Should JSF go the way of Comanche?

Within the past 10 days, we’ve learned that CSIS thinks the US military can’t buy the aircraft it needs and, even if they could, RAND doubts those aircraft are up to the job.

So it’s great timing this week for the annual convention by the Association of the US Army (AUSA) to roll into town.

The sweeping revitalization of army aviation over the past five years may offer an intriguing object lesson for fellow aviators in the air force, navy and marine corps.

Consider that only five years ago the army faced the same aircraft inventory challenges that are now so acute in the other services. With the distressing exception of scout helicopters, I think it’s fair to say that the army procurement accounts for attack, cargo and utility helicopters are in great shape through at least 2015. 

The CSIS report mentioned no concerns about the overall state of army aviation.

What did the army do? It decided in 2004 — by itself, mind you — to cancel the RAH-66 Comanche, trading 121 Block 1 scout helicopters to buy at least 800 new aircraft and re-capitalize 1,400 aircraft already in the fleet.

The politics of defense procurement make it hard to cancel active programs. But it certainly helped that the two industrial partners on the RAH-66 program — Boeing and Sikorsky — stood to gain at least as much by its cancellation. The army re-invested the $14.6 billion to buy hundreds of Apaches, Chinooks and Black Hawks, not to mention scores of other manned and unmanned aircraft.

The obvious corollary for the air force and navy would be to cancel the F-35A and F-35C and plow the savings into buying oodles of new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s. The US Marine Corps has no choice: the F-35B is the only option to recapitalize the STOVL AV-8B.

I want to emphasize that I am not advocating this solution.

But I do want to raise the option as a question: What would you do?


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, , , , ,

25 Responses to Should JSF go the way of Comanche?

  1. RugGun 5 October, 2008 at 11:52 pm #

    Good one. Complicated one too. Basically, I think yes it should go – it’s coming in too late, too expensive and it’s of questionable utility for most of its customers. I actually think that, bar cost, it will do fine for the US forces – but the numbers are the thing.

    The US Army had perfectly acceptable alternative airframes for its jobs – it’s not clear that the JSF customers do. It’s the only game in town for the Harrier boys – but the USMC & RAF don’t really need to play it anymore.

    Basically, where possible look at the job trying to be done rather than a straight type replacement. Rather than silver bullets, think lots of shiny tin bullets talking to each other.

    It would be nice if/when JSF does gets binned, something sensible happens with the STOVL tech. (Think a Typhoon nose on a Yak-141 fuselage, built around an F135), but lets assume that doesn’t happen.

    USAF – wants air dominance, air defence and tactical strike. Buy more F-22s. Buy F-15s with F-22 level systems, canards & 2D TVC. Upgrade a bunch of F-16s to Block 60+. Buy back into J-UCAS (or TARANIS or NEURON..) & make sure it’s armed with AMRAAM (if only to be shot at datalinked targets). Team up with the USMC for a common CAS solution that suits the ground guys (A-10 follow-on).

    USN: Lots more F/A-18s, J-UCAS with A2A-support, & maybe add AEW functions to BAMS (or DARPA Vulture or something else high up). Make sure there’s a stealthy Tomahawk replacement that fits inside the Ohio SSGNs. Ask nicely to get an AARGM seeker & maybe a video feed added to it (terminal update to a manned aircraft?).

    USMC: Super Hornets plus organic ‘high speed’ CAS from something like an armed BA609 (think a ’609-Cobra’). That should be able to get A-10 performance (ish) onto a small deck.

    UK: Buy RAFALE M off the shelf for the carriers only(36 of them? – and don’t change it, you know how well that went with the Phantom). Maybe some E-2s too. (Be nice to the French – get an arrangement going for time of war). Commit to Typhoon Tranche 3, including remanufacture of the old ones if needs be. Get some, if not all, of the new-builds with extra kit & TVC. Make sure some are 2-seaters to control the TARANISes/J-UCASs/NEURONs for deep strike & SEAD/DEAD. Buy decent numbers of UCAVs. Get the ‘stealthy Tomahawk’ from the US for Astute & look into Vanguard SSGNs. If the RAF suddenly develops a recognition that CAS might be a good thing, then do the same as the USMC.

    AUS: Promise to buy F-22s for maybe-a-bit-too much, & beg a bit too. Hornets, lots of Hornets.

    Everybody else: If you have carriers, good luck. I hear there are wonderful things for rust-proofing Harriers nowadays. Otherwise Typhoon/Gripen/F-15+++. Then add UCAVs if you want to do deep strike.

  2. Mike Burleson 6 October, 2008 at 12:11 am #

    I have been advocating this on my New Wars blog for years: purchasing new build and late model F-15, and F-16s off the shelf (they have been winning all our wars for decades anyway!). Savings should go to UAVs and new smart weapons, the latter of which are revolutionizing warfare and don’t need a hundred million dollar stealth platform to hit a target, just a ride!

    As it is, we expect to send expensive platforms like jets, tanks, and aircraft carriers off to war, basically duplicating the functions of cheaper UAVs, armored cars, and cruise missile ships. Thus we are needlessly busting the military budget, and considering the current economic crisis don’t expect a defense hike anytime soon.

  3. Royce 6 October, 2008 at 1:31 am #

    The army is just one service and can make a change like this through it’s own command structure. Even if the air force and Navy want to bail, the Marines won’t. Odd as it sounds, the Marines are just too powerful not to get the F-35B.

  4. Aurora 6 October, 2008 at 2:30 am #

    I thought the Rand study addressed “worst case” scenarios? Has the verdict on the F-35 performance been posted? How many more F-22s would be needed?

    That said, canceling the Comanche (and A-12)doesn’t seem to have done us irreparable harm. However, I await the input from the good folks at Lockheed-Martin on this “talking point” you raised.

  5. ELP 6 October, 2008 at 3:54 am #

    Yeah it should be canceled. Especially now with the bailout to pay for… where budget = strategy.

    Yet everyone forgets that after big SAMS and fighter aircraft are killed off in the first nights of a war, that the rest of the air campaign can be done without stealth aircraft. Legacy jets can bomb from up high with sub 4 meter CEP cheap PGMs ( JDAM, Paveway, and now dual use variants of both ) and small battlefield SAMs, AAA, MANPADs and trashfire can’t touch you.

    What if you had a war and the JSF didn’t show up? Answer, it wouldn’t matter.

    MALD, Tomahawk Block IV, JASSM, F22 with SDB, B-2 bomber, will put enough hurt in the first few nights fo the war so as not to worry about Super Hornets, Strike Eagles, B-52s, plinking what ever they want.

    USAF can’t afford JSF. And well legacy F-16s in new build trim can do MOST AEFs. 383 or whatever it was F-22s is an actual PLAN to fit into 10 AEFs / Depot time,training and testing)….

    Look at new build F-16s and look at the new build Strike Eagle (F-15K with everything but a high-G beverage cup holder…. )

    The proven aircraft we have in production now is good enough.

    Navy? If UCAS-N proves that it can launch and recover without turning the deck into a weenie roast, it will be a revolution in carrier strike warfare. 3 Super Block II Squadrons and 1 UCAS-N squadron ( tanking, ISR, ASW and strike ) is good enough.

    The STOVL fantasy has to end. How in hell can you bare base a STOVL F-35 when every sortie requires 7 tons of gas? ( Snort-Guffaw ).

    The Marine doesn’t care where the precision fire support comes from (hint… even if it doesn’t come from a manned aircraft all the time )…. Attack helo and UCAS-N over head isn’t bad. And well the Marines can get the job done without F-35. Also… in a war with Marines involved. One Super Hornet Block II squadron on the closest USN carriers should sport USMC colors.

    Or…. just keep going on the road we are going… spend into oblivion.

  6. Jim Atkins 6 October, 2008 at 4:38 am #

    I really can’t see the Marines being able to keep this program alive if the other US partners bail out. I also really can’t see the Marines’ insistence on STOVL or VTOL- they have NEVER used that particular capability in combat, not once in 30 years of Harrier operations. With the USAF literally falling apart in the air, some seriously new thinking (in a really bad-looking budget environment) is called for.

  7. Tedster 6 October, 2008 at 12:58 pm #

    How about the RN go for Super Hornets rather than Rafale M? Do the political and interoperability advantages of that make up for performance differences?

  8. Law MC 6 October, 2008 at 1:40 pm #

    And how do you suggest the RN recover those Rafales or Super Hornets??? RN carriers (the new ones aswell) do not operate like the CDG or other american super carriers.

    The JSF project is too hard to cancel because of the big external investment and cooperation of other nations in the project.

  9. Royce 6 October, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    The French are getting the same carrier as the Royal Navy with the standard U.S. catapult system installed, and the Royal Navy has always said a catapult system could be added to their carriers if needed. The easiest thing to do would be for the U.K. to buy Rafales, but that wouldn’t go over too well with the British public.

    Maybe BAE Systems needs to take a page out of Lockheed Martin’s and Northrop Grumman’s playbook and off the “UK-101 British Storm,” a new aircraft based on the Rafale M. Scratch out “Aeronavale” on the side of the fuselage, switch out some black boxes, and paint a Union Jack on her and you’ve got your carrier fighter.

  10. Captn Tommy 6 October, 2008 at 2:48 pm #

    Ah the Comanche. A great little Chopper, But a Sport car. two seats one mission. F-22 one seat one mission (desparately trying to convince people it can do another).

    Both took twenty years to get to production. the Su-27/30/33/etc. took ten and was basic… BUT the Russians put it in PRODUCTION then they started modifying it. THE POINT – they put the plane in production AND THEN they started modifying it. The Comanche was brought to production (potential) start twice before it was killed. Each time when production was ready, some Army general found a new toy – Microwave Radar, integrated wiz-bang, Whisper mode, what ever, and the production plans were stopped so the Comanche could be redesigned. This is the “OO-Ah Syndrome” i.e. the kid with the money can’t wait for mods but Has to have the new toy NOW.

    This gives us the best instance to date, (my choice-there are more). In December 1976 the Contracts were signed for the Black Hawk (H60) and the Apache (H64) The H60 went operational in 1978/1979, But the H64 went operational in 1984. Why is that?

    The OO-ah Syndrome in full force; 1. Night capable, 2. All-weather capable, 3. Hellfire missiles, 4. Improved targeting, there may be more. and this was all before the AH-64A model even saw the field.
    It was almost killed buy Congress twice that I remember.

    Mean while the fully operational H60 went through various modifications and was used as an attack aircraft in a certain 1980′s gulf standoff (gunboats and tankers thing) while the H64 waited to be deployed.

    The problem is not the aircraft, it is the politics, Why an aircraft needs to take 20 years to design is beyond me. How long did it take to design and make operational the B-52, fifty-five years ago.


    Captn Tommy

  11. Erik Schwan 6 October, 2008 at 4:25 pm #

    Yes it should be cancelled. Basically is has technology we don’t want compromised but they have degraded the stealth capability for the original requirements. Not having all aspect stealth, like the F-22, it may be able to ingress to to he target but not successfully egress. If one crashes or is short down you compromise the technology.

    Wouldn’t a better solution be to buy lots of F-22s for a near peer war (say 750 total) and fill in the rest with F-15Es and F/A-18Fs. The projected price for an F-35 is now around $80 to $100M which is not that much less than the $152M spent on a much more capable F-22. If you bought another 520 F-22s the price would come down substantially. With more sales of F/A-18Fs their price would come down too from the $50M. So 520 F-22s would be $78B or Less 1500 F/A-18Fs woould be about $75B or less (probably a little higher if F-15Es were part of the mix so call it $85B. Combined that is only $163B compared to the projected F-35 acquisition cost of $300B to $338B. So you would save at least $137B in acquisition costs. Factor in that F-35 still needs to develop a 2 seat variant and the savings is even more.

    Most of all you would have enough F-22s to dominate the skies of any battle field and you would have lower end work horses that could be used in GWOT environments (without major fear of technology compromise) or after the F-22s and JASSMs take out most of the air defenses in a near peer conflict. You would also have enough money to create a new high speed stand-off weapon to make the legacy platforms more effective.

  12. Insight 6 October, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    Keep the F-35B.

    Scrap the rest. Let Boeing build a next generation super hornet for the USAF and USN using avionics pulled from the SH and JSF programs..

  13. John Penta 6 October, 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    I’m not sure the question is relevant; I don’t think you -can- kill JSF without destroying the US’s credibility internationally.

    It’s not like Comanche was where it’s just one service that would ‘take the hit’. It’d be a not-small number of entire NATIONS taking the hit.

    Face facts: We’re locked in to JSF, like it or not.

  14. SMSgt Mac 6 October, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    Your RAND statement perpetuates a week old myth.

    From RAND’s PAF website:

    Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — Sep. 25, 2008
    Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today: “Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from RAND were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.“

  15. Distiller 6 October, 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    The combined U.S. manned tactical aviation should prepare itself to make-do with around 1000 frontline planes. Cause that’s all that will be left after everything is said and done in a couple of years!

    Cancelling the F-35 is not an option, but limiting it to a single version – the C version – is the only realistic route to save the programme from what’s ahead.

    In the meantime – to keep ACC from falling from the sky – they should buy more Super Hornets as standard strikefighter.

    Another run of 120 or so F-22 will be neccessary. But I bet there will never be more than 800 F-35 built (not including foreign customers).

  16. Obamanite 6 October, 2008 at 10:32 pm #

    I think the USAF is feeling right about now how perhaps the Navy felt about the F-111. The Navy knew it could come up with a much better FIGHTER and INTERCEPTOR customized to the fleet defense role in the shape of what eventually would become the F-14, rather than a heavy, cumbersome bomber masquerading as a fighter largely by virtue of a bogus “F” designation. In the case of the USAF, they’ve been saddled with a “fighter-bomber” that’s not much of a fighter nor much of a bomber largely because it is so severely compromised and curtailed by the need of the overall design to account for a STOVL variant. What I think will eventually happen with the F-35 is this: it will become a modern F-5 or F-104. As soon as Gordon England and Bob Gates are gone, the USAF will lobby hard for the F-22 even if it means drastically cutting its F-35 purchases. The USAF will not cancel its F-35 buy, but it will be severely cut to make way for the NGB and a UCAV complement. That UCAV will be the USAF’s F-14, that is, the best true attack plane it can buy, as opposed to an attack plane designed with some fighter features, which is what the F-35 is and therefore necessarily a compromise. Instead of “not a pound for air-to-ground”, the USAF will seek a “not a pound for air-to-air” UCAV, dedicating, instead – as it should – the F-22 for that purpose. A UCAV that doesn’t have to worry about needless dogfighting considerations and its attendant aerodynamic requirements can be made into a smaller version of the NGB, and much more cheaply than the F-35, while a hell of a lot more effective (broad-band, all-aspect stealth; non-afterburning turfofan buried in the structure, drastically reducing IR signature and increasing fuel efficiency; all-wing, tailless design, contributing to drastically reduced RCS along with far longer range and endurance than the F-35). So what I think will happen with the USAF is that you’ll see it continue to buy F-22s at a low rate almost ad-infinitum, or at least for the forseeable future, until it gets to its 381 sweet-spot or even more, depending on the building of derivatives (such as electronic attack). The F-35 will be built but in much smaller numbers for the USAF, just a few hundred, and it will serve mostly as a sensor platform and command and control node for UCAVs. A new, DARPA-led UCAV program will spring up and leverage R&D from both the F-35 and NGB programs such that the USAF will begin procurement of such a system by the end of the next decade or early 2020s, completely supplanting production of the F-35 (and don’t be surprised to see an F-22B or C still in production then). I think the F-35 will still be heavily exported, the Marine Corps will still buy it as will the Navy (if for no better reason than that it needs some sort of day-one strike platform until N-UCAV comes on line, something the ubber-bug most assuredly is not). For the USAF, the F-35 will become something like the F-104 or F-5, where it is bought in limited numbers if only to secure export sales. But it is obvious that what the USAF really needs and wants is a superlative, true attack aircraft, not a mediocre jack-of-all-trades like the F-35. In the presence of the F-22, the USAF does not need a UCAV to carry anything more than perhaps two AMRAAMs in the unlikely event it will need to defend itself from air attack (good luck to any putative Su-35 or even Pak-Fa finding a super-stealthy UCAV with the RCS of a gnat and IR signature of a small toaster oven). Whether it’s Obama or McCain, rest assured that the next QDR will look at all available options, especially when a radical rethink in defense spending and strategy will be called for by either of these men, both of whom should constitute a significant departure from what came before. Thus, I think the USAF will ultimately ask for a future that will look very similar to what I have outlined…

  17. Mike Wheatley 7 October, 2008 at 12:11 am #

    My understanding of the RAND report (and do correct me if I am wrong) is that, in an expeditionary situation, the operation of USAF fixed wing aircraft is dependent on a limited number of tankers and bases.
    By attacking these non-stealthy airbases, tankers, and other support systems, a peer enemy would be able to operationally defeat the fixed wing assests, even if the stealth worked perfectly. (The RAND report also detailed that the stealth may well not work at a tactical level by then, either.)
    Indeed, not only does it not work, the stealth actually counts against the USAF, due to the cost of the aircraft. This cost is both direct – each aircraft costs more, so you have fewer of them – and indirect – with internal carriage, each carries fewer BVRAAMs, so they have less firepower per aircraft.

    If you will humour me a moment, it seems that the entire concept of a stealth air superiority fighter may be flawed. The enemy doesn’t actually want to engage the air defence systems, they want to engage the assets that air defence exists to defend.
    Thus, in the most generic sense, it is only worth while to enhance the survivability of a counter-offense system (fighter, SAM, etc.) IF doing so increases the ability of the counter-offense system to defend friendly forces. And I am not sure that is true of the F-22, given its high cost, and the reduction in numbers that causes. [This is probably way over my level of expertise though, so I look forwards to being told ~why~ I am wrong! :o )]

    So, to answer the question:
    Since future USAF operations are likely to be expeditionary, (as opposed to continental USA or Europe,) and thus with very limited tanker and base support, I think the F-22 is unsuitable. (Projected stealth-bypassing techniques make this even worse.)
    Instead, I would address the sortage of bases by choosing aircraft that don’t require bases, but can instead operate from dispersed rough strips in the field, i.e. the STOVL F-35B.
    So, instead, I would have the F-22 go the way of the Comanche.

    E.g. What happens in the scenario described in “that” RAND report, if the USAF instead attempts to get as many F-35B’s as possible into rough field bases dispersed throughout Taiwan?
    (Or do they not have the range to get there at all? The USMC & RN concept is to start from the sea, secure beacheads, and then phase ashore… can the USN and/or USAF do likewise?)

  18. Mark Brueschke 7 October, 2008 at 2:28 am #

    Kill the F-35. Buy more F-22s for air superiority, F-15S or late block 16s for strike role, or both, Navy/Marines get more Hornets, can the manned S/VTOL for now

    Put new radars in all the front line 15/16s with data linking to the F-22s.

    Sell an export F-22 to Israel/Australia/Turkey to make up for the F-35 being killed.

  19. irtusk 7 October, 2008 at 5:47 am #

    what makes you think late model F-16s are any cheaper?

    “a deal that would see the price of each aircraft ordered set at around $50 million US”

    how much is an F-16I? oh yeah, about $70 million

    how much is an F-15SG? well over $100 million

    most of the cost increases in the F-35 program have been from inflation and rises in the price of raw materials, in other words, factors that affect ALL programs, even legacy ones

  20. alloycowboy 7 October, 2008 at 6:08 am #

    Why kill the F-35 now, it’s finally entering low rate production. We should at least wait and see what the technology is capable of before we even think of kiling it. We also need to bare in mind that F-35 was nevr suppose to be about total stealth, an aerodynamic hot rod or even super manuerablity airshow wonder. It is in fact the best engineering compromise of all those thing with a world beating avonics and radar decection on top of that. Right now their is nothing on the drawing board even close to offer the technology and capabilites of the F-35 lightening and probably won’t be for another 10 to 15 years.

  21. Lightndattic 7 October, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    Prepare for a long winded rant/idea.

    First off- Careful comparing the cost of F-15K/S or F-16blk60 to JSF. The Gen4+ aircraft price is for a comparably small production run of 20, then 20 more for F-15K, less than that for F-15SG. Blow those numbers up to 200 or so for a USAF purchase and those prices WILL drop, especially if they are put in a single contract and not new lots every year thereby having to fight for funding every 12 months. THAT uncertainty is what drives up pricing. Suppliers never know if that income is going to keep coming one year to the next so they try to get as much up front as possible.

    IMHO, the problem with defense acquisition today: Nobody can or will hold a contractor to their price quotes. Has there been ANY program in the past 30 years that has come in at the price agreed upon anywhere?

    Here’s how it should work using KC-X as an example:
    1. SERVICE (not industry) comes up with a requirement to include:
    Performance requirements (read: cargo capacity, fuel offload, set maint cost that’s right, this is for purchase AND upkeep of the aircraft, the same as buying a bumper to bumper warrantee on your car when buying).
    Constraints (read: aircraft dimensions/empty weight).
    “Value Added Options” (read: extra fuel offload/cargo capacity while meeting requirements and constraints).

    No mention of cost or total numbers to be purchased, other than to explain to industry that the price they quote for each unit will be for the term of the contract and that’s all they will get. NO REQUIREMENTS CREEP. If something needs to be changed, modify the in service aircraft via separate program.

    2. Industry builds a proposal and price quote from the service’s request. THEY have to come up with truer estimates of cost and make the systems work. Any “Delays due to technical issues or workers strikes, etc” are paid for by the manufacturer, not the taxpayer. Once a proposal is built meeting the stated requirements and a cost is shown per unit, it is submitted. This is the only place a manufacturer has to build in profit, but that runs the risk of their proposal being beat by a competitor price wise. This means suppliers cannot fleece the government for fear of losing out completely. NOTE, AT THIS TIME, THERE IS STILL NO MENTION OF TOTAL NUMBERS TO BE BUILT OR TOTAL PROGRAM COST.

    3. Government takes the proposals and crunches numbers to see which one best meets the requirements. Proposal A vs. B. At this point the total $ allocated for the program can be released and the total number of aircraft to be bought can be determined based on the quotes. If proposal A’s unit cost is $20 million each while meeting all the requirements/constraints and we have $6 billion for the program, then we’ll buy 300 aircraft. If proposal B’s unit price is $30 million then we’ll buy 200. We’ll use the “Value Added Options” to break ties or if the quotes are very close. Manufacturers will build the aircraft to meet the letter of their proposal. There will be no trade offs.

    4. If proposal A is chosen but they grossly understated the cost of each unit, too bad for them. The taxpayer will not pay for their bad accounting practices. That will teach them to get better at pricing analysis, more efficient in building, and FIX the utter BS that “program cost” is these days. Manufacturers have to find that “Sweet Spot” where the build cost is covered, some profit is generated while still providing the best price for the customer.

  22. Royce 7 October, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    Based on the link from Rand that it posted about their own study, it sounds like somebody got taken to the woodshed for including all those comparisons of the F-35 to other fighter aircraft.

  23. eg 7 October, 2008 at 9:41 pm #

    But the most sucessful aircraft this country has built have all resulted from industry building to a general specification.

    Give general requirements, range, payload etc and then get out of the way. Let the engineers and the designers go do their thing.

    E.g. What happens in the scenario described in “that” RAND report, if the USAF instead attempts to get as many F-35B’s as possible into rough field bases dispersed throughout Taiwan?

    Depends on how rough the field is…how good is the logisitcs and early warning etc? I know I mentioned roads earlier. Moving that much fuel would be an interesting problem.

    (Or do they not have the range to get there at all? The USMC & RN concept is to start from the sea, secure beacheads, and then phase ashore… can the USN and/or USAF do likewise?)
    If they get there early enough and don’t get caught on the ground. maybe. In-transit when the balloon goes up…I don’t think so.

  24. RTLM 8 October, 2008 at 1:44 am #

    I think the F-35C should be canceled. The X-45 would fill the needs of stealth/strike capability for the flat tops. The Marine version F-35B and Air Force F-35C are needed. Too many other nations are waiting for them. The USN is the only customer for the F-35C. Pour the resources into more A & B versions and fund the X-45 for the Carrier role.

  25. helicopter games 20 July, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Great post!

Leave a Reply