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.

 

Russia's next-generation warplane to make maiden flight in 2009

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.

Every aircraft does not have a AN/APG-77, IFDL, and ALR-94?



Indeed the argument could be made that information saturation will eventually (if not already) result in degrading performance, as too much unnecessary information needs to be filtered to obtain the key info.

Another argument could be made that the F-22's datalink is being made less secure by transmission of such nice, but usually useless information. Why make a 0.2 second transmission of the armaments, FCS, fuel and airframe states when a 0.05 second transmission getting the radar picture out is all that is really needed.


Update the firmware if that threat finally comes to existance then? Degrade performance, how? Declutter? What kind of datalink are we talking about?


The guy you've allocated the target to gets on the radio and says he is out of AMRAAMs...

not exactly complex is it?

Jam the radio frequency?


[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Double post... DAMMIT.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


The Iranian airforce use there tomcats are AWACS shepherds for the F-5`s , so you don`t need the latest whizz bang tech to be used for AWACS ability - just a radar to direct those that have smaller ones or none at all.

the brits did it with F3 Torandao and Hawk combo.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Whlie the PAK-FA, is not likly going to be used by the russians at all, seems more and more likly that it's to be a pure low-cost high manuver fighter for export purpuses.

From what I understand, the PAKFA likely going to be much like a stealthy, supercruising, lighter, Flanker, with the early versions having the same radar as the Su-35BM, with later versions having improved avionics.

In all, however, it is too difficult to tell. We don't even know what the plane looks like. Can't wait to see it though.


I'll go on record to predict it will be just another flanker with a different name the Russian planes are very unoriginal with only very minimal improvements.

I predict it will use similar engines and avionics to the current BM, however, the airframe itself would probably be 100% new and highly capable, like the SU-35BM already is.


Just google for Pavel Ufimtsev and you will find out that structural stealth technology utilised in all US stealth planes is based on theories developed by a Russian scientist in 1957 (+/- a couple of years - not sure of exact date)

That doesn't work.

The Americans investigated Plasma stealth with Project KEMPSTER on the A-12, and, Arnold Eldredge, of General Electric, did some work too. Clearly, the Americans abandoned the idea. And negatory, not all U.S stealth principles were developed by a Russian scientist - that may of been true for the first F-117, but that has moved on now.


Why? we can only speculate about the reasons (like plasma cloud being a better solution).
Or, the Russians perhaps didn't think it was worth the investment, and instead sought to develop other ideas, or buy more aircraft with the money? I don't think it was in Russias best interest to spend a great deal of money on the F-117 which is expensive, maintainence heavy, aircraft, that evidently, the Russians would of never used; they don't usually have their own versions of the first Gulf War...

Oh, and the only working case of Plasma stealth was inside the aircraft infront of the radar dish to prevent its massive reflection. The Plasma stealth would be off when the radar was on, and secondly, this is not needed with an ESA radar. Please point me on a source of Plasma stealth cloaking a whole plane. Prove to me that it that it doesn't send out huge amounts of EM radiation that can be detected in other ways, then prove that it will allow the aircrafts own sensors to operate normally.


But after abandoning that thechnology Russians stared to developp radars with separated transmitter and receiver which simply don't care whether a plane has stealth shape or not. They can see it anyway.

Those are known as bi-static radars. They are nothing new. They are not advanced technology. They are used in older missiles such as the R-27 and Aim-7. If that were true, why did we go to the R-77 and Aim-120? Besides, the technology wouldn't nessarily work. For example, stealth aircraft absorb and relfect EM radiation. Doesn't mean it's going to reflect it to the receiver. Second, what happens with ELINT platforms flying around, and finding ways to jam these radars? The largest system in current use with large amounts of receivers and trasmitters is Lockheed Silent Sentry, which only covers an AFB. Other versions are not accurate and need very complex algorithms.


Maneuverability? NO. Any modern Flanker with OVT will outmaneuvre the F-22 due to a better airfraime and much more advanced vector thrust. Needless to say that according to approved technical requirements (which are publicly available) the PAK FA is going to be much more capable then any modern version of Flanker.

That doesn't work.

www.aoe.vt.edu...

At the WVR combat is going to take place TVC will not be a massive advantage, and certainly, 3d TVC is hardly an advantage over 2d... How is the Flanker a better airframe?

[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.


Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.


The F-22 is no different in that regard.


The F-22 is by all means more advanced than the Sukhoi with Irbis every single way, except areas such as price and maintainability. The F-22 can see planes through an extremely advanced ALR-94 sensor suite, along with an extremely advanced AN/APG-77 and datalinks handled through the AESA. It is stealth. Other posters highlight that any aircraft can become AWACS? I was wrong; so are they. No aircraft can become AWACS, because, the dudes sitting in the back of the E-3 aren't there for #s and giggles. The F-22, can however, find targets with relative ease due to the avionics.


Source: Highbeam reasearch. www.highbeam.com

Title: FIGHTER EW.

Date: 7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill

At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.

The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.

The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."

A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."

High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.

Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.

www.f-16.net...



The Iranian airforce use there tomcats are AWACS shepherds for the F-5`s , so you don`t need the latest whizz bang tech to be used for AWACS ability - just a radar to direct those that have smaller ones or none at all.

the brits did it with F3 Torandao and Hawk combo.


Other aircraft, are not stealthy sensor farms with AESA.


As for the "new paint scheme", well if an Su-27 and, say, an SU-35BM or SU-37 look alike when you see them it doesn't mean that the only difference they have is a paint scheme. In fact, I would call an SU-35BM a huge technological leap from Su-27.

Definitely.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

True, just like any other plane with a radar...
Anyway, my point was that during a large scale conflict you would not necessarily have all the infrastructure in place in which case your "mini-AWACS" is no better then a 4+ gen Flanker with a 5th gen radar (IRBIS). Though that kind of situation would only occur if USA decides to bring democracy to Russia (which, I hope, is very unlikely).

Sorry, Irbis-E is a 4.5th generation radar, at best. It is not your bistatic radar you're talking about either, will be if you fire outdated missiles with C/W painting. If the infrastructure is not in place for the Americans, then it's reasonable to assume the same will be true for the Russians. Irbis-E is PESA not AESA and last time I checked it didn't have a cueing system even close to the ALR-94, or stealth, whether that be marginal or not.


And is the F-22 unique in that regard?

Hell no!

Could you point me to some articles that show the system of LPI the F-22 uses could be detected? That would be wide spectrum, random pulses, with ultra-low sidelobes. Frequency modulation is used on 30 year old MSA radars, so that doesn't count.

Thanks.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


so? other aircraft can perform awacs role - which is the point im making



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
 


so? other aircraft can perform awacs role - which is the point im making


And the point I'm making is the F-22 should be abled to do it a whole lot more effectively than all other aircraft, minus an actual AWACS aircraft. Like "every aircraft", like previous posters said, is incorrect.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


your missing the point - whilst the F22 might well be to do it more effectively , any aircraft with a radar and a radio can be an Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft

a tornado with a `flock` of hawks to a tomcat with a squadron of F5`s - the big aircraft with the radar guides the smaller aircraft towards there location.

[edit on 3/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


Radio jamming? Not to mention that a radio signal is a LOT easier to pick up than their LPI radar will be. Radio can get confusing too. Pilots have a tendency to tune out some broadcasts, and have to repeat them. So it's not just a quick broadcast, and your flight lead knows just what's going on. If you're using your radio THEN you're getting into information overload.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Askel


F22 is a good plane... But can you tell me what exactly makes it such a huge leap in technology?

Stealth capabilities? NO. Just google for Pavel Ufimtsev and you will find out that structural stealth technology utilised in all US stealth planes is based on theories developed by a Russian scientist in 1957 (+/- a couple of years - not sure of exact date). For some reason this route was abandoned by Russian design centres in mid 60-es. Why? we can only speculate about the reasons (like plasma cloud being a better solution). But after abandoning that thechnology Russians stared to developp radars with separated transmitter and receiver which simply don't care whether a plane has stealth shape or not. They can see it anyway.


Wrong- you need to do a little more Googling on radars and how they work. There are different types of radars using various bands(X band being the one used for fire control due to it's resolution and accuracy).
The shape of the F-22(F-35, B-2, etc..) are effective against the bands that are typically used for Search/Track/Fire Control. Other bands may be able to determine that there's an object flying, but can't provide precise info(i.e. speed, elevation, azimuth, range). Stealth doesn't make the F-22, etc... invisible, but it does decrease the range at which it can be detected, so that for practical purposes, it can stay out of engagement envelopes of SAMs and interceptors.



Maneuverability? NO. Any modern Flanker with OVT will outmaneuvre the F-22 due to a better airfraime and much more advanced vector thrust. Needless to say that according to approved technical requirements (which are publicly available) the PAK FA is going to be much more capable then any modern version of Flanker.


This is based upon what info exactly? The F-22 has a higher T/W ratio than any Flanker model. The F-22 fights aerodynamically clean(i.e. no external stores to slow the plane or impose any maneuver limits). The Flanker is capable of 22+ deg/sec sustained turns, the F-22 is capable of 28+ deg/sec sustained turns. Don't confuse 3D vs. 2D vectoring as being more advanced. The US had 2/3D TVC before any Flanker, and decided that 2D would be better for the Raptor as it already met it maneuver requirements, and the lower IR/Radar signature would be more beneficial(If your IR and radar signature are higher, that's not an advantage.) The control surfaces also play a large role in the agility of the aircraft, especially when combined with the large amount of excess thrust.



Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.


The F-22 isn't reliant on AWACS or GPS satellites. The F-22 pilot will have far greater situational awareness than any Flanker pilot. If the Flanker has its radar on, the Raptor's ALR-94 will know it's position hundreds of miles away, and with enough accuracy to guide an AIM-120 passively. In addition to that capability, the APG-77(v)1 in LPI mode can see the Flanker 125-150nm, whereas the Irbis won't see the Raptor until it's within 15-20nm. In addition to the ESM and AESA, the MLDs on the Raptor provide 360 degree IR coverage/awareness, much like the DAS on the F-35.


Speed/altitude- 2 other areas that you didn't touch on, but where the Raptor exceeds the Flanker's capabilities by a large margin-

aimpoints.hq.af.mil...

And then there is the Raptor's super cruise capability that lets it fly at supersonic speed without using fuel-guzzling afterburners as required by other fighters.

"That saves us a lot of gas and opens up a whole host of things when you start talking about dropping bombs," Krumm said. "You can imagine if you are 60,000 feet doing mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying 'I'll take that target, and that target'."


According to AW&ST, June 12, 2006:

For the anti-cruise missile mission, F-22A can cruise 41 minutes with the speed of around 1.5 Mach, while the traditional fighters like F-15 and F-16 can just cruise 7 minutes with that speed.

www.ausairpower.net...

As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.


SUMMARY-

The F-22 will know the whereabouts of the Flanker long before the Flanker is aware of the F-22. The F-22 will be able to choose whether to engage/disengage(and at the time of the F-22's choosing for the most advantageous shot), or avoid altogether. The F-22 will have a speed/altitude advantage allowing greater kinematic performance for its weapons(and be able to engage long before the Flanker even knows of the F-22's presence). If the Flanker emits, its location will be known by every fighter/AWACS/ESM/etc... plane within hundreds of miles(and before the Flanker can detect them), which means the Flanker will need to rely on passive intercepts to get close to high value targets.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I feel that any Aircraft project delivered by Russia will be inferior to current US offerings in the 5th gen arena as the Russians "lost" 15 years of research and development due to lack of funds during their post soviet economic crisis.

The F22 is a culmination of 20 years of air superiority research and an almost unlimited governmental budget by a country who's main business is War.

America has also been developing the idea of a digital battlefield and I believe the investment in support technology for recon and long range detection/engagement means that even if the Russians continue to develop more manouverable planes; this is inconsequential in the digital battlefield as no human piloted vehicle will ever be designed that can outmanouvre its modern missile counterpart.

Piloted aircarft will almost certainly be a thing of the past by the 6th generation so unless the russians have incorporated this into a none conventional design; I beleive the Air superiority advantage will be maintained and improved upon by the States as they have the head start.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Wow! So many replies I don't evenknow where to start!


Originally posted by Juliodone
I feel that any Aircraft project delivered by Russia will be inferior to current US offerings in the 5th gen arena as the Russians "lost" 15 years of research and development due to lack of funds during their post soviet economic crisis.


I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the capabilities of the Russian Aviation Industry (at least the military part of it). I was a student at that very time when it started to loose some momentum but I can assure you that many engineers and scientists continued to work almost for free. My University continued working on advanced projects even though there was no funding. It's in the US and to some extent in the modern Russia you can't do anything without money. You could do a lot in 90'es.

In the past the Soviet Union usually preferred to wait until something new come out in the US and then they adjusted the specifications and rolled out a better design if it was acheivable or a cheaper one otherwise. That happened to Su-27, which originally was significantly inferior to F-15 and therefore had to be completely redesigned to acheive superiority.



The F22 is a culmination of 20 years of air superiority research and an almost unlimited governmental budget by a country who's main business is War.


True. However i see a huge problem here. If you want to win an olympic gold you don't fight infants and disabled people to prepare. You have to find someone who would be at least able to fight back. And that superiority research you refer to is based on what experience? Yugoslavia? Iraq? C'mon! That experience would've been useless even to build a 4gen plane!!! Please, don't gen me wrong, I'm not saying you have to invade us
- what I mean is that war experience is no better that the one we got in Chechnia. Besides, unlimited budget is a double-edged sword and I think, you are already starting to feel that, especially in defence and space industries! Any business will do everything to absorb as much money as possible and you have much better chances of building something credible when there are limits you can't go beyond.



America has also been developing the idea of a digital battlefield and I believe the investment in support technology for recon and long range detection/engagement means that even if the Russians continue to develop more manouverable planes; this is inconsequential in the digital battlefield as no human piloted vehicle will ever be designed that can outmanouvre its modern missile counterpart.


How do you know that we are not doing the same
PAK FA is not the only project on the drawing boards. It was confirmed by the Russian military authorities that work is being done in the areas of digital warfare and unmanned 6th gen planes.

To all others who commented on my prevoius posts I just wan to clarify that:
1. I wasn't saying that Flanker is better then an F-22. Neither I said that the most advanced Flanker, an Su-35BM or SU-37 (4+ gen) is better then F-22 (5 gen). What I said was that under some circumstances things could go horribly wrong for F-22.

2. I did not say that Ufimtsev is the man behind _all_ stealth technologies. He described the way to create an optimal shape of the aircraft and his formulas can be clearly seen behind the _shapes_ of all US stealth planes. By the way, in the USSR his works were not completely abandoned. Otherwise I couldn't explain why I was studying by his books at the University


3. In regards to radars, yes, Irbis-E is indeed PESA. I've confused it with the one with no name so far (or, is there a name?) which was created for PAK FA based on Irbis. The new one is AESA. Anyway, even though Irbis is a passive one it's specs are impressive (sorry, the links I have are in Russian - will look for English ones).



[edit on 3-2-2009 by Askel]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
If the infrastructure is not in place for the Americans, then it's reasonable to assume the same will be true for the Russians.


Agree, but my point was that its F-22 which relies on infrastructure way too much (IMO). Flankers (E and F) will have some better chances of survival then facing an F-22 with whole lot of other things behind it. I think, that's obvious.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Askel]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The US had 2/3D TVC before any Flanker, and decided that 2D would be better for the Raptor as it already met it maneuver requirements, and the lower IR/Radar signature would be more beneficial(If your IR and radar signature are higher, that's not an advantage.)


Quick question for those who would know more than I: How precisely does the F-22 reduce its IR signature? As far as I know, at high speed the leading surfaces will still heat up, and there's still a vast plume of hot gas following the aircraft due to the necessity of engines. I admit that air could be mixed in as it exits the turbine, but on a low-bypass engine there doesn't seem to be enough airflow through the system to sufficiently cool the exhaust gases. My question is, therefore, what measures were taken on the F-22 to make it less visible in the IR spectrum than, say, an F-15 or a Su-27?


In regards to radars, yes, Irbis-E is indeed PESA. I've confused it with the one with no name so far (or, is there a name?) which was created for PAK FA based on Irbis. The new one is AESA.


No confirmed name yet, but it's speculated to be called the N050 BRLS.

Pr0

[edit on 2/3/2009 by Darkpr0]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
also russia have had for many years long range IR missiles to work in tandem with the long range radar guided ones



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Originally posted by Darkpr0




Quick question for those who would know more than I: How precisely does the F-22 reduce its IR signature? As far as I know, at high speed the leading surfaces will still heat up, and there's still a vast plume of hot gas following the aircraft due to the necessity of engines. I admit that air could be mixed in as it exits the turbine, but on a low-bypass engine there doesn't seem to be enough airflow through the system to sufficiently cool the exhaust gases. My question is, therefore, what measures were taken on the F-22 to make it less visible in the IR spectrum than, say, an F-15 or a Su-27?




The F-22 uses its fuel as a heat sink to lower the external temperature, much like the SR-71 did. Additionally as you alluded, cold air is mixed in with the hot gases, along with nozzle design and materials, to lower the IR footprint.

www.f-22raptor.com...

www.f-22raptor.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


actually all aircraft use fuel to cool - many use it to cool hot oil from the engines.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Many more use it as a heat sink for avionics cooling. The problem with all of this is that as more and more heat is dumped into the fuel from various sources, thermal stability of the fuel becomes important.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



Thrust vectoring isn't the only way to achieve high maneuverability.


A star for you there. Those who are looking to achieve high maneuverability, look to nature.

I'm not a bird person, so I'm not sure what kind of bird it was I often saw zipping and swooping around the schoolyard behind my parents house, but in my mind, I don't see ANY (Even modern) fighter being able to match them.

Especially when thinking in terms of scale and weight. I've had models of fighter aircraft smaller than what these birds are, and I just can't see them being able to perform the same as these birds do.

Maybe they do have a type of thurst vectoring we don't know about?



[Zaph, Shattered, or anyone else who knows.]
Sorry, I know it's off topic, but was wondering if there a good online comparison of different aircraft that anyone knows of?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join