Quantcast
F-35 Lightning II Discussion - Page 37 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27 36 37
Results 721 to 739 of 739

Thread: F-35 Lightning II Discussion

  1. #721
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    402
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Remember, operating at altitude you subject an airframe to extreme cold temperatures anyway. Basic aeronautical engineering.

    However, there may be a nugget of validity to the Saab sales angle though. At the moment (and fully expected in the future) Canada has less available pilots than we do aircraft. Our government wants an air force that can be parked along the fence so everyone can see, but not have to pay operating expenses or even fly them.

    Which toy keeps fresh in the package the longest?

  2. #722
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    591
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Lots of conjecture on why they can't figure out how to keep the cockpit sealed.

    The other theory is that when they throw on the thrusters, too much heat creeps up on the sides of the plane, which of course causes a problem with air temperature difference at high altitude. A perfect seal at low thruster doesn't really apply when you've got hotter than sun exhaust creeping from the back of the plane.

    It would seem like a reasonable thing to have for a fighter jet - but obviously a sealed cockpit is near impossible on some aircraft designs. Oxygen literally flys out the window the second you put on the gas. Of which it does seem like a conspiracy, why has it not been fixed by now? Maybe they don't want a human pilot breathing oxygen in a cockpit... Dun dun duhh!

    Drones gonna win.
    Last edited by ZenOps; 03-30-2021 at 08:26 AM.

  3. #723
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jutes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    These are all claims, by Saab themselves for an unrealistic scenario in the real world. Nothing is stopping us from landing the F-18s in the middle of nowhere to practice this nonsense, I don’t even remember if doing something like this was even discussed. There is no point. If your airfields and FOLs are destroyed with aircraft still flying, landing them in remote locations like highways and getting them refuelled and rearmed is a trivial practice. If you are landing on highways because your bases are gone, we’ve ready lost and getting them back in the air is pointless. These are all marketing gimics by Saab, their PR department are lies and fake news. No one wants their jet.
    Agreed. I know someone that flew the Gripen at Empire test pilot school, and there is a French guy who flies in our DCS squadron that did an exchange from his Rafale Squadron in the French Navy with Hungary and flew their Gripen C models. Flying fighters off of unprepared highways or other airstrips that aren't military is ridiculous IMO. Where does the infrastructure come from to refuel and rearm fighters out on some distant highway? Odds are unless he have the assets in place very close to where fighters are to divert to these highway/etc bases long before any attacks on a permanent basis, there won't BE any refueling/arming assets, as they'll be smoked at the home airbase by the hundreds of ballistic/cruise missiles that will be targeted on said bases. That are a few nuclear weapons.

    The "Gripen for Canada" movement is large - the website has folded now mostly, but the Facebook group is still very active. I was an early supporter there as well, but after hearing a lot of the negatives from those who have flown it, SAAB has sort of runaway with the facts a fair bit when it comes to their marketing of this jet. It's not a "bad" fighter, it's just not a great deal for the $ as it's been piped up to be.

    It's F35 or bust right now. That or maybe the new F15EX that the USAF is procuring for itself, IF there is a change in government sooner than later, and the process is delayed to examine other options than the current 3 planes in the competition now. We'd have to modify our tankers as it doesn't use the probe/drogue that the Hornet does (or buy new tankers with the new fighters), but the new F15 is an excellent all round fighter, huge range, massive weapons loadouts, fast, and 2 crew. Unfortunately the F15EX isn't in contention for the RCAF future fighter capability project. It should have been IMO. With Rafale and Typhoon pulling out, it's down to the SuperHornet, F35, and Gripen.
    Last edited by Gman.45; 03-30-2021 at 07:19 PM.

  4. #724
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Speaking of the F15 - no doubt they intentionally named it EX so that the plane is called F1-5EX .... haha (F1SEX)

  5. #725
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed. I know someone that flew the Gripen at Empire test pilot school, and there is a French guy who flies in our DCS squadron that did an exchange from his Rafale Squadron in the French Navy with Hungary and flew their Gripen C models. Flying fighters off of unprepared highways or other airstrips that aren't military is ridiculous IMO. Where does the infrastructure come from to refuel and rearm fighters out on some distant highway? Odds are unless he have the assets in place very close to where fighters are to divert to these highway/etc bases long before any attacks on a permanent basis, there won't BE any refueling/arming assets, as they'll be smoked at the home airbase by the hundreds of ballistic/cruise missiles that will be targeted on said bases. That are a few nuclear weapons.

    The "Gripen for Canada" movement is large - the website has folded now mostly, but the Facebook group is still very active. I was an early supporter there as well, but after hearing a lot of the negatives from those who have flown it, SAAB has sort of runaway with the facts a fair bit when it comes to their marketing of this jet. It's not a "bad" fighter, it's just not a great deal for the $ as it's been piped up to be.
    @Gman.45

    The Gripen for Canada group is an echo chamber that I refuse to join. I'm on BF4C fairly regularly on Facebook and even there it's awful sometimes. The problem with the Gripen fans is they believe that every word Saab claims about the Gripen is true, and every word that Lockheed says about the F-35 is an outright lie. Combine that with the fact that most of the people on that group truly don't understand how stealth/RCS wordks, and how the specifications of a fighter jet are interconnected, and you end up with weird claims.

    Every week I find myself explaining that no, the Gripen isn't going to fly mach 2 or super cruise in any configuration that we will use it in. It's EXTREMELY unlikely to have a longer range than the F-35. And no, putting Aim-9X on the wingtip doesn't suddenly make it have a larger RCS than the Super Hornet.

    The other one I get a lot of is that the Gripen is going to be SOO much less than the F-35 to operate, and they quote the old Janes report (that was prepared for Saab, but I digress) with the ridiculous $4700 CPFH that is completely impossible. The gripen isn't operational yet, but the likelihood of it being significantly less than the F-16, which it basically shares a stat sheet with (other than the fact the F-16 has mountains more thrust) to operate are essentially zero....which means it will be at worst 20% less than the F-35.

    At the end of the day, I think the likelihood of us not doing something American is incredibly low...and the odds of that American thing being the super hornet are probably equally low. CF-355 here we come.
    @revelations

    This dispersed ops thing that Gripen fans get all hot and horny over is so weird. Like literally absolutely bizarre, and completely irrelevant for our needs. It might work for sweden, but they have an established highway network in their north country, and conscripts to go out there and be ready for them to land.

    As for the Gripen supposedly being so much better for dispersed ops, and ops in our remote north...it's the only one in the competition that you can't get in and out of without a ground crew...it doesn't have an integrated ladder.
    Last edited by Go4Long; 03-31-2021 at 01:25 PM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  6. #726
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go4Long View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    @Gman.45

    The Gripen for Canada group is an echo chamber that I refuse to join. I'm on BF4C fairly regularly on Facebook and even there it's awful sometimes. The problem with the Gripen fans is they believe that every word Saab claims about the Gripen is true, and every word that Lockheed says about the F-35 is an outright lie. Combine that with the fact that most of the people on that group truly don't understand how stealth/RCS wordks, and how the specifications of a fighter jet are interconnected, and you end up with weird claims.

    Every week I find myself explaining that no, the Gripen isn't going to fly mach 2 or super cruise in any configuration that we will use it in. It's EXTREMELY unlikely to have a longer range than the F-35. And no, putting Aim-9X on the wingtip doesn't suddenly make it have a larger RCS than the Super Hornet.

    The other one I get a lot of is that the Gripen is going to be SOO much less than the F-35 to operate, and they quote the old Janes report (that was prepared for Saab, but I digress) with the ridiculous $4700 CPFH that is completely impossible. The gripen isn't operational yet, but the likelihood of it being significantly less than the F-16, which it basically shares a stat sheet with (other than the fact the F-16 has mountains more thrust) to operate are essentially zero....which means it will be at worst 20% less than the F-35.

    At the end of the day, I think the likelihood of us not doing something American is incredibly low...and the odds of that American thing being the super hornet are probably equally low. CF-355 here we come.
    Yes, like I said, GripenForCanada even in the early days was a gong show, and it got so much worse as time's gone on.

    Regarding the "not doing something American being low"- let's hope so. I hope the RCAF takes a page from the Royal Canadian Navy, who has exchanged the British Radar on the new Surface Combatant/Type26 ships for a USN Spy system, and are ensuring our new ships have the USN Cooperative Engagement Capability system. I've never understood the point of not buying American weapons systems, sensors, etc, when we are one another's largest trading partners, plus are part of the 5-eyes, Nato, and a pile of other cooperative organizations (NORAD), and share one of the largest undefended borders in the world.

  7. #727
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    @Gman.45

    My biggest argument against the Gripen (which they hate) is this...if anyone believed that it was REALLY as capable as Saab claims, for the price that they claim, and the operating costs that they claim, then their order book would be overflowing. Literally they'd have a production backlog for the rest of their natural lives. But it's NEVER won a competition. It got selected in Brazil by default, they wanted the Rafale but it was too expensive, so they went to their second choice which was the Super Hornet, then Boeing got caught spying on them so they tossed them from the competition and ended up with their last choice by default...and even Brazil obviously isn't as confident in it as they once were...they were supposedly going to buy up to 100 of them at some point, and now they're down to just 36, and it's going to take them 8 years to take them.

    The Gripen E has been on the market for 15 years, and including the 60 for Sweden they've sold 96 jets...20% less than Lockheed Martin's number of F-35's delivered just last year alone. The Gripen has lost or pulled out of competitions with F-18's, F-16s (both new and used), Typhoons, Rafales, Super Hornets, and more...it's literally never won.

    All the supposed benefits of the Gripen offer aren't that great in the long run. Technology transfers of a limited amount of the tech in the jet (most of the gripen isn't actually made by Saab, so they can't transfer it), production of a jet that nobody else is buying, and jobs for a couple years while we build around half of our order and then turn out the lights on the way out. Remember, they offer in country assembly to every country they try to sell it to...so we'll never build any Gripens not destined for us.
    Last edited by Go4Long; 03-31-2021 at 01:44 PM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  8. #728
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go4Long View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    @Gman.45

    My biggest argument against the Gripen (which they hate) is this...if anyone believed that it was REALLY as capable as Saab claims, for the price that they claim, and the operating costs that they claim, then their order book would be overflowing. Literally they'd have a production backlog for the rest of their natural lives. But it's NEVER won a competition. It got selected in Brazil by default, they wanted the Rafale but it was too expensive, so they went to their second choice which was the Super Hornet, then Boeing got caught spying on them so they tossed them from the competition and ended up with their last choice by default...and even Brazil obviously isn't as confident in it as they once were...they were supposedly going to buy up to 100 of them at some point, and now they're down to just 36, and it's going to take them 8 years to take them.

    The Gripen E has been on the market for 15 years, and including the 60 for Sweden they've sold 96 jets...20% less than Lockheed Martin's number of F-35's delivered just last year alone. The Gripen has lost or pulled out of competitions with F-18's, F-16s (both new and used), Typhoons, Rafales, Super Hornets, and more...it's literally never won.

    All the supposed benefits of the Gripen offer aren't that great in the long run. Technology transfers of a limited amount of the tech in the jet (most of the gripen isn't actually made by Saab, so they can't transfer it), production of a jet that nobody else is buying, and jobs for a couple years while we build around half of our order and then turn out the lights on the way out. Remember, they offer in country assembly to every country they try to sell it to...so we'll never build any Gripens not destined for us.
    Valid points, and I've heard professional fighter pilots make a couple of them.

    I do wish you'd join Gripen for Canada, and post this - just let me know beforehand so I can watch their heads explode over there.

  9. #729
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    MuricaMuscle
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Valid points, and I've heard professional fighter pilots make a couple of them.

    I do wish you'd join Gripen for Canada, and post this - just let me know beforehand so I can watch their heads explode over there.
    Is there really a point? Their brains are washed with Gripen pamphlets and shiny marketing slogans. Putting any reason into their heads is otherwise pointless.

  10. #730
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    @Gman.45 Best Fighter For Canada is also very biased towards the Gripen, and I've made those points over there. They say that it's not fair to reference previous competitions as statistical evidence...lol.

    Gripen fans don't understand the difference between the two platforms at all. Nevermind that the F-35 can carry a Gripen at MTOW in payload and still go further than the gripen could go on its own. They think they're the same thing.

    They'll post videos of a completely clean Gripen performing at an airshow (which I was actually at) and brag about how great of a performance it was, then object to me saying that:

    1. We would NEVER be able to fly a gripen in a clean configuration
    2. I've seen the performance. It's well flown, but not impressive in any sense other than that.

    They also objected to me asking how many of the people that support it had actually seen one in person...apparently pointing out that it's tiny is rude...our hornets are 5 feet wider than a gripen E with their wings folded.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  11. #731
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Yea the Gripens, as mentioned, serve a niche role in the Swedish defense forces - rapid and remote deployment from the woods. Yes, that translates into better outdoor and harsher weather resistance, but that does not make it suitable for us in Canada.

    My question:

    - what major role does the CF-188 perform at present day? Rapid response interception?

  12. #732
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelations View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yea the Gripens, as mentioned, serve a niche role in the Swedish defense forces - rapid and remote deployment from the woods. Yes, that translates into better outdoor and harsher weather resistance, but that does not make it suitable for us in Canada.

    My question:

    - what major role does the CF-188 perform at present day? Rapid response interception?
    That both at home and abroad, and bombing missions with coalition forces.

    The other thing worth noting right now in this competition is that the conformal tanks on the SH were found to have structural issues a couple months ago, and there's talk that the USN might ditch them completely...if so the super hornet fails to meet our range requirement for the RFP.

    Sounds like Airbus has the tanker contract locked up possibly...so that would mean the tanker contract has been awarded, and the hangar contract, and we've been sending DOD officials around looking at the potential of extending runways...there's a pretty good chance this is already over and it's just waiting until after an election to admit it.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  13. #733
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jutes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is there really a point? Their brains are washed with Gripen pamphlets and shiny marketing slogans. Putting any reason into their heads is otherwise pointless.
    You're right, obviously, but a point can be found...sort of - entertainment. Entertaining yourself should be a primary focus each and every day. Watching some of the self described experts on G4C's Facebook page, the pontificating pinheads that many of them are, flip right the fuck out over some of Go4long's posts, would be extremely satisfying IMO. Alas, Go4Long's already done so in the past on Best fighter for Canada, and I missed out on watching 2 or 3 specific members there I got very sick of years ago, try and explain themselves around some basic facts.

    Saab in the last year or so got a dozen+ defense related websites and blogs to post about how the Gripen can easily take out the Sukoi Flanker family with some "super secret" ECM related technology. I read a couple dozen of these types of sites, blogs, Twitts, etc every morning, and it's all I saw for about a week non stop. I'll try and find some and link them, and shows just how blatantly ridiculous they can be with their marketing. Again, I'll never say the Gripen is a "bad" fighter, it's just not some super fighter that can operate at 5$k per hour and outperform all of its contemporaries with ease. This happened after the PLAAF (Chinese Air Force) supposedly lost badly vs Thailand's Gripens in an exercise. Obviously there are so many factors at play besides type vs type in such an EX, but Saab made the most of it. Google Gripen vs Flanker since 2019 and you get a phone book of articles pushed by Saab about this.

    One thing where I would give Saab/Sweden/Gripen credit is that they get new weapons checked out very fast. The new Meteor AAM has been in service for quite some time already in Sweden on the Gripen, far before the UK got it going on their Typhoons, as well as others.

    The Fighter Pilot Podcast and the other Youtube interview channel has a couple Gripen pilots interviewed in the last year, I'll find them and post links if anyone hasn't heard them, some interesting tidbits here and there.

    Good example of the Rah Rah Gripen articles I mentioned - https://www.businessinsider.com/swed...elevant-2019-2

    Favorite quote -
    Sweden's air force says its Gripen E fighter jets are designed to kill Russia's fearsome Sukhoi fighter jets, and that they have a "black belt" in that type of combat.
    LOL!!!

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...su-35-flankers
    Last edited by Gman.45; 04-01-2021 at 06:07 PM.

  14. #734
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    MuricaMuscle
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelations View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yea the Gripens, as mentioned, serve a niche role in the Swedish defense forces - rapid and remote deployment from the woods. Yes, that translates into better outdoor and harsher weather resistance, but that does not make it suitable for us in Canada.
    How? What does the Gripen have that makes it a better outdoor weather aircraft and more resistant to 'weather' than American, or Russian for that matter, jets? The russians have built-in FOD intake screens for example that prevent rocks being injested, what makes the Gripen stand out?

    My question:

    - what major role does the CF-188 perform at present day? Rapid response interception?
    Everything. From NORAD to Eastern Europe to bombing desert people.

  15. #735
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The retracting intakes for FOD protection on the Mig29 was something I'm surprised wasn't put into more Soviet/Russian types. Of course Russian airfields are far "rougher" than the West's, even their premier bases/runways.

    Hey Jutes, do you remember any incidents of a RCAF Hornet being "saved" due to having 2 engines? IE a complete engine failure that couldn't air restart, and the other engine "brining the plane home"? I've asked a bunch of RCAF former pilots, and can't find one example online. Superhornet advocates argument #1 vs the F35, is the whole 2 is safer than 1 engine thing.

  16. #736
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    MuricaMuscle
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hey Jutes, do you remember any incidents of a RCAF Hornet being "saved" due to having 2 engines? IE a complete engine failure that couldn't air restart, and the other engine "brining the plane home"? I've asked a bunch of RCAF former pilots, and can't find one example online. Superhornet advocates argument #1 vs the F35, is the whole 2 is safer than 1 engine thing.
    Yes. There are many examples where one engine had a flameout for various mechanical reasons, now I don't know if it would've caused an ejection. Certain engine or accessory gearbox issues would either force a shutdown or cut to idle as part of the checklist. Obviously its just to prevent any further damage and allow the aircraft to limp home.

    As far as being saved, two ejections were saved over a conflict zone, one over Libya and the other Iraq. An engine had a catastrophic internal failure over Libya, it was a mess. The entire fan and compressor sections were destroyed and blades were shot in all directions, through bulkheads and into the other engine bay, but thankfully not causing any significant damage. The other was a failed mid-air refuel over Iraq. After capturing the basket the refuelling line off the tanker whipped and broke off the entire probe, major pieces were thrown into the right engine. Thankfully it had enough remaining fuel to make it to a safe neighbouring country, on one engine. The Rafale also had problems with probes breaking off however it wasn't at risk of engine damage because it was above the intakes. If you look at the probe of the Gripen, it's right above the LH intake, a little too close for my tastes in a single-engine fighter. The refuelling probe for the F35 doesn't exactly give me any warm fuzzies either, I'd rather we stick with the boom system in the A model only.

    This isn't to say having two engines is better than one. Dual engine fighters have more risk and less redundancy built into them along with different emergency checklists. The Gripen uses essentially the same engine as our CF-18s with the NG using the newer version F414. The F4x4 series were designed for the dual engine hornets, putting one into the Gripen NG and calling it good carries greater risk. The F135 was designed from the ground up with the intention of being the only engine installed in the aircraft. Its a beast. The technology and strength build into it pretty much removes any risk of failure. People who say 'Canada needs a dual engine fighter for patrols' are clueless.
    Last edited by jutes; 04-02-2021 at 11:32 AM.

  17. #737
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jutes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How? What does the Gripen have that makes it a better outdoor weather aircraft and more resistant to 'weather' than American, or Russian for that matter, jets? \\
    .
    We dont have russian aircraft in contention for Canada.

    Its F35 vs. others.

    I was trying to avoid needing to point out the obvious, as I am not in the industry like yourself, but the RAM coating is one of the biggest headaches on the F35 when compared to the Gripen.

    Again, the F35s are definite hangar queens, compared to the Swedish remote and rural highway intentions designed for the Gripen, but that does not mean the Gripen would suit our needs.
    Last edited by revelations; 04-02-2021 at 05:52 PM.

  18. #738
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    MuricaMuscle
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    New fighters will need new infrastructure including rows of drive in/drive out hangars. No jet will sit outside be it the F35 or Super Hornet. Cold Lake is already in the engineering phase for whatever fighter that gets selected. The F-35 is stationed in Alaska, Israeli deserts and off boats, there is nothing special about Canadian weather or conditions.

  19. #739
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    ^So. Much. This.

    Norway operates there's out of Bodo, and does deployments to Iceland as well. The USAF has 2 squdarons of them based at Eieleson. The idea that the F-35 is unable to operate in adverse weather/climates is silly.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27 36 37

Similar Threads

  1. EGT discussion

    By Hollywood in forum Mechanical
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 04-01-2003, 11:44 PM
  2. MX-3 Discussion

    By shay in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 52
    Latest Threads: 02-15-2003, 12:24 AM
  3. VTEC discussion (from iVTEC sticker thread)

    By THREE40SEVEN in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 25
    Latest Threads: 02-04-2003, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •