SUA to really learn your craft.
Click to expand...


Actually BVR training in the Eagle is better in the sim than in the jet. No red air kill removal nonsense; if a dude explodes, he's dead. No fumbling around in a shot val trying to remember if it was supposed to be a PK miss...if the dude is still there when you turn hot, PK miss. Of course BFM and ACM are better in the jet, but there are so many artificialities built in to LFEs and even TI that the sim does a better job of representing reality. Add in some jammers and SAMs and you get the whole enchilada. Plus we can link sims together all over the world and even fly OCA with actual strikers. We even bring in AWACS guys to clutter up the radios at the most inopportune times (usually right after we've turned cold and we're just trying to figure out where the hell everyone else in the formation is). If you think our modern sims are just basic instruments and EPs you are mistaken.

Did a tanker guy seriously post on here calling himself a patch, or did I read that wrong?
 
romanhikou said:
Did a tanker guy seriously post on here calling himself a patch, or did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

2vtwabq.jpg
 
romanhikou said:
Did a tanker guy seriously post on here calling himself a patch, or did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

Hey, I know a guy that flew tankers. He's the only guy I've ever heard of that was offered full ride ROTC scholarships to the college of his choice, by the Air Force, Navy, and Army. He happened to choose the Air Force, and MIT, and the Air Force let him stay an extra year to get a Masters. ;) He became an Air Force Test Pilot, too.
 
romanhikou said:
Actually BVR training in the Eagle is better in the sim than in the jet. No red air kill removal nonsense; if a dude explodes, he's dead. No fumbling around in a shot val trying to remember if it was supposed to be a PK miss...if the dude is still there when you turn hot, PK miss. Of course BFM and ACM are better in the jet, but there are so many artificialities built in to LFEs and even TI that the sim does a better job of representing reality. Add in some jammers and SAMs and you get the whole enchilada. Plus we can link sims together all over the world and even fly OCA with actual strikers. We even bring in AWACS guys to clutter up the radios at the most inopportune times (usually right after we've turned cold and we're just trying to figure out where the hell everyone else in the formation is). If you think our modern sims are just basic instruments and EPs you are mistaken.

Did a tanker guy seriously post on here calling himself a patch, or did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

I agree that a full up sim is a great tool to learn the mech, tactics, etc. I'd also disagree that it makes up for experience in the jet. Both in moderation. Obviously there are a lot of different things in the jet that make things harder. In the sim, everything is pretty much perfect/FMC, not so much in a real live event.
 
Not saying it makes up for experience in the jet...of course it doesn't. I am saying that anytime you simulate something you introduce artificialities. That applies to tactical training in the jet as well as in the sim. There are serious limitations on the accuracy of combat simulation in the actual jet when you introduce any more than four aircraft because we can't really shoot each other down. Of course we have to learn how to fly the jet in the jet, but that is almost an afterthought when you start talking about the real mission of these airplanes - flying is just admin. The point here is that tactical sims do far more than teach EPs and instruments, and in my experience are better tactical training than many of the simulations we stage in the air. You are right about the FMC thing though. In the real world that AWACS guy isn't there cluttering up the radio because the AWACS didn't actually make the fight.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Hey, I know a guy that flew tankers. He's the only guy I've ever heard of that was offered full ride ROTC scholarships to the college of his choice, by the Air Force, Navy, and Army. He happened to choose the Air Force, and MIT, and the Air Force let him stay an extra year to get a Masters. ;) He became an Air Force Test Pilot, too.
Click to expand...


There are talented people everywhere. That doesn't mean someone who went to tanker weapons school or got some nice college offers knows the first thing about air-to-air combat, which is the topic of this thread. I wouldn't comment on a thread about dealing with receivers, or whatever tanker threads are about, without making it clear that the only part of that world I know about is sitting at the end of a boom. And cursing tankers who "help" with rejoins.

Back to the original question, flying modern fighters in combat is far more than just pushing a button and shooting guys down with automated systems. It is very task-saturating and isn't what you see in movies. Throw in a restrictive ROE, non-FMC equipment, and a few other variables and it can quickly become overwhelming. How does it compare with WWII? Apples and oranges in terms of specific tasks unless you are flying BFM, but probably a similar level task management involved when all things are considered. For what it's worth, BFM is the first thing new fighter pilots learn after they get a basic instrument qualification in the airplane. It takes a long time to learn how to execute bigger, more complicated operations.
 
romanhikou said:
Not saying it makes up for experience in the jet...of course it doesn't. I am saying that anytime you simulate something you introduce artificialities. That applies to tactical training in the jet as well as in the sim. There are serious limitations on the accuracy of combat simulation in the actual jet when you introduce any more than four aircraft because we can't really shoot each other down. Of course we have to learn how to fly the jet in the jet, but that is almost an afterthought when you start talking about the real mission of these airplanes - flying is just admin. The point here is that tactical sims do far more than teach EPs and instruments, and in my experience are better tactical training than many of the simulations we stage in the air. You are right about the FMC thing though. In the real world that AWACS guy isn't there cluttering up the radio because the AWACS didn't actually make the fight.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose I was giving a general statement on military sims than to just the fighter arena. It's sounds like you all get some good training out of the tactics portion.

To clarify, in the helo lift community, the sim is almost useless for multi ship (except commo), sling loads, ridgline / pinnacle ops, NVGs, urban ops, troop infil / exfil, gunnery, CSAR and actions on contact. I'd say the actions on contact portion can be simulated satisfactory in a sim, but really can't compare to getting lit up on a range by simulated ADA systems.

Sims are definitely useful for getting acquainted with your AO procedures prior to deploying.
 
romanhikou said:
Did a tanker guy seriously post on here calling himself a patch, or did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

A patch is a patch, brother. Plus, I'd think you'd actually want to have support assets who have a clue how to properly integrate into the overall fight.

Not saying my community is perfect (hell, I fight that battle every day), but that's why some of us raised their hands to get kicked in the junk for 5+ months. Ever done a full-up HVAA protect/attack sortie with a tanker? Highly recommend it next time you get a chance. Send me a message sometime, and I'll even coordinate it with your supporting tanker.


So in tanker WIC, did they teach you how not to point at the only cloud in the sky, and/or how to not hot nose a re-joining receiver until they are forced to make a high aspect pass with you :D
Click to expand...

(SARCASM - ON) You needy receivers! Why can't you just fly IFR like the rest of the airliners! (SARCASM - OFF)

I never realized how much you guys hate the iron maiden until I was talking with some Growler dudes at an exercise. The one guy said he'd rather take a night trap on the bo-at 100 times rather than make a plug on the drogue.
 
boilert said:
I never realized how much you guys hate the iron maiden until I was talking with some Growler dudes at an exercise. The one guy said he'd rather take a night trap on the bo-at 100 times rather than make a plug on the drogue.
Click to expand...

They must have been idiots, or not had a lot of experience on the maiden (probably the more likely scenario). It takes some technique, but it is easy to get into (comparatively). Unless the guy flies into the sun, it becomes pretty easy to stay in after a while, at least once you figure it out. The first power off, power back on correction at contact is the hardest thing. I'd rather get my gas and get out than hang on the wing of an MPRS with the hose blowing all over. KC-10 is nice, but it is pretty easy to get complacent and just plain fall out of the basket since depth perception is not as easy based on geometry.

/Tanker connoisseur rantings from USN receiver
 
I'd agree with all, particularly the part about not having kill removal issues

romanhikou said:
Not saying it makes up for experience in the jet...of course it doesn't. I am saying that anytime you simulate something you introduce artificialities. That applies to tactical training in the jet as well as in the sim. There are serious limitations on the accuracy of combat simulation in the actual jet when you introduce any more than four aircraft because we can't really shoot each other down. Of course we have to learn how to fly the jet in the jet, but that is almost an afterthought when you start talking about the real mission of these airplanes - flying is just admin. The point here is that tactical sims do far more than teach EPs and instruments, and in my experience are better tactical training than many of the simulations we stage in the air. You are right about the FMC thing though. In the real world that AWACS guy isn't there cluttering up the radio because the AWACS didn't actually make the fight.
Click to expand...
 
boilert said:
I never realized how much you guys hate the iron maiden until I was talking with some Growler dudes at an exercise. The one guy said he'd rather take a night trap on the bo-at 100 times rather than make a plug on the drogue.
Click to expand...

It's actually one of the easiest for getting into the basket, as long as the boom stays in one spot and the operator doesn't try to "help". It all the other stuff that makes it a pain, and makes it dangerous. Blinding nacelle light, the hot nosing mentioned earlier, overzealous boom operator trying to help right when you get stabilized, the heavy basket that will rip a probe door off, gigantic buckle about 4 ft from your nose/windscreen, etc.
 
Cooter143 said:
It's actually one of the easiest for getting into the basket, as long as the boom stays in one spot and the operator doesn't try to "help". It all the other stuff that makes it a pain, and makes it dangerous. Blinding nacelle light, the hot nosing mentioned earlier, overzealous boom operator trying to help right when you get stabilized, the heavy basket that will rip a probe door off, gigantic buckle about 4 ft from your nose/windscreen, etc.
Click to expand...

haha I remember one time I told them to lock the boom (or I guess fix it) and stop moving it. Boomer sounded annoyed and told me that they would. After that it became infinitely harder. Too proud to cry uncle, I just gutted it out for the next 7-8 mins or whatever. Whether that was coincidence or because it actually gets harder, I'll never know, but I have never since asked a boom to do that. I think it boils down to how much experience/how many reps they have with probe receivers. I've seen a million of the guys you describe above who get out of phase and make it 100 times worse, and a precious (and welcome) few who make it 100 times easier because they are good enough to be in sync. As for the basket, totally agree……..if you screw it up (even just tap it a little off center), that basket can do a whole hell of a lot of damage real quickly. The hoses also suck…..I can't count how many I have seen get the bulge and then just rupture with a guy in the basket. Happened to my wingman over Iraq mid cycle. I was waiting to get in there, pretty low on gas and in danger of having to divert in country. I won't say what happened next, but when you are young and dumb, stupid decisions sometimes don't end up as an Approach article if you don't break anything :)
 
Last edited:
romanhikou said:
Actually BVR training in the Eagle is better in the sim than in the jet. No red air kill removal nonsense; if a dude explodes, he's dead. No fumbling around in a shot val trying to remember if it was supposed to be a PK miss...if the dude is still there when you turn hot, PK miss. Of course BFM and ACM are better in the jet, but there are so many artificialities built in to LFEs and even TI that the sim does a better job of representing reality. Add in some ...
Click to expand...

It's close, but I have to disagree also that BVR training is better in the sim. For certain aspects, it's definitely better. The problem with the sim (as someone else pointed out) is that all the systems work just like they are designed. I've been working with Boeing for years trying to develop a degraded radar mode for the sim, all they've come up with is RFNG which doesn't do much for helping us with that. High fast flyers, long haul DTOC sims, repetition in training and of course EPs are the wheelhouse for the sim. As an Eagle guy, you know that running an appropriate commit profile while staying visual is not only a cornerstone of our tactics but also much harder to do than it looks.

In ACT training in the jet we have to deal with kill removal, block adherence, RTO comm (or common freq) and it's all a pain in the a$$. I absolutely hate what has become of Red Flag - deconfliction flag is basically worthless training (for the escort players) after the strikers push. What it (and the other limfacs of training in the jets) gives you is a good simulation of the fog and friction. Sim time definitely doesn't give you the air time needed to really know and be able to work around issues in the jet. I'm finally about to hit 2k hours in the Eagle after flying it for 14 years straight. I've spent a fair amount of time in the sim in that time also. It's an excellent tool that we can't (or at least shouldn't) do without, but it doesn't even come close to the experience you get by flying the jet.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Modern aircraft are capable of tracking dozens of targets and shooting them down from miles away, is dog fighting even relevant?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yes, it's very relevant; for two completely different reasons - more than two, but two major schools of thought:

1.) Political bullcrap. For western powers, there is always someone "up there" pulling the strings of the warfighter. Typically it's some guy wearing a suit (politician) requiring some guy wearing a few stars to limit guys like me from being able to use our modern aircraft to their full capabilities. There are tons of reasons why they do that, sometimes it's appropriate, many times it's just a great recipe to put the good guys in harms way when it's not required. In many cases, we would have to ask for permission every time we shoot. Seems simple right, but we ask the guy on the AWACS who then asks his boss on the awacs who then gets on the horn to the general in the CAOC (who's probably in the can when we need him to be watching) - once he catches up to the fight he confirms with the JAG that he won't get in trouble for saying we can shoot. The JAG will consider it and give him some lawyer answer that causes the general to say "hold fire and confirm with visual ID". That will get passed back to the guy at the desk, then to the boss on the AWACS, then to the clueless controller then to us. Problem is, by that time we're already well committed to the merge and we've definitely given up any advantage of our better systems while we've been waiting on our "de-centralized execution" rules to kick in. (what a joke!) Hey, but at least that General isn't getting fired, God help us if we lose combat warriors like that!! (I'll pull myself off the soap box I was about to climb up on)

2.) Modern aircraft (other than most western jets - another soapbox I'll stay off of) have developed internal jamming capabilities. These capabilities do a LOT to bring the fights closer in range. It's about 3,000x cheaper to make a jammer than to make a radar/missile combination that will be that jammer. We are W A Y behind in the X band spectrum and are barely putting any effort into it to catch up. So, that means if a near-peer threat actually gets upset with us, many of us will find ourselves at a visual merge whether we like it or not. For the first time since Vietnam, we are back to parity with our two biggest threats. It's a new (and not necessarily better) norm for us in the A/A arena. Sure, the 22 is stealthy and that helps their survivability, but nothing is a silver bullet and they are shooting the same missiles we are.

So, yes visual fighting is important and we need hours to train to be effective at that skill. Hours that are being cut daily. Call your congress-person!
 
GlennAB1 said:
Hey, I know a guy that flew tankers. He's the only guy I've ever heard of that was offered full ride ROTC scholarships to the college of his choice, by the Air Force, Navy, and Army. He happened to choose the Air Force, and MIT, and the Air Force let him stay an extra year to get a Masters. ;) He became an Air Force Test Pilot, too.
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you. I was offered a full ride to any college I wanted from the AF, Navy and Army. So were about 1/2 the guys I've flown Eagles with.

Nothing against your buddy, I'm sure he's a good guy. I flew MC-12's with some tanker dudes that were no-kidding warriors and would be good flying anything. I also realize that is non-standard.

My point was that correlation you made for the full ride (from high school no less) having anything to do with knowledge of the current state of A/A combat is not an accurate one. :D
 
GlennAB1 said:
You missed the point. Some people are more expendable.
Click to expand...


What does that even mean?


EvilEagle said:
Nice to meet you. I was offered a full ride to any college I wanted from the AF, Navy and Army. So were about 1/2 the guys I've flown Eagles with.
Click to expand...


This is the point, GlennAB. Guys like your buddy are not rare among USAF pilots, and in some communities they are the majority. I'm a fighter pilot with multiple master's degrees and a graduate fellowship, and I'm not a rarity. Those degrees mean nothing when it comes to aerial combat and they have no bearing on what kind of pilot I am. Maybe they're good for impressing anonymous strangers on Internet forums, but I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't rely on them to lend credibility to my opinions about flying fighters.

The aim here isn't to disparage tanker pilots or any other kind of pilots. It's just to say that if you want to know about flying modern fighters, people who actually do the job are the best source of that information. Oh, and anyone who may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
Last edited:
EvilEagle said:
while we've been waiting on our "de-centralized execution" rules to kick in. (what a joke!)
Click to expand...

Bingo. Nothing makes me more irritated than this. Flying OEF/OIR taught me two things……1) how to manage gas and (mostly) boredom, and 2) how far the CAOC has stumbled down the road of "centralized execution". As a first tour guy, I hated the Generals for this. When I began seeing the other side of that interaction, I realized that it is not directly attributable in many cases to the guys with stars on their shoulders, but rather the infinite levels of minions with a checklist and no concept of an air campaign, who have assumed some level of self-importance based on their boss. This was actually proven to me at one, to remain nameless, AOC. The stars literally don't even know it is happening that way in some instances I have seen. Not saying that there isn't a huge systemic problem, but I personally think it is a self-inflicted gunshot a lot of the time, rather than one from Washington or the JFACC/whomever. Either way, until the senior leadership of the military realizes that they just will never have the SA needed to make tactical level decisions appropriately (even with all the sensors and tricks of the trade they have), we will become more and more ineffective as we diverge from our stated ideal.
/soapbox
 
Last edited:
Why aren't the guys in the fight allowed to make the decisions, and why aren't their leaders the guys who have been there and done that?
 
romanhikou said:
What does that even mean?
This is the point, GlennAB. Guys like your buddy are not rare among USAF pilots, and in some communities they are the majority. I'm a fighter pilot with multiple master's degrees and a graduate fellowship, and I'm not a rarity. Those degrees mean nothing when it comes to aerial combat and they have no bearing on what kind of pilot I am. Maybe they're good for impressing anonymous strangers on Internet forums, but I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't rely on them to lend credibility to my opinions about flying fighters.
The aim here isn't to disparage tanker pilots or any other kind of pilots. It's just to say that if you want to know about flying modern fighters, people who actually do the job are the best source of that information. Oh, and anyone who may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Click to expand...

It seemed headed towards demeaning tanker pilots, sorry if I took that wrong.

I think EvilEagle knows what I meant, see his comment about "suits."

Downplay it all you want. 20 USAF pilots annually are selected for Test Pilot School, training valued at $1 million each, not rare? Sure.

I'm sure the majority of fighter pilots graduated from the top rated engineering institution...

Yeah, my friend has two Bachelor's and two Master's and is currently working on a Doctorate. He's a Distinguished graduate of Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University. That was top 10% of "not rare among USAF pilots."
 
GlennAB1 said:
Yeah, my friend has two Bachelor's and two Master's and is currently working on a Doctorate. He's a Distinguished graduate of Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University. That was top 10% of "not rare among USAF pilots."
Click to expand...


Kudos to him. I'm sure that will make a great strat to put on an OPR. How does it answer the original question again? None of this has anything to do with flying fighters. Test pilot school doesn't, distinguished grad from SOS, IDE, SDE, or whatever doesn't, and name dropping schools doesn't. Not rare means exactly what it says. I've worked in the AF 22 years and seen lots of folks come and go. If I numbered the pilots I've encountered from schools with prestigious names on one hand I'd consider them rare. The AF sends hundreds of officers a year to schools, including the top schools in the country, and they send them from every career field. Some with engineering backgrounds choose to apply to test pilot school. They are eminently qualified to answer questions about developmental testing and engineering. My roommate from the AF Academy went to medical school at the Mayo Clinic. Really smart guy, and an expert physician. He doesn't know jack about air combat (and doesn't claim to).

If you want to know about flying fighters, the experts are fighter pilots. Not (most) test pilots, not tanker pilots, not engineers, and not DGs from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (unless they also happen to be fighter pilots, and there are many). All of those people play important roles, but they don't have the experience to tell someone else how modern air-to-air combat compares with anything if they've never experienced it.
 
Last edited:
ateamer said:
Why aren't the guys in the fight allowed to make the decisions, and why aren't their leaders the guys who have been there and done that?
Click to expand...


The leaders usually are the guys who have been there and done that. But there is a phenomenon called "staff bloat" between them and the fight that separates them from real-time decision making. Legions of mid-level functional area staff filter and determine what information commanders actually see. Unfortunately it isn't an easy problem to solve, even though nearly everyone recognizes it's a problem.

It's really the same phenomenon that drives all of the pointless training requirements that detract from the mission in garrison. Some functional on the staff rewrites a regulation stipulating that "commanders will..." and bingo, a little bit of operational autonomy is lost at the tactical level. Sometimes it's not even written down, it just evolves. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands and soon you have a massive organization beholden to functional interests rather than one that can nimbly respond to command and control.

I'm no expert on the special ops world, but I think they have done a better job of minimizing this effect than the rest of the military. Still happens though.
 
ateamer said:
Why aren't the guys in the fight allowed to make the decisions, and why aren't their leaders the guys who have been there and done that?
Click to expand...

It's also because a single mistake potentially crashes a career up the chain. Flag officers want that next star and don't want some captain in the jet dropping a bomb on a Sam next to a hospital and screwing up his chance at pinning on another star. It's not about winning a war anymore. These "conflicts" go on forever so senior officers care more about surviving their tour as JFAC unscathed. If they lose a few company grade pilots along the way so what.
 
Boyd. Excellent book on the problems the warfighter faces and the lengths stars will go to to keep their jobs. Also, the debate of low cost high numbers vs complex, high cost low numbers aircraft.
 
Velocity173 said:
Also, the debate of low cost high numbers vs complex, high cost low numbers aircraft.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that, got a lot of t-shirts in the Advanced Tactical Fighter Program (F-22 / F-23), PA&E guys, etc etc

Not my job as an engineer to decide "blitz-fighters vs silver bullets". That was TAC's job and up to them. They set requirements, I told them what was possible (regardless what the gee wiz marketeers from industry said), they made the decisions. Mostly dealt with TAC/DR and alumni from the 422.

As far as the contractors are concerned, they would choose a lot of the high numbers vs silver bullets every time.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Been there, done that, got a lot of t-shirts in the Advanced Tactical Fighter Program (F-22 / F-23), PA&E guys, etc etc

Not my job as an engineer to decide "blitz-fighters vs silver bullets". That was TAC's job and up to them. They set requirements, I told them what was possible (regardless what the gee wiz marketeers from industry said), they made the decisions. Mostly dealt with TAC/DR and alumni from the 422.

As far as the contractors are concerned, they would choose a lot of the high numbers vs silver bullets every time.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I just thought it was fascinating reading about how those programs started on ideas from guys like Boyd & Sprey and development into what we have today. I do think Desert Storm dispelled some of their theories on low tech was better than high tech. While Sprey's A-10 performed well, F-15s did pretty darn good also. Heck, just look at the numbers Iraqi F-14s stacked up against Iranian Migs.

Another excellent book on the contract process is "Pentagon Wars." Enjoyed that one as well.
 
jobs programs everywhere, on both sides of the uniform. MIC is out of control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top