It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Dima,

In response to the site link that you gave, on this site it also mentions that NATO used chemical weapons in Yugoslavia. I find this incredible to believe, thus IMHO negating the 'evidence' to the losses of the alleged shootdowns of the three B2's




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Does the f-15c carry a r-73 equivalent rear fired missle?


And what if any is the combat record of the missile in question?


If i understand the question right ..there is no known record of the missile fired in question...But then again I have credible sources which claim the CCCP pilots never flew active combat missions since WWII..no korean war nothing....But the missile does exist ...its new tech on the Su-30MKIs..and both you and I nkow that the Su-30 s haven't been involved in any activre combat missions... btw I seen it with me own eyes


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
WHAT......LOL hahahahaha

because it said that one thing, you are foolish enough to negate EVERYTHING else

how do we know that its true, huh?, whats your reason, just because it wasn't published in the newspapers or shown on TV doesn't mean that it never happened, America has the most influence in the world right now, it would take a flick of the wrist to change the news, they control everything, what about that incident where American soldiers were laughing at an Iraqi person dying, here let me find the site, i saw it last night on populations.com, really great news site, frigg, i can't find it right now, let me keep looking...............................oh, found it, here it is

news.bostonherald.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Dima,

Im sure, 'Imperialistic America manipulates the press again', has been done to death on other topics, this Topic concerns the 'Best of the Best ...Air Superiority Fighters' if you want to start another thread go ahead, but please stay on Topic here.

Thanks
Spacemunkey



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
how did this get off topic, wasn't it somebody talking about how theb F-15E can so-called whoop a Su-30MKI's ass badly, i'm willing to get back on topic, okay, the best FIGHTER aircraft in the world currently is the .....shoot, i can't tell, either the Su-27SM, Su-30M, Su-30MKI, the Su-35, and the Su-37, i personally love the Su-35, then the Su-27SM, then the Su-30M, then the Su-37, and then the Su-30MKI,i don't know which one is better though, but in the future, it will either be the F-22, MiG 1.42(not the 1.44, its just the demonstrator, thats why people say that it is unstealthy, it isn't the real project, the real projects name is 1.42 and it is very stealthy)or PAK-FA if the MiG 1.42 doesn't come out



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
WUAHAHA... and India has first picks on all those future projects!!



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
F-15Cs can definetly shoot down a Su-30MKI with BVR,


Chew upon this article written in AWST by David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' in BVR and close range
source

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Little was i aware of the 3-D TVC of the Eurofighter under development. You will be biwildered too. take a look :

As well as the potential for increasing the EJ200's thrust there are also plans to incorporate a Thrust Vectoring Control, or TVC nozzle.

The EJ200's TVC nozzle is a joint project lead by Spain's ITP and involving Germany's MTU. Preliminary design of the system began in mid-1995 at ITP, the proceeding years involved work by both ITP and MTU to deliver a fully functional EJ200 integrated system. The outcome of this research led to the first 3DTVC equipped EJ200 undergoing rig trials in July 1998. The nozzle requires relatively few modifications or additions to be made to the EJ200; a new hydraulic pump, reheat liner attachment upgrades, casing reinforcement, new actuators and associated feed equipment. More importantly the equipment fits within the engines current installation envelope and therefore no changes will need to be made to the Typhoon to accommodate the system.

There are essentially three types of vectoring nozzle; ones in which the entire post-turbine section is moved, those which feature external nozzle attachments for directing thrust (e.g. the X-31 paddles) or ones in which thrust is vectored within the divergent section. The ITP system uses the later design requiring no external equipment (which adds weight and offers relatively poor efficiency) and reducing distortion on the major engine structures (a problem with using the first method).

The new Thrust Vectoring Nozzle, TVN is a convergent/divergent type containing three concentric rings linked via four pins forming a unified Cardan joint. Each of these rings serves a purpose, the inner ring is connected to the nozzle throat area with the secondary ring forming a cross-joint connection with the pivoting outer ring. This outer ring is in turn connected to the divergent section (green on the CAD diagram) via several struts or reaction bars (black on the CAD diagram to the left). The outer ring is controlled by either three or four hydraulically powered actuators situated at the North, South, East, West, South West and South East positions. By minimising the number of required actuators (either three or four) ITP claim there is little additional weight, reduced actuator power demands and increased reliability over previous systems. Additionally the nozzle utilises a partial balance-beam effect to minimise the actuator load requirement. This effect uses the exhaust gases themselves to close the nozzle throat area, according to ITP this gives a 15% reduction in actuator loads in certain circumstances.

The baseline vectoring configuration uses three actuators (North, South East and South West). By moving each actuator either in or out the outer ring (red) can be tilted in any direction (see CAD diagram to right, top picture) thus offering both pitch and yaw control. Any net directional movement in the outer ring is then translated via the struts into a larger movement of the divergent section, vectoring the thrust. As well as vectoring control (via movement of each actuator) it is possible to alter the throat area directly by moving all three actuators outward or inward in parallel. In both cases the outer pivot and the inner (green) throat area ring are fixed in the axial direction which reduces the required number of actuators.

Beyond the baseline case the TVN includes a pro-baseline configuration offering the ability to alter the divergent section exit area as well as vectoring thrust and altering the throat area. To achieve this the outer ring is split into top and bottom halves and four actuators (in the N, E, S and W positions) are utilised (see CAD diagram to right, bottom picture). By moving each actuator in a unified/combined manner the thrust can be vectored and the throat area altered. However by moving just the N and S actuators the split ring hinge can be opened and closed. In turn this moves the upper and lower strut series either in or out opening or closing the exit area. In a traditional Con-Di nozzle the exit area is directly related to the throat area. The problem with this approach is that it is extremely difficult to optimise the nozzle shape to different flight profiles, e.g. subsonic cruise, supersonic dash. By allowing dynamic control of the exit area the nozzle shape can be altered on the fly. According to ITP this allows for significant improvements in achievable thrust in all flight profiles.

The three ring system is not the only unique feature of the nozzle. In previous convergent/divergent systems the reaction bars or struts have been connected to the divergent section at a single point. This limits their deflection range thus imposing limits on achievable thrust vectoring (typically to no more than 20). The ITP TVN however uses a dual point hinged connection allowing a far greater range of movement to be achieved (according to ITP, studies indicate 30+ can be achieved). By careful placement of the struts, problems with the nozzle petals overlapping or colliding are also removed.

Click either image for alternative versions



Rig trials of 3DTVC equipped EJ200 ITP R&D

Since rig trials commenced in 1998 the TVC equipped EJ200-01A has run for 80 hours (February 2000) of which 15 hours were at full reheat (including sustained five minute burns) during 85 runs. These trials have included over 6700 vectoring movements at the most severe throttle setting and 600 throttling cycles under the most demanding vectoring conditions. These trials demonstrated full, 360 deflection angles of 23.5 with a slew rate (the rate at which the nozzle can be directed) of 110/s and a side force generation of some 20kN (equal to approximately to one third of the total EJ200 baseline output). These vectoring trials have included both programmed ramp movements and active joystick control. The studies have also verified the MTU developed DECU (Digital Engine Control Unit) software and FCS connections.

During the summer of 2000 a round of altitude trials commenced at the University of Stuttgart, Germany. These are focused on determining the effects of temperature and pressure variation on the nozzle materials, shape and performance. Additionally ITP are continuing work on further reducing the weight of the system.

In November 2000 ITP announced that an agreement had been reached with Germany and the U.S. to utilise the X-31 VECTOR test aircraft for flight trials of the nozzle. This will see a modified EJ200/TVN combination fitted to the X-31. The modification work required will involve all members of the EuroJet consortium. Additional input is likely from EADS and Boeing as well as NETMA in providing the required EJ200's and equipping the X-31. The Spanish government has agreed to pay for flight certification of the system and provide test pilots. The first flight trials are expected in late 2002 to early 2003. In addition Eurofighter and EuroJet have expressed a desire to commence flight trials of DA1 equipped with the nozzle sometime from 2003. How this fits in with the X-31 test phase is currently unclear.

ITP have suggested that a Eurofighter fitted with the nozzle will benefit in a number of areas including; reduced after body drag (through tighter nozzle shape control), an estimated 7% improvement in installed thrust for the supersonic cruise regime (M1.2 non-reheat at 35000ft) and a 2% improvement in maximum take-off thrust.

At this stage there are no definite plans to fit the nozzle to any production Eurofighter. However Eurofighter, EuroJet and a number of consortium nations and other companies have indicated a desire to include the nozzle (if possible) in Tranche-3 aircraft (due from 2010). This would fit with the stated desire of the four consortium nations to incorporate new technologies in sucessive Eurofighter production runs. The current Eurofighter struture has already been strengthened in anticipation of increased loads created by TVC as well as higher output EJ2x0 series powerplants.













The are several real benefits to employing 3D thrust vectoring, for example; decreased take-off and landing distances, higher achievable angles of attack, improved control at low speeds/altitudes, reduction in size and number of control surfaces and reduced supersonic drag (by using the vectoring equipment to adjust trim rather than the control surfaces). There are however questions over just how useful 3DTVC will be in future air battles with the increasing move towards beyond visual range engagements.







good job.
i hope they come up with something similar for the MKi too



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Edit: To fix a double post.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
^^^Another double post....
..Stealth spy that Su-30MKI and F-15 engagement was w/o AESA..so the f-15 supporters say that the engagement would be different if AESA was involved..I howevr am not so convinced...



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
If you mean the Indian Air Force exercise with the U.S., the press never got the full story on that (they never do), and that was more of an exercise for the U.S. to learn a lot about the capabilities of the IAF.

As for the F-15 and Su-27 or Su-30 (I forget which, maybe both), they're superior in terms of maneuverability, and while the U.S. F-15s can keep superior at the moment with avionics and engines, the gap is :::slowly::: closing, which is why the U.S. needs the F/A-22.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


Originally posted by W4rl0rD
F-15Cs can definetly shoot down a Su-30MKI with BVR,


Chew upon this article written in AWST by David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' in BVR and close range
source

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.



Everyone with a brain knows that the US pilots were handicapped up to their eyeballs. Did your IQ just suddenly drop sharply recently? You gotta stop believing the BS man, the F-15C will own the Su-30MKI (or any variant)

And give that link a rest, it's the only source you have, pathetic.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I agree that the reports regarding the US-India exercises don't tell the full story. Nobody gives away their full capabilities when exercising, even with their closest allies. This works both ways of course. I'd be interested to see what the set-ups for the missions were, what the ROE was, whether either side where using ECM, what block of AMRAAM the US was using etc.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Little was i aware of the 3-D TVC of the Eurofighter under development.


Really? I've lost count of the number of times I've mentioned it. Maybe nobody believes a word I say



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567



Everyone with a brain knows that the US pilots were handicapped up to their eyeballs. Did your IQ just suddenly drop sharply recently? You gotta stop believing the BS man, the F-15C will own the Su-30MKI (or any variant)

And give that link a rest, it's the only source you have, pathetic.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



Arrgghh put a lid on it Hockeyguy!!! Maybe stealth spy used taht link too much but I've had wth you overzealous yanks who think that the F-15 avoinics is superior to the MKI stuff...I've completed many courses in radar tech/structures/design as a part of my engg. curriculum and IMHO the AESA and N011M similar in concept and design.So unless anybody with INSIGHT on the topic(flight avionics) can PROVE that F-15 avionics are superior to their MKI counterparts, I suggest all you F-15 enthusiasts shut the f*** up!!


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
you see Hockey Guy, thats the kind of pathetic, and utterly stupid behaviour that shouldn't be expressed on this forum, the F-15 can beat all Su-27 variants, oh yes, i'm sure, thats why in COPE India, the Su-30MKI's beat the F-15's more than 9:1, over 90% the reports say, now, even if you were to put in all these excuses, the Su-30MKI would still come out on top, really, lets take a look

1. AMRAAM ahd only 1/3 its range -2
2. the F-15's were outnumbered by 3 -3
3.ordinary American pilots versus, India's best
(but what happened to the, "american pilots are by far the best trained, i'll be generous) -1
4. F-15's weren't equipped with AESA -1
5. the indians had AWACS -2

in the end, its full even 1:1, BUT, the Su-30MKI is an export version, and we all know, that export versions are downgraded, no matter how good the articles say it is, so thats +1, and the Su-30MKI isn't really an Su-30MKI, not all of the selected equipment, such as the avionics and radar have been put into one plane, they deliver them in batches, and the last batch, is the only true batch with Su-30MKI's, they get progressively more advanced by the batch, which is to end this year, i think two or three batches remain, +1

in the end, the Su-30MKI wins out 3:1, and if you were to put in the cost of each aircraft, the Su-30MKI would win out slightly more, actually, in most batches, it costed between $20-25 million, about the price of an F-16 and how much does the F-15 cost, $40-50 million, it would be close to 5:1, maybe 4.5-5:1

don't get me wrong though, the F-15 is a great fighter, yet, the Su-27 and its variants are slightly superior, example, the P-42, if you guys don't know the story about it, is AESA currently operational with any American fighters?



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
why would the US not use its full capabilities in an aerobatic exercise? Making their jets lose is a stupid strategy as it may hurt the patriotic feeling that most of you possess about American jets. The government would never do that. I think the India-US exercise served as an effective reality check for the Americans.

In terms of aircraft that is currently in service, SU-30mki or Eurofighter take the crown. For those of you that definetely pledge that Eurofighter or Rafael are better then SU-30mki are jumping the gun too fast, those sneeky Russians always have tricks up their sleeves. When F-22 comes into service (which may be a long time especially because US just cut the budget on it due to the stupid war) then I think it will be the best air superiority jet. Although then again, you just never know.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
the Russians also have a plan to use radar dissipating paint onto their Su-27's and variants in the future, they might have already used it, that means that the F-15 could have been flying against a stealthy adversary, now thats scary



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Let's not get too personal gang.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ahh you're right first time and hopefully last....but its so irritating when dunderheads shoot off about stuff they can barely understand...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join