Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 49 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1445

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Ballistic missiles are much more of a threat than SAMs. Imagine a target with say six billion dollars amassed on a relatively tiny area.. Russians would be silly to wait until the fighters get scrambled if they can turn them to smoke and ashes right on the ground.
    That is true of any modern fighter then. Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper than the F-35, but not enough to matter in that scenario.

    If you want to talk about dispersed operations then the F-35 is at least as capable of that as the Gripen NG. Finland currently practices for such operations using its F-18s, and one would expect an F-35C or F-35B to be capable of stepping into such an operational concept easily.


    Disagree. If they buy the F-35A, then it's only in order to get a ticket into a me-too-stealth-club. Fighters which require a large airbase within the range of ballistic missiles are paper tigers, they will never get a slightest chance to join the merge...
    Already explained above. The F-35 can use similar (F-35C) or smaller (F-35B) bases than the Gripen so this is hardly an argument in favor of Gripen.


    If they are serious about a credible self-defense capability, then will buy Gripen-E which can be dispersed on small hidden airfields. Or the F-35B.. I just wonder how many of these Finns could afford..
    Roughly the same number...

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,180
    it takes $1b to prepare an airbase for F-35. Ask Norway and Australia. Finland is no position to spend such and certainly not in 10 years time when things going alot worse.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,380
    You do understand than being stealth right after T.O, turn the 35B as the sole asset able to politically survive under the S400 umbrella at an affordable cost?*
    To do the same, routinely (in order to deny any pressure from an aggressive Russia), the Grip would have to take off from the same roads with a credible Jam and SEAD suite, what is far more tricky and costly to achieve and could send the wrong message at the wrong time during cross-border tensions.
    Discarding the threat and to be meant to kill it are wide apart political messages.

    Obviously, nobody says that Ru will do acting so. But any Mil in charge have the duty to envision the worst tactical scenarios and find a way to cope with it at the least tactical cost in order to provide its chain of command with the potentiality of initiatives. Being stuck with an aggressive posture at day one of regional tension would be somewhat politically irresponsible and theorically the road to disaster.

    Cost-wise, it's hard to see such much vaunted cliff b/w the two types. The 35 is less expensive to buy and the vast amount of users will decrease any cost of fleet upgrades. When Fins bought the F18, they hardly made the easiest choice in term of cost and tech level. But in the end, there were the ones not forced through an expensive MLU.


    *And even more in country with high labor rate as was explained when we were dealing with Switzerland with a favorable impact on infra's.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 31st January 2016 at 21:26.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    If you want to talk about dispersed operations then the F-35 is at least as capable of that as the Gripen NG. Finland currently practices for such operations using its F-18s, and one would expect an F-35C or F-35B to be capable of stepping into such an operational concept easily.
    When and where has this been demonstrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Roughly the same number...
    A good joke, really..

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    When and where has this been demonstrated?

    A good joke, really..
    When did the Gripen NG fly again?

    The F-35B is designed to operate from distributed and unimproved airfields. This is a core part of what it is designed to do.

    See pages 37 and 38:

    https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ion%20Plan.pdf

    The F-35C isn't intended for roadway operations but the same traits that make it a suitable aircraft for carrier operation would likely allow it to do so, just as is the case with the F-18s the Finns currently operate.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    You do understand than being stealth right after T.O, turn the 35B as the sole asset able to politically survive under the S400 umbrella at an affordable cost?*
    To do the same, routinely (in order to deny any pressure from an aggressive Russia), the Grip would have to take off from the same roads with a credible Jam and SEAD suite, what is far more tricky and costly to achieve and could send the wrong message at the wrong time during cross-border tensions.
    Discarding the threat and to be meant to kill it are wide apart political messages.

    Obviously, nobody says that Ru will do acting so. But any Mil in charge have the duty to envision the worst tactical scenarios and find a way to cope with it at the least tactical cost in order to provide its chain of command with the potentiality of initiatives. Being stuck with an aggressive posture at day one of regional tension would be somewhat politically irresponsible and theorically the road to disaster.

    Cost-wise, it's hard to see such much vaunted cliff b/w the two types. The 35 is less expensive to buy and the vast amount of users will decrease any cost of fleet upgrades. When Fins bought the F18, they hardly made the easiest choice in term of cost and tech level. But in the end, there were the ones not forced through an expensive MLU.


    *And even more in country with high labor rate as was explained when we were dealing with Switzerland with a favorable impact on infra's.
    Exactly... if you are going to go cheap you might as well not bother. If all you want to do is air policing during peacetime then a Gripen of FA-50 would work fine...but in wartime they would be running for their life as soon as they rose above the trees.

    If you want a fighter capable of presenting a credible threat then the F-35 is really your only choice.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post

    More realistically, considering the Finnish economy and the cost of modern a/c, a more likely scenario would be for Finland to buy 20 F-35 and 0 Gripen -- however I would maintain the importance of Finland either entering NATO or a close alliance with Sweden.

    If they choose the latter, the Swedish-FInnish defence will in the future consist of 60 Gripen E and 20 F-35, for a total of 80 a/c. To protect such a large area, full integration of the two air forces would probably be necessary.
    If my cognitive synapses are not more slower than usual, the Sweden has been downsizing this Air Force since the 80's in high rate as: 349 AJ/JA 37, to 214 JAS 39A/B/C/D, to 100 JAS 39C/D and finally to 60 JAS 39E in 2029

    While the Finland Air Force had been replaced those 60 MiG 21/JA 35 Draken in the 80's for the 60 F/A 18C/D and it has been keeping almost the same number until today.

    The Saab company has published that Gripen C / D would be the same combat capabilities of the F/A 18 C/D, so if Finland should be chosen the Gripen E and it will following the same parameters of Sweden, then its Finland Air Force should get something like 16 Gripen E

    However, if the combat capability of the F/A 18 C/D is twice high than the Gripen C/D, then Finland should get something around 36 Gripen E by the Sweden standards.


    Anyway just 20 F 35 or 60 Gripen E for Finland has been replacing those 60 F/A 18 C/D for 2025, it has seems to me that your analysis could have been two meanings:

    • 01 F 35 has the combat capabilities from 03 Gripen E;
    • 01 F 35 has the equivalent cost from 03 Gripen E;



    As far I am Known the Finland would be limited to 60 fighters for a treaty, and by this it were prohibited to operate bombers or even fighter-bombers.

    Indeed those 60 F/A 18C/D could not employ weapons for ground or anti ship attack, only for air-air missions.

    I do not know if this treaty is still valid, however if it is this could be a great disadvantage for the fighters from 4.5° Generation than the 5° generation, once those fighters of 4.5 in Finland will not equipped with anti radiation missiles to defend against long range SAM .


    Due to these aspects I guess that would be unlikely that Finland will get something like 60 Gripen E or some other fighters from 4.5 generation in this proportion.

    So in my humble opinion Finland could get something like 24 fighters, however the main doubt would be between fighters of 4.5 or 5 Generation, and the budget has been available for this, since the contestants could be: Gripen E, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A 18 E/F, Su 35S, PAK FA, J 20, J 31 and others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    I must confess that the post above was written after dinner (which consisted of pizza and beer). No doubt, the influence of the pizza has affected my cognitive processes...
    Could you tell us what was the pizza?
    I think this would make me very well, since it would accelerate my cognitive synapses.

    About beer I'm sure it does not make this purpose because I have met them all in the past, even those that had been 'additivated' and I received it without to pay for this 'food supplement'.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    The simple and obvious truth is that Finland would be better off without an air combat capability.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the run.. Scandinavia & China
    Posts
    198
    This is getting tiresome, pls note that dispersed basing, fast turn around time, ease of maintenance are major design targets for Gripen family while the F35 is designed for your beloved "package Q" scenario.

    We all know that a lot of countries are scared ****less about the expected difficulties and expenses that come with F35, just look at Norway for example, that has to concentrate into ONLY ONE completely new billion dollar facility. F35 for dispersed bases

    In general I'm not impressed when somenpody claims anything regarding something that is faaar off the design targets, be it a car or an Aircraft. My phone is working pretty well as a can opener btw...

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    When did the Gripen NG fly again?
    First flight 27th of May 2008.

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    The F-35B is designed to operate from distributed and unimproved airfields. This is a core part of what it is designed to do.
    Sure.. That is why I have written it before.. It would surely be a very good type in that regard, even better than Gripen NG, but I personally would worry about operating cost, maintenance and turnaround times.

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    The F-35C isn't intended for roadway operations but the same traits that make it a suitable aircraft for carrier operation would likely allow it to do so, just as is the case with the F-18s the Finns currently operate.
    Exactly. So why claim something else? When they have demonstrated its suitability for roadway ops, then we can talk..
    Last edited by MSphere; 1st February 2016 at 08:47.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Halo View Post
    This is getting tiresome, pls note that dispersed basing, fast turn around time, ease of maintenance are major design targets for Gripen family while the F35 is designed for your beloved "package Q" scenario.

    We all know that a lot of countries are scared ****less about the expected difficulties and expenses that come with F35, just look at Norway for example, that has to concentrate into ONLY ONE completely new billion dollar facility. F35 for dispersed bases

    In general I'm not impressed when somenpody claims anything regarding something that is faaar off the design targets, be it a car or an Aircraft. My phone is working pretty well as a can opener btw...
    That's exactly what I have had in mind. If Finns are considering Russia as their major adversary, then placing all their assets on a single base within the range of Iskanders, Backfires of whatever stuff the Russians can throw at them within minutes (think conventional warfare now) is pure madness and equals to having no air force, at all. It's logical that such base housing assets worth several billions would be a strategic target No.1..

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    946
    I think 2 question need to be looked at here firstly if F35b was to be used from road sites what equipment and logistics would be needed and how many people per airframe to turn it around and the second is if the Finns are limited to 60 airframes which are in turn limited to air 2 air only then is F35 for them?. Lets be clear here that F35 is not a good air to air platform

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,396
    The Finns can buy as many aircraft as they want & they are not limited to air to air. The limits referred were established by the Treaty of Paris in 1947. Finland declared in 1990 that the treaty restrictions were no longer valid. None of the other signatories responded, thus indicating that they accepted the nullification, so the relevant clauses no longer apply.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,050
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    F-16s didn't fly one at a time (as in only one F-16 airborne at a time with no other aircraft accompanying it) along one route from one airfield towards the same target zone at the same time of day. So NOT the same conditions.
    yes, same excuses, or do you mean to say ET team only phoned home to report F-117 sightings, entirely ignoring all those hundreds
    of F-16 that would undoubtedly have been shot down once the hard part, the phone rang, was done ?
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,396
    Phoning home to report a dozen F-16s taking off didn't tell the air defences where & when they'd pass close to a SAM battery, since they weren't all flying to the same fairly small area by the same route. Also, since they would probably be accompanied by SEAD aircraft with HARM or ALARM, attempting such an ambush was dangerous for SAM operators. They played cat & mouse to survive.

    The whole bloody point about the F-117 ambush is that it was only possible in the way it happened because the F-117 was entirely alone, relying solely on its stealthiness to protect it. Once it was identified & located for long enough to attack it, there wasn't anything it could do.

    ALL the described conditions had to be true for the ambush to work, not just one, so picking on the spotters outside the bases is meaningless when the other conditions weren't met.

    F-16s & the like were flying pretty much in plain sight, often in broad daylight, armed, equipped & organised to fight it out with anything the Serbs sent against them, & in numbers & with equipment which made that a one-sided fight. Utterly, utterly different.
    Last edited by swerve; 2nd February 2016 at 10:46.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    First flight 27th of May 2008.
    Wrong again... the Gripen Demo is not a Gripen NG.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...sembly-418908/

    Exactly. So why claim something else? When they have demonstrated its suitability for roadway ops, then we can talk..
    By that reasoning there is no need to discuss the Gripen NG until it has demonstrated the ability to fly...

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Wrong again... the Gripen Demo is not a Gripen NG.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...sembly-418908/

    By that reasoning there is no need to discuss the Gripen NG until it has demonstrated the ability to fly...
    The Gripen Demo NG is an NG.. We can spend hours arguing about whether it's a true "prototype" or just a heavily reworked Gripen B under a private initiative financed by the industry but the fact is that it is an NG. It has a new airframe with additional fuel capacity, two rows of fuselage pylons, new landing gear, F414-GE engine, new satcom equipment, electro-optical RWR and MAWS by Avitronics, as well as the Vixen 1000E AESA radar. Whatever changes have been proposed for the final config prototype from your link, they will hardly be discernible..
    Last edited by MSphere; 1st February 2016 at 23:23.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    The Gripen Demo NG is an NG.. We can spend hours arguing about whether it's a true "prototype" or just a heavily reworked Gripen B under a private initiative financed by the industry but the fact is that it is an NG. It has a new airframe with additional fuel capacity, two rows of fuselage pylons, new landing gear, F414-GE engine, new satcom equipment, electro-optical RWR and MAWS by Avitronics, as well as the Vixen 1000E AESA radar. Whatever changes have been proposed for the final config prototype from your link, they will hardly be discernible..
    No, it isn't. .. and it didn't have production representative avionics, structure, or performance.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    No prototype has production representative avionics... that's why it's a prototype..
    Care to enlighten us on the rest, please? How will the NG structure and performance differ from the Demo NG?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,714
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    How will the NG structure and performance differ from the Demo NG?
    For one, the weight is off by about 1000 kg.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    No prototype has production representative avionics... that's why it's a prototype..
    Care to enlighten us on the rest, please? How will the NG structure and performance differ from the Demo NG?
    Great Question! For one, the Gripen Demo and the so-called Gripen NG are not the same. The production Gripen E/F (already is) will be heavier than envisioned and there may very well be more changes as the pre-production models move through development. The more powerful F414 is offset by that added weight and if there is a performance weakness apparent in the Gripen, that it does not have the T/W ratio of it's bigger European brothers to begin with. It is still on the lightweight side of the fighter spectrum with all of the benefits and drawbacks inherent in designing a small multirole fighter.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,050
    significant weight is reduced when built from ground up vs re-welding, even if the same material were to be used,
    which they arent, air intake this time around is composites.
    E also has slightly more wing area.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    significant weight is reduced when built from ground up vs re-welding, even if the same material were to be used,
    which they arent, air intake this time around is composites.
    E also has slightly more wing area.
    Ah, so without Gripen 39-10 in the air, and even with SAAB stating that the estimated weight is now roughly 2,000lbs heavier than initially stated, you think that the production versions will be lighter? BTW, having slightly more wing area may help keep some of the initial Gripen agility, but it most certainly will not help acceleration.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    significant weight is reduced when built from ground up vs re-welding, even if the same material were to be used,
    which they arent, air intake this time around is composites.
    E also has slightly more wing area.
    http://saab.com/globalassets/commerc...g-brochure.pdf

    Gripen NG

    Empty weight, 8,000kg. Thrust, 98KN. Internal fuel, 3,400kg.

    F-35A

    Empty weight, 13,200kg. Thrust, 191KN. Internal fuel, 8,390kg.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    The Finns can buy as many aircraft as they want & they are not limited to air to air. The limits referred were established by the Treaty of Paris in 1947. Finland declared in 1990 that the treaty restrictions were no longer valid. None of the other signatories responded, thus indicating that they accepted the nullification, so the relevant clauses no longer apply.
    The lack of response does not mean consent, in my humble opinion specialty when it comes about diplomacy manners, indeed the silence can be itself as complete denial, once the other side has been signaling it will not put this issue on the table.

    I do not know if the F/A 18 C/D Finland has been received weapons for ground or anti ship missions, also I do not know if Russia would consider this treaty as valid today.

    However I guess if this treaty has not been officially broken by all parties, at least it would be appropriate to analyze the implications of this, before stating that there will be no obstacles for the Gripen NG or other fighter that could be equipped for ground and anti ship missions in Finland.

    In this case this treaty still valid, the greater implication would be that fighters from 4.5 ° generation will not at the beginning of conflict an anti radiation missiles against SAM with long range capabilities , both in land and on ships.

    In the case of fighters from 5° generation these could suffered less with this threat since it would not be detected and hit by SAM that has been fired at long range.

    If the treaty has been valid for one side, in fact there are serious implications when the Finland will choice its fighters to replace the F/A 18 C/D, because of the weapons that could be available for its missions.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    significant weight is reduced when built from ground up vs re-welding, even if the same material were to be used,
    which they arent, air intake this time around is composites.
    E also has slightly more wing area.

    The Gripen Demo was such great idea, as it has been allows to trial several systems and subsystems from Gripen NG, however Gripen Demo is only the Gripen Demo.

    The Gripen Demo has been using the Gripen C / D structure, since this were modified for this purpose, but it is still Gripen C / D structure.

    About putting a more powerful and weight engine as well as fuel , along more useful load, the Gripen C/D structure as well as the Gripen Demo will be under a higher stress than the original Gripen C / D.

    In this case it should have been possible for that this higher stress would be within the safety margin, but will put up of the values ​​from Gripen C / D.

    So the biggest difference between the Gripen Demo and the Gripen NG should be the last one will have its structure has been reinforced to support a useful life of 8000 hours or 30 years, while the Gripen Demo could be limited for something like 2000 hours.

    However this reinforced structure from Gripen NG could increase the weight relative to the Gripen Demo, indeed this is a strong possibility , but another simple possibility would be that such new material could offers lighter weight but with the same load, or even new process to assemble this structure.

    Each project has been keep its reliability, but in general even small increases of the stress in the same structure always cause a reduction in useful life.Anyway if the stress will getting closer the safety limit, the useful life will be reduced in such rate several times high than the value of the increased stress.

    There is no linear relationship between stress and useful life , but exponential. Because of this each project has been required its own solution for this problem.

    So it would be interesting to wait for the actual data of the new Gripen NG.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the run.. Scandinavia & China
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    So it would be interesting to wait for the actual data of the new Gripen NG.

    Agreed, will be very interesting to see final weight!! I hope and expect that weight will be significantly below 8000kg, however for now these are hopes only.

    What I know of so far in regards to weight,
    A) Increase
    +Larger airframe ? kg
    +Heavier Engine (66 kg)
    +More Avionics (IRST 30kg extra, new cooling system, new radar 59kg extra, PAWS-2 ~20kg, satcom ?kg)
    + More RAMs ??? If present at all ??kg
    =Total known increases 175kg

    B) Weight reductions
    -Much better manufacturing techniques and 15 years of new material developments

    A-B =???

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    I do not know if the F/A 18 C/D Finland has been received weapons for ground or anti ship missions, also I do not know if Russia would consider this treaty as valid today.
    The have received A/G weapons. I don't know however if they've redesignated their F-18s as F/A-18s
    --> Large pic.
    More pictures in this gallery.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Halo View Post
    Agreed, will be very interesting to see final weight!! I hope and expect that weight will be significantly below 8000kg, however for now these are hopes only.

    What I know of so far in regards to weight,
    A) Increase
    +Larger airframe ? kg
    +Heavier Engine (66 kg)
    +More Avionics (IRST 30kg extra, new cooling system, new radar 59kg extra, PAWS-2 ~20kg, satcom ?kg)
    + More RAMs ??? If present at all ??kg
    =Total known increases 175kg

    B) Weight reductions
    -Much better manufacturing techniques and 15 years of new material developments

    A-B =???

    One can always hope, but Saab is already saying 8,000kg and planes do not generally get lighter as they proceed through development.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,396
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    The lack of response does not mean consent, in my humble opinion specialty when it comes about diplomacy manners, indeed the silence can be itself as complete denial, once the other side has been signaling it will not put this issue on the table.
    You are right to express humility when stating your opinion, since it is wrong. International law is clear. When Finland stated that it was unilaterally cancelling the clauses of the Treaty of Paris relating to the arms limits imposed on Finland, the other parties (IIRC all of which were informed privately, in detail, via the usual diplomatic channels) had a date to respond by. Failure to respond by that date meant assent. None responded.

    All they had to do to block Finland's change to the treaty was to send back a note before that date saying "We do not agree". Not one of them did so. Finland's declaration only took force when that waiting period was over & there had been no replies.

    In the 25 years since Finland changed the treaty, none of the other parties has even hinted that it considers those clauses to still be in force. They have all acted as if the treaty change was valid. By doing so, they have demonstrated that their original silence really did mean assent, as international law states.

    BTW, Finland is buying JASSM for its F-18s.
    Last edited by swerve; 2nd February 2016 at 13:18.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

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

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES