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.

 

Joint Strike FIghter not so stealthy afterall

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

as said in another thread, the only technological aspect the american govenment are being funny about is the 'STEALTH' part about the aircraft, (which isn't a big secret anymore anyways) -MANY nations have stealth aircraft in the making!! (ucavs ect).


Umm.. yes it still mostly is, and its expensive too. No offense but building a 15 foot funny shaped UAV and slapping some RAM on it doesn't mean “many nations have stealth”. Try building a fully capable fighter with the stealth abilities approaching the Raptor then came back and say “many nations have stealth”.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Hi all,

Some news from Aus, apparently we have approached the US regarding the release of technology transfer for JSF.

Fighter deal in danger

So a new can of worms is opened!

Thanks to all who commented on my post, great points, and I take away a little more knowledge each time (or at least things to think about!). As for SARH air to air missiles - NOOOOOOOOOOO!



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Harlequin,

>>
The F-111A wasn`t flying at the end of the Vietnam war let alone 20 years later - so your comment about altitude is irrelevant ; AUS fly the F-111G , which are conversions of the FB-111
>>

Try Google and Combat Lancer. Or Linebacker. Or Constant Guard. For that matter go here-

www.f-111.net...

And ask around.

If the jet is overweight. If it has lower than delta or Trapezoidal wing area in order to facilitate retraction of the wing into the fuselage. It is going to lose effective ceiling until it burns off enough fuel to climb out. Unfortunately, this burn-up profile is itself wasteful for the drag and cycle efficiencies of the airframe/engine combination.

Don't feel too bad. The F-15E, especially with the 220 engine is almost as much of a pig.

>>
You completely failed to address the primary concern with ANY bvr missile , which is guidance after launch - it has nothing to do with AESA or any other system , it has to do with updates , so you saying i don`t like AESA is rubbish.
>>

No I did not. The only danger SARH poses are length of illumination by target aircraft as a function of commited closure while lighthousing. And the risk that the missile will not be able to see the reflections.

>>
Put simply; the data the missile has, of target position, is at the moment of launch - and unless it has updates or is guided to the target by SARH then it will miss.
>>

SARH: Semi Active Radar Homing. Out to target. Back to missile.

A midcourse guidance or MCG uplink does _not_ have to be functionally similar to SARH because it need only reach the missile as an encrypted 1-way comms signal. The missile can either itself, by means of strapdown navigator with or without a 'tether' (think bungy cord as a doppler scale value) tail sampler or independent (GPS) own position refinement calculate remaining distance.

OR, via a 2-way talkback to the guidance source (also a unidirectional transmission therefore hard to jam and easy to assure range on), calculate cooperatively target position as a function of cube of predicted airspace around whose min-max error average, it will build a seeker lightoff profile.

Indeed, nearing terminal distance, the missile may indeed be able to 'see' a reflected target echo from the illuminator (as for SARH). But this does not mean it is restricted to using 'SARH' guidance. Or that only the launch aircraft can supply uplink data.

Such is the danger inherent to comparing an old (dedicated analogue channel tune) guidance system with something that uses MMIC technology to view encrypted sideband data buried within ANY illumination source.

Given X-Band has 10 times the bandwidth as all the VHF/UHF useable spectrum combined, it's not that hard. So long as the encryption codes match up, the weapon _will_ use whatever source is generating the signal as a targeting enabler.

It just so happens that AWACS no longer has to correlate with a 250 million dollar replacement cost on a vulnerable manned asset.

>>
Those updates has to come from somewhere - and it is usually the shooting aircraft, with or withour an AESA radar.
>>

Nope. Not anymore. Read some of what is being said in the Cope India reports. There are direct indications that the USAF was restricted from using the AMRAAM as anything more than a parent tethered/20km system.

When in point of truth.

Target.................Shooter.........................................................Illuminator

Makes vastly more sense. So long as the shooter is either out of cone (hard to do when the threat has decent vectoring support of his own). OR IS STEALTHY HIMSELF.

Because the threat doesn't know enough about the /time/ a given missile threat could or should be in air to adjust his tactical position to a point where NEZ doesn't apply.

The problem with this on the JSF is that it's not also able to leverage a multiple missile count and supercruise (as Raptor can) to make the actual /physical/ missile pole out give it some backup tactical options.

At least not without ERAAM or better level improvement to the total motor impulse.

Give the _better bullet_ theory, you then don't need to bury all your capability in the fighter /anyway/. Because 'any bus will do'. So long as you can buy 4-5 times as many of them to maintain (internal=LO) primary A2G vs. 'self protect' weapons counts.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Willard856,

The illogic of this stupidity is simple:

1. FROM THE VERY FIRST DAYS (see AvLeak 1994 onwards)
The JSF has always been ranked 'second tier' to the Raptor. Less LO. No Supercruise. Are you're defense ministry's /so trusting/ that they cannot do a little background check of their intended purchase against _historical_ public domain industry material? If it's a lesser aircraft for U.S. what do you /think/ that is going to mean as an 'export standard' to you?

2. If the U.S. Forces consider the combination of IAMs and Stealth to be 'so enabling' that we no longer need to by 2,400 of them for the USAF but are instead looking at 1,100 of them (less than the Congressional mandate of 1,763). WHY do you assume that your purchase, either for economic value. Or for military 'assistance' reasons of multinational expeditionary forces means a damn thing?

3. The chances of a secret being lost is equal to the square of the number of people who know about it. Exporting full VLO technology /and/ it's enabling manufacture and 'source codes' weapons system functions is the same as ruining it for you as well as U.S. Stealth which doesn't work is not worth the extra cost. Thus your bitching and moaning sounds like exactly what it is: Begging for scraps from the high table.
If your 'hurt' attitudes were true-to-heart, you would be .ing to the nearest Flubber/Rafale dealership. Since 'we're all friends' (you will never be attacked by U.S.), once the U.S. kicks down the door in any joint op you care to play in, presumably your Emperors New Clothes aircraft will still be useful doing second-best jobs bombing civillian infrastructure and other targets that no longer shoot back.
WHY DO YOU WANT THE MORE EXPENSIVE AIRCRAFT IF YOU CAN RIDE SOMEONE ELSE' COAT TAILS?


CONCLUSION:
The JSF is a dated concept. It doesn't perform either the BVR or the WVR 'fighter' mission well enough to be survivable on it's own. In less than 15 years we will see DEWS start to proliferate at a rate that knocks every manned jet that encounters one _optically_ right out of the sky, no matter how RF invisible it is.
More importantly, it is almost five times more expensive than the U.S. Armed Farces /promised/ it would be, back in 1994 (28-32-35 million dollars).
Anybody that buys into that on pure LOMD levels of 'But we wanna be fighter pilots too!' childishness deserves whatever amount of money they can be ripped for.
Because UCAVs are the way forward. They can be made ten times as stealth. Four times as aerodynamically efficient. For less than half the cost and probably 25% of the service life maintenance fees.
And rather than HAVE SOME NATIONAL PRIDE in your near-vacuum of a threat environment. Rather than say 'screw U-SA!' and take a few years to build your own damn airpower metric. You whine like little spoiled brats because we won't give you the technology and source codes to play like we do.

Boo hooo hoooo. You won't always be with U.S., even if you're not against U.S.. But WE (the developers of the concept and doctrine) will _always_ be at risk to somebody deciding to get a little richer off Uncle Sam than he has a moral right to sell out for.


KPl.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   


If it has lower than delta or Trapezoidal wing area in order to facilitate retraction of the wing into the fuselage.


Sorry CH, can you explain this sentence to me, I can't make any sense of it. Given that trapezoidal and delta are shapes, how can you define 'lower than' a shape


Also, isn't the fact that the F-35 has always been defined as second tier to the Raptor completely irrelevant to this argument? After all the F-35 would also be 'second tier' to the Typhoon in the RAF too given its intended role so the comparison is a nonsense.

More accurately, the indication has laways been that there would be a 'domestic and close partner' standard of F-35 (which were one and the same) and an 'export' standard for everybody else. This was the basis on which the industrial partners entered the programme, it is the sudden removal of this 'close partner' element and reclassification to mere 'export' standard that is now causing these partners to grind their teeth, the message now being that 'yes, you have contributed £2bn to development costs but that doesn't buy you any better standard of aircraft than any other customer outside the USA'.

Its all right you guys getting all defensive and saying 'of course we will keep the best for ourselves, what do you expect?' well, for a start we would expect you to keep to the terms and ideals of what was originally set out when the thing started and for exclusions not to suddenly be inserted at will.

Or would you say we should expect nothing else from such a sneaky conniving and untrustworthy nation such as America? (In response to the rant at the end of Ch's diatribe)



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm.. yes it still mostly is, and its expensive too. No offense but building a 15 foot funny shaped UAV and slapping some RAM on it doesn't mean “many nations have stealth”. Try building a fully capable fighter with the stealth abilities approaching the Raptor then came back and say “many nations have stealth”.


hi, its not at all!!


your right it is expensive, but if britain ever wanted a black aircraft like the B-2 or F-117.

BAE could easyer design & build one - the design/specs of the stealth are no secret AT ALL (look up BAE replica on google).

www.spyflight.co.uk...

besides arn't the US selling the F-22 to japan anyway? so they are not that bothered about ^technology^ being in other nations hands


[edit on 16-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Steve, Japan WILL NOT be getting F-22s.

I do not know where you got your information.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I have heard that the US has potentail to sell the 22 to japan but its far from fact as far as I can tell.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
CH

this is getting beyond a joke - i have friends who flew the vark and they are in shock of how little you know of the type.

the final operational mission for the F-111A was linebaker2 after which the remaining aircraft were either converted to EF-111 or F-111C and sent to AUS or sent to AMARC

They were replaced in service , starting from 1971 with F-111E then F-111D , the F-111F was based at either Nellis or at lakenheath.

please before you insult the brave aircrew who flew more than 4000 combat missions in vietnam , stop posting crap about an aircraft you know little about.

i would suggest you go to nellis and talk to old vark pilots.



AMRAAM

where , pray tell does the missile get its magical encrypted data from??

the missile requires mid course updates - and whether or not its SARH, SOMETHING has to be pointed at the target and illuminating it , as passive doesnt work over those ranges.

so , an ACTIVE radar has to be paiting the target. And 99% of the time this is the launch aircraft



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
ive had 2 people now tell me its 'far from the fact'.


tell me why? show me links!! - theres many links i can find which backs up what ive said.

do a search on google news.




Originally posted by Canada_EH
I have heard that the US has potentail to sell the 22 to japan but its far from fact as far as I can tell.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
ive had 2 people now tell me its 'far from the fact'.


tell me why? show me links!! - theres many links i can find which backs up what ive said.

do a search on google news.

Steve-O is right.

Every since the middle of February 2006 there have been strong indications that the USAF is considering allowing the development of an "international variant" of the F-22 for it's closest allies, including the Japanese.
The Japanese "Japtor" as Stealth SPy called it in another thread.


Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys said that service officials as well as civilian decision makers are debating putting the F-22A on the international market.
In fact, the Japanese intend to send an official to the US later this year to meet with US officials in order to discuss its fighter-replacement efforts; and the possibility of buying the F-22A.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

your right it is expensive, but if britain ever wanted a black aircraft like the B-2 or F-117.

BAE could easyer design & build one - the design/specs of the stealth are no secret AT ALL (look up BAE replica on google).


Once again, if and when another nation develops a manned aircraft of considerable stealth come and get me. Until then, you can continue to enjoy concept drawings and canceled design projects.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm.. yes it still mostly is, and its expensive too. No offense but building a 15 foot funny shaped UAV and slapping some RAM on it doesn't mean “many nations have stealth”. Try building a fully capable fighter with the stealth abilities approaching the Raptor then came back and say “many nations have stealth”.
Many countries Do have stealth of comparable sophistication - Britian, France/Germany/Spain and Sweden for sure, South Africa and Russia probably too. Your benchmark - building a fighter comparable to the F22 is really a cost issue not a purely technological issue, and in the changing world it is not really seen as an optimum solution -hence russia's efforts (PAK-FA) are apparently more of a JFS class aircraft that can function in similar roles to F-22 but is smaller and cheaper. Whether it will be as good as the F-22 is really only a relevant argument on internet forums, in the real world there are lots of factors in play.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Maybe its the interpretation of the phrase 'other countries having stealth' thats the problem here?

Westy seems to the thinking in terms of operational front line military equipment and there is no doubt that America has a big lead in this area, however on the other hand, whether it is manned or not is irrelevant and there can surely be no pretence that the requirements of 'stealthy' design and engineering are a secret.

Do other countries 'have' stealth by understanding its and designing vehicles that meet the requirements? Hell yes. But affording to mass produce them like America does is another matter.

PS Is Britain REALLY looking to pool all her stealth and UCAV research experience into a joint anglo American programme that both countries will share (Churchill)??

JUST HOW DUMB CAN YOU GET?


"I really enjoyed it last time.... NOW BITCH-SLAP ME AGAIN!!!!"


[edit on 16-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Now, are we learning or are we making hot air?


This decision has to be one for the UK, indeed the British Government's responsibility to our Armed Forces, and their families, means that this judgement can only be made by the UK. If we do not have the information and technology needed to make that decision, then I shall not be able to sign the MOU. I recognise the consequences that would have on the UK's continuing participation in the programme


fighting talk, of a sort, from this article;

defen ce news

[edit on 16-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Waynos,

>>>
If it has lower than delta or Trapezoidal wing area in order to facilitate retraction of the wing into the fuselage.
>>>

>>
Sorry CH, can you explain this sentence to me, I can't make any sense of it. Given that trapezoidal and delta are shapes, how can you define 'lower than' a shape

>>

I probably should have put that better. The implication was that a delta or trapezoidal (cropped delta or 'modified swept' are also used) wing has greater chorded area whereas a VG airfoil has to effectively be 'straight' so that you can sweep it back into the fuselage.

This adds to problems of wingloading not merely in lost total area but also in the weight of the single pivot point carry through for structural loads and the fact that /by retraction/ more wing surface is lost even as more weight is added inboard of the roots. Complicating weight:structural trades with wasted volume and internal structural gaps.

>>
Also, isn't the fact that the F-35 has always been defined as second tier to the Raptor completely irrelevant to this argument? After all the F-35 would also be 'second tier' to the Typhoon in the RAF too given its intended role so the comparison is a nonsense.
>>

No. Because, to the Brits, the Typhoon IS the Raptor equivalent. Both they and the Aussies could have gone 'top tier' and at least been told no from the outset. Instead, they went bargain basement on the assumption that they would be getting something 'good enough for guvmint purposes' when it was open knowledge from at least early 1994, when AvLeak started covering the JAST/JSF efforts, that the JSF would not be the equivalent to the F-22.

Whether this was true or just a way to protect the Raptor from predation as a 'more elite' systems doesn't matter.

It should also be said that the JSF can still go places that the Flubber cannot. At least once (in but not out?;-). So that the Flubber would be left at the fence lobbing Meteors, S2s and Armigers (or whatever comes next for ALARM) in the hopes of keeping the enemies .s down, much as was done with the F-117 and the EA-6/EF-111/F-4G efforts.

The difference being that threats will be MUCH more advanced than what the USAF faced in DS (if indeed you consider the F-117 to be a viable penetrating all weather strike asset, which I do not). And so, without _my system_ of UCAVs to the fore (cheap is as cheap can saturate do), the threat to the manned platform is always going to be there. And quite possibly too high to be risked as both technology base AND man.

Which is something I have also argued 'til I'm blue in the face with superslingbombed SDB as my preference for sending _bullets where men should not go_. And aeroballistic/cruise weapons before that if need be (depending on how long Over. lasts in a laser threat environment and how much intelligent classification has been added to our IMINT systems, it should be possible to track down even rapid-displacement threats like S-300/400. At least 'in _detection_ proximity to the raid penetration tracks).

>>
More accurately, the indication has laways been that there would be a 'domestic and close partner' standard of F-35 (which were one and the same) and an 'export' standard for everybody else. This was the basis on which the industrial partners entered the programme, it is the sudden removal of this 'close partner' element and reclassification to mere 'export' standard that is now causing these partners to grind their teeth, the message now being that 'yes, you have contributed £2bn to development costs but that doesn't buy you any better standard of aircraft than any other customer outside the USA'
>>

Is that 2 or 3.5 billion dollars?

No matter, the notion that you _can have the airframe just not the manufacturing processes_ is what counts. As when we offered F-117C. You know that I would prefer to hand back the total investment package and saddle the taxpayers with yet another debt as to give away source codes and VLO construction techniques.

I'm sorry, I just have no pity /or faith/ whatsoever in those who think that they should be allowed 'special access' to /technology base/ capabilties. Because the planes are always going to be at risk and that's a part of the risks of war (not to mention I think we know better than to not have a standing sanitization package ready for the next flat-impact crash landing).

But the only reasons you could want the full data package is if you think you are going to be a FACO line-equivalent for Europe (something which _did not_ happen, even with Fokker/SABCA on the F-16, there was always a center cluster of subassemblies that had to be sourced to GDFW). Or if you want to copy and resell with just enough variation to beat the copyright while /conceptually/ compromising the existing system.

The first will never happen because this is a Congressional pork program and we are not stupid enough to think you can have multiple foreign sources of manufacture without ruining the scalar economics. That is effectively what ruined Flubber.

The latter _should not_ happen. Because this is the last manned fighter and by the time another (unmanned) cycle comes around, a new standard of technology should be available/necessary. Which means that unless you intend to 'make hay' with commercial and particularly Continental crosspollination NOW, you don't /need/ to have access to 'how we build' portion of things.

In any case, please keep in mind, that _to me_ the notion of spending 257 billion dollars to provide the UK with 50-100 jets worth of airpower that _we don't need_ (with Raptor and UCAV) is simply inconceivable. But if you want VLO and you _cannot do it on your own or with EU partners_. Then it's rude to ask for more than what you can provide from your own tech base in trade for cheaper-than-everybody-else discount.

Again, I think it's just The City saying "Whoa up there!" as the number crunchers realize there will never be a market for 4,000, 104 million dollar, airframes. And this is a convenient excuse.

If I was worried about things like ECM/ECCM updates (tactical refresh appropriate to UK theaters of interest) and maybe a shot at depot maintenance, _as a function of money'd offsets_. I would be looking at increasing my presence on whatever CTF/SPO level was required to guarantee that my jets got first consideration rather than annual tape changes. Even as I would be asking to buy into whatever _U.S._ company was doing the local depot work in the UK.

These are not of course guarantees that UK espionage efforts will not try to walk out the door with industrial level secrets. But it is at least a sop to U.S. worries about who and how much the accountable loss would be for.

>>
Its all right you guys getting all defensive and saying 'of course we will keep the best for ourselves, what do you expect?' well, for a start we would expect you to keep to the terms and ideals of what was originally set out when the thing started and for exclusions not to suddenly be inserted at will.
>>

I seem to recall that the Tier 1 player got noteable input on the design and configuration (which is now basically over) and a significant discount. I don't recall anyone saying we had to give you the keys to the kingdom.

>>
Or would you say we should expect nothing else from such a sneaky conniving and untrustworthy nation such as America? (In response to the rant at the end of Ch's diatribe)
>>

There was a time when 'gentleman did not ask gentleman for secrets that could not be given'. They did not read each other's mail. They did not steal each other's industrial secrets. They did not make a habit of buying out each other's industry, raping it of technology base and selling off the regurgitated (Ch.11) leftovers.

The problem is that that was then (if ever) and while "Only a gentleman can insult me and a gentleman never would..." there is only so much hubris inherent to a diminishing NATO role and 3,500 miles of Ocean before we look at you as the City State you are. And wonder /why/ if you cannot do it on your own. And indeed, you already /have/ a fighter program you clearly don't consider adequate to the task, you think you can bully a NATION STATE, of Continental Mass. Into giving you more than a good deal on what you _choose to buy_ from U.S.

With DEWS on the horizon and falling oil production after 2020, economical UCAVs are the future sir. The entire EU knows it. And if we misstep by investing our entire exchequer into JSF, we will not be able to participate, no matter how particular our knowledge of netcentric combat and VLO design is.

Answer me straight: WHY should we give EADS/Thales and Team Neuron the baseline technology capability by sending you a datapackage to be 'cared for and secured' IN YOUR COUNTRY. If it only serves to let them avoid paying for the 20+ years of R&D that our stranglehold on the TTNT/VLO design represents?

I'm sorry, but you should have known that /any/ contact between BAe and The Continent would instantly be a roadblock to further 'special relationship' technology exchange in relevant fields of cointerest with EADS in particular.

As our NATO presence fades, EU power will grow. As their power grows they will become ever more closed shop in terms of defense purchases. If it's not just the height of hypocrisy that the UK would seek to claim jilted-lover status so that WE should better enable the inevitable to happen more quickly with technology base that WE PAID FOR.

Not you and your 60 million. But U.S. and our 295.


KPl.


P.S. War is a total waste. Because it's principle purpose in amalgamating cultural, strategic and natural resources under one legal system of economic distribution has been forgotten. I wouldn't mind the risk of technology loss so much if I only thought we were /going somewhere/ with the concept of conflict as a technologic sport. But the only thing the last 15 years have taught me is that in the absence of a forward thinking home strategy and deliberate effort to move beyond a petroeconomy, Presidents have treated overwhelming airpower as a cheap FoPo way of transferring worrying public issues away from their own incompetence and towards nationalistic paranoia (patriotism as a religion _disgusts_ me).

Now imagine what happens if leaders around the world start to think along the same lines because 'whatever LO is' it has been proliferated and evolutionarily diversified to the extent that desultory wars become a common event. An event where small hurts lead to TRILLIONS in war chest expenditures for vengeance. As Iraq is rapidly becoming.

I _will not_ support a Vae Victis Vickers approach to arms export technology laissez faire that leaves the poor of the world unprotected by LOCLOEXCOM and ITAR export controls on the most lethal of _non attributable_ killing technology we have yet devised.

Nukes are worthless because they destroy what should be owned by /someone/ while engendering a massive-retaliatory response.

Stealth removes attribution. And encourages high value _tactical_ strikes by which the poor have nothing to lose. And the rich are hostaged to their very infrastructure.

How can we be so STUPID as to want to give that leverage away to anyone?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
please learn to use the quote finction, maybe then people would read your monologues.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
ch, thanks for rephrasing that, now I understand the point you were putting across.

Moving on, I'm pretty certain that nobody, either in the UK or US, ever had any delusion that the JSF/JCA was going to be equal to the Raptor in any sense, the argument isn't in how it stacks up against the F-22, but rather how the standard of aircraft to be acquired by the UK and Australia will be less capable and stealthy than the F-35 itself was supposed to be when the deals were signed.


[edit on 16-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by urmomma158
did any of u even read the article the US is only downgrading it for exports the US version will be stealthier re read the article carefully!


ummm did you even read any of the posts? I'm pretty sure everyone has made it pretty clear that we are talking about the capablites of the Aus version or export version of the 35 in comparison to the US version or the other aircraft in the area ie the Su-27 etc etc.
If you have anything to say urmomma about the topic then spit it out. no one here from what i've read has said that they are downgrading the US version if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.


yes i read them of curse but i was simply responding to som e people and for your info i care about the allies and fell their JSF should be just as good thank you very much



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join