The F-35 Thread

[Exorcet]

At the end of the day I have the fact that the F-35 can't break supersonic at sea level to back up my claims on acceleration.

Well I guess that's good if the F-35 is fighting at sea level.

 

Your link didn't mention anything about combat radius unless my Ctrl-F is acting up.

[Sierra99]

For some reason it looked fake to me, for a second or two, doesn't it?

 

I think the way it was ejected into the airstream made it look funny. Nose down till the fins caught air... They certainly dont want the damn thing surfing along under the plane... Or even worse, Coming back UP. :cry:

 

[Cali]

Maybe we are just not confounding pocket calculator/wikipedia reasoning with advanced aerodynamical computing ?

 

The DoD has a slightly different approach as yours: there are still thousands of test points to be accomplished in the F-35 programme, and at the moment, to give one example, the complete flight envelope has not been cleared yet and a performance assessment has not been made.

 

Add to this that in current designs, software is a key factor in performance. I remember a software update that gave Swiss or Finnish F/A-18C aircraft higher AoA capabilities and better turn performance. Or a software update that allowed for fuel consumption reduction on F-18E/F.

 

So while you made up your mind using card game data, engineers are still performing thousands of tests to assess true performance of the aircraft, knowing that even when it goes operational that will not be the end of improvements.

 

Great post tflash!

 

@ marcos, Read the quote above, if you haven't read it already. We don't know everything about the F-35. Do you think they release all the info? The F-22 still has a ton of stuff that people don't know about, like speed and alt. Same as the F-15 and F-16, lets not even talk about the 120.

[wilky510]

LOL. F-35 fan-boys.

 

The F-15's combat radius is 1900+km. Ferry range with 3 tanks 5500km.

 

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101

 

If the F-35's thrust-lift-drag figures were good enough to out-accelerate an F-15 or Typhoon in the transonic range, it likely wouldn't have such mediocre STR now would it?:lol:

And you're a huge Typhoon fanboy.

[marcos]

Maybe we are just not confounding pocket calculator/wikipedia reasoning with advanced aerodynamical computing ?

I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project did any of that. Here in Europe we still design things with pencil and paper. That's how we managed to come up with a plane that's way lighter than F-35, has bigger wings, lower aspect ratio, a narrower body, no internal bays and roughly the same thrust, yet somehow still have slower transonic acceleration with just an A-A load.

 

In the US where they use somethings called computers they can design a plane with apparently inferior performance parameters that somehow beats the Typhoon whilst carrying 2 JDAMs. Truly amazing. If only we could source some of these computer things. We have the abacus but it's just not the same.

[marcos]

Well I guess that's good if the F-35 is fighting at sea level.

 

Your link didn't mention anything about combat radius unless my Ctrl-F is acting up.

The point was that if it can't even get past Mach 1.0 at SL, it sure as hell isn't going to out-accelerate a Typhoon from 0.8 to 1.2 at any altitude.

 

What they probably did was just take figures for the Typhoon with 3 tanks and an A2A load, assuming that was fair based on fuel load, even though it isn't on range. Then again, the publication in question doesn't state any of this, and frankly they probably don't even know what the Typhoon's figures. How would they?

Edited February 11, 2013 by marcos

[Jona33]

I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project did any of that. Here in Europe we still design things with pencil and paper. That's how we managed to come up with a plane that's way lighter than F-35, has bigger wings, lower aspect ratio, a narrower body, no internal bays and roughly the same thrust, yet somehow still have slower transonic acceleration with just an A-A load.

 

In the US where they use somethings called computers they can design a plane with apparently inferior performance parameters that somehow beats the Typhoon whilst carrying 2 JDAMs. Truly amazing. If only we could source some of these computer things. We have the abacus but it's just not the same.

 

Health and Safety. They also limit how sharp you can make the pencils. Paper must be kept in a safe when not in use to prevent risks of papercuts.

[Exorcet]

I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project did any of that. Here in Europe we still design things with pencil and paper. That's how we managed to come up with a plane that's way lighter than F-35, has bigger wings, lower aspect ratio, a narrower body, no internal bays and roughly the same thrust, yet somehow still have slower transonic acceleration with just an A-A load.

 

In the US where they use somethings called computers they can design a plane with apparently inferior performance parameters that somehow beats the Typhoon whilst carrying 2 JDAMs. Truly amazing. If only we could source some of these computer things. We have the abacus but it's just not the same.

 

I agree here. The F-35 probably isn't beating the EF in maneuverability. The F-35 is a stealthy F-16, it will be quick and agile, but it's not trying to be worlds better than anything else like the F-22 and EF are.

 

We don't have all the data, it's true. So nothing is definitive, but the EF seems to have the edge agility wise.

 

Also, I could sell you guys some computers cheap!

[marcos]

Now, I was going to post something good before reading all this shit. What was it? Ah yes:

 

 

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/02/11/522451/10021210/en/Northrop-Grumman-AAQ-37-Sensor-System-Demonstrates-Hostile-Fire-Detection-Capability.html

 

Northrop Grumman AAQ-37 Sensor System Demonstrates Hostile Fire Detection Capability

 

AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System Detects and Locates Hostile Ground Fire

 

February 11, 2013 08:00 | Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.

 

Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

 

A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at http://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU.

 

While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.

 

The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.

 

"The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system. These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action," said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman's DAS business area director.

 

Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting.

 

Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit http://www.northropgrumman.com for more information.

 

The bit in bold also seems to pertain to my theory on AAM launch and IR/EOST.

Edited February 11, 2013 by marcos

[Kaktus29]

how does the radar of F-35 detect decoys? SA-6 and the likes have amazingly good decoys made from rubber that would be even easier to fake the real thing when compared to the radar echo return of the old radars (even though it makes the same echo for a decoy as well) .. What i'm saying is, this isn't some magic solution where F-35 will fly a little bit, and radar screen will go RED and show you the position of all SAMs)) lol..

 

i remember how NATO hit over 90% of SAMs over Yugoslavia only to be proven most of them were cheap decoys.. of course NATO claims it doesn't matter, decoy or not it must be destroyed, and i agree, but since Yugoslavia didn't have any modern systems or modern airforce of have any of those in any balanced numbers to oppose the numerical superior enemy i think decoys on equal battle field make this tactic a dud..

 

As soon as F-35 opens the bays, as soon as it fires 1 cruise missile it will be detected by passive systems, and active systems that are beyond the reach of the F-35..

 

This system of the F-35 doesn't show is there need for slaving the missile or is it a fire-and-forget thing? if its fire and forget then its only good for non-mobile targets and is very limited, if it slaves it, it makes sense since F-35 can SEE the actual movement of the system and guide the missile to the new location..but that makes him more vulnerable to detection and counterattack..

 

i think many people think only US can make radars that are LPI or magnetic-radio emissions of the plane that nobody can detect, but of course vice-versa is possible for usa))lol..

 

btw, the decoy Sam costs about 5.000 USD, the missile this guy is firing about 500.000 ..do the math..

[Exorcet]

 

As soon as F-35 opens the bays, as soon as it fires 1 cruise missile it will be detected by passive systems, and active systems that are beyond the reach of the F-35..

Nonsense.

 

This system of the F-35 doesn't show is there need for slaving the missile or is it a fire-and-forget thing? if its fire and forget then its only good for non-mobile targets and is very limited, if it slaves it, it makes sense since F-35 can SEE the actual movement of the system and guide the missile to the new location..but that makes him more vulnerable to detection and counterattack..

AGM-65

AIM-9

AIM-120 (active radar range)

 

All fire and forget, all hit moving targets.

[Kaktus29]

@exorcet... AMG-65 all optical,infra, all modes detect the target from the time of the launch till it hits.. i think this savvy looking cruise missile f-35 is firing i hopefully offering better ranges than 15 miles..

 

and if it is much longer ranges, i would hope over 50-70 miles, then yes, you will not be hitting a moving target.. a static yes, moving no.. moving yes IF you are tracking the target as it moves and slave the missile until missile's own guidence and tracking system kicks in (infra,optical, radar whatever.. ) ..

[sobek]

As soon as F-35 opens the bays, as soon as it fires 1 cruise missile it will be detected by passive systems, and active systems that are beyond the reach of the F-35..

 

And then what? As soon as those doors are closed, it's gone again.

[sobek]

and if it is much longer ranges, i would hope over 50-70 miles, then yes, you will not be hitting a moving target.. a static yes, moving no.. moving yes IF you are tracking the target as it moves and slave the missile until missile's own guidence and tracking system kicks in (infra,optical, radar whatever.. ) ..

 

Google the SDB II.

[GGTharos]

how does the radar of F-35 detect decoys? SA-6 and the likes have amazingly good decoys made from rubber that would be even easier to fake the real thing when compared to the radar echo return of the old radars (even though it makes the same echo for a decoy as well) .. What i'm saying is, this isn't some magic solution where F-35 will fly a little bit, and radar screen will go RED and show you the position of all SAMs)) lol..

 

Actually it is just like that for F-35. The moment a SAM opens fire, F-35's know where the real one is ... and you can make a SAM open fire on guess what ... a decoy.

 

The US is quite experienced with air-launched and ground-borne decoys. They had an entire fake army near Iraq so that they could attack elsewhere with the real one.

 

i remember how NATO hit over 90% of SAMs over Yugoslavia only to be proven most of them were cheap decoys.. of course NATO claims it doesn't matter, decoy or not it must be destroyed, and i agree, but since Yugoslavia didn't have any modern systems or modern airforce of have any of those in any balanced numbers to oppose the numerical superior enemy i think decoys on equal battle field make this tactic a dud..

They don't, and you are not thinking of this conflict correctly. The Serbs tried to conserve their assets by using decoys, until the real fight on the ground would begin. This was smart, but understand that it means another thing as well: They were hiding from planes, instead of doing a lot of fighting.

 

Same for their SAMs: The SAMs were supressed. So what if decoys were attacked? A large number of NATO sorties bombed targets. These SAMs failed to do their job.

 

As soon as F-35 opens the bays, as soon as it fires 1 cruise missile it will be detected by passive systems, and active systems that are beyond the reach of the F-35..

What systems? The F-35's doors stay open for a second, and you could even time this to happen between radar sweeps, automatically. A single hit is usually rejected as a false target.

 

This system of the F-35 doesn't show is there need for slaving the missile or is it a fire-and-forget thing? if its fire and forget then its only good for non-mobile targets and is very limited, if it slaves it, it makes sense since F-35 can SEE the actual movement of the system and guide the missile to the new location..but that makes him more vulnerable to detection and counterattack..

Very inaccurate statement. There are autonomous weapons in the works right now that can track targets in a number of ways. Anything from laser designation (from very far away I will add) to automated radar or optical tracking, as well as remote controlled weapons like SLAM-ER.

 

i think many people think only US can make radars that are LPI or magnetic-radio emissions of the plane that nobody can detect, but of course vice-versa is possible for usa))lol..

 

btw, the decoy Sam costs about 5.000 USD, the missile this guy is firing about 500.000 ..do the math..

Who cares about that if you have enough weapons to destroy all the decoys AND the real SAMs (And BTW, do you think that in a real fight those SAMs will stay silent and undetectable? If they try, they will have definitely failed to protect their ground forces - just like they failed in Serbia).

 

The very moment a SAM launches a missile, every F-35 in the air will know exactly where that sucker is ... some will locate it automatically via DASS, and the rest will be fed this info via data-link.

 

Many of the weapons used in this case may not be terribly expensive, either, and it is entirely likely that the 'old microwave trick' won't work for everything.

Edited February 11, 2013 by GGTharos

[LordWolf]

wrong wrong wrong and soo wrong on so many levels...

 

Actually it is just like that for F-35. The moment a SAM opens fire, F-35's know where the real one is ... and you can make a SAM open fire on guess what ... a decoy.

 

Yes, but expending munition on fake targets can be a logistical problem if they would have played it correctly, and not only that, it also allows distractions.

The US is quite experienced with air-launched and ground-borne decoys. They had an entire fake army near Iraq so that they could attack elsewhere with the real one.

I don't believe they had a fake army, i think they camouflaged one and hid their tracks so they could flank a republic guard tank brigade.

 

They don't, and you are not thinking of this conflict correctly. The Serbs tried to conserve their assets by using decoys, until the real fight on the ground would begin. This was smart, but understand that it means another thing as well: They were hiding from planes, instead of doing a lot of fighting.

 

Same for their SAMs: The SAMs were supressed. So what if decoys were attacked? A large number of NATO sorties bombed targets. These SAMs failed to do their job.

They had old russian equipment which shot down an f117 smartass... If it was used in conjunction with fighting forces, the results would most-likely have been worse. They had mig 21 which didn't have proper upkeep, and thus was unable to fly, they had special motorized infantry which was supposed to attack forces in Slovenia, but didn't even make it halfway because of mechanical problems. This tells you alot about their spendings and maintenance, and it's a wonder what they did in such crappy conditions.

I wonder how much USA spent on missiles.

 

What systems? The F-35's doors stay open for a second, and you could even time this to happen between radar sweeps, automatically. A single hit is usually rejected as a false target.

You're wrong, modern pulse radars and cw radars are so strong that they detect snorkels/esm in sea when they go up in a matter of seconds.

 

As soon as f35 would fire a missile, it's position would be known to all (missile fumes, missile radar, f35 bay... it's all like a music, just broadcasting the position), and once radar pinpoints a target no current stealth can break the lock. (Perhaps it could go on sides, drop chaff as the pulse radars work by measuring veliocity, but i'm sure that wouldn't work on stronger / older radars)

 

 

Very inaccurate statement. There are autonomous weapons in the works right now that can track targets in a number of ways. Anything from laser designation (from very far away I will add) to automated radar or optical tracking, as well as remote controlled weapons like SLAM-ER.

 

Who cares about that if you have enough weapons to destroy all the decoys AND the real SAMs (And BTW, do you think that in a real fight those SAMs will stay silent and undetectable? If they try, they will have definitely failed to protect their ground forces - just like they failed in Serbia).

 

Again quoting balkans conflict, how about a real proper enemy... The one where he could fight back.

Do you have any kind of reference that can prove what you're saying?

What if the Serbian doctrine was to protect strategic/C4/POL targets?

 

The very moment a SAM launches a missile, every F-35 in the air will know exactly where that sucker is ... some will locate it automatically via DASS, and the rest will be fed this info via data-link.

Yes, but apart from old 1850 anti air systems, nowdays vehicles can move, and tracking can prove difficult. ADF are mostly mobile now (even giant arse s300/s400)

 

 

Many of the weapons used in this case may not be terribly expensive, either, and it is entirely likely that the 'old microwave trick' won't work for everything.

Wrong and wrong. Two missiles cost as much as an average taxpayer would earn in his life. Hope you think about that a little.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

They don't, and you are not thinking of this conflict correctly.

Hmm, go on ...

 

The Serbs tried to conserve their assets by using decoys, until the real fight on the ground would begin.

Fist of all, it wasn't the SERBS, but YUGOSLAVIANS. In 1999, the name of the country was Yugoslavia!

 

The Serbs tried to conserve their assets by using decoys, until the real fight on the ground would begin.

Thus, YUGOSLAVIANS, not only tried, but succeeded to preserve their assets. That's the reason NATO did not go in with ground invasion.

 

This was smart, but understand that it means another thing as well: They were hiding from planes, instead of doing a lot of fighting.

What a nonsense! GG, Yugoslavian military defeated KLA within the first few days of NATO bombing campaign. Even Yugoslavian Air Force was flying over Kosovo AND Metohija (KiM) during the first few days of NATO bombing. After that, there was nobody else to fight in KiM. There was probably NATO special forces and markers among KLA, hiding in cities and villages, and they were hunted to the point that they were not very effective. Thus, there was no need to move heavy artillery back and forth.

 

Same for their SAMs: The SAMs were supressed. So what if decoys were attacked? A large number of NATO sorties bombed targets. These SAMs failed to do their job.

NATO was not engaging much with Yugoslavian military and most of NATO bombing was against infrastructure and soft targets. Such as the building of the Interior Ministry, which, when it was hit, caused damage to the LARGEST MATERNITY HOSPITAL on Balkan Peninsula. Nice!! BTW, Interior Ministry building was EMPTY. The purpose of the bombing had nothing to do with fighting against Yugoslavian military, but something else ... Yes, the SAM's were surpassed to some degree, but, you, GGTharos said a while ago, about the number of HARMS that were launched over Yugoslavia. Say it again GGTharos, it is all right. By the way, one of those HARMS missed ENTIRE COUNTRY of Yugoslavia and ended up hitting the house near, SOFIA, the Capital of Bulgaria. There is a reason why that happened.

 

Of course, Yugoslavian military did not stand a chance against NATO, if NATO countries decided to DECLARE and fight the war against Yugoslavia. But, that did not happen.

 

GG, your post is very, very ....

 

Reminder SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

wrong wrong wrong and soo wrong on so many levels...

 

Right ...

 

Yes, but expending munition on fake targets can be a logistical problem if they would have played it correctly, and not only that, it also allows distractions.

 

Do you really think this is a one-sided issue? Or specifically, a problem for only one side in the conflict?

 

I don't believe they had a fake army, i think they camouflaged one and hid their tracks so they could flank a republic guard tank brigade.

 

They posted an entire fake base with inflatable tanks.

 

They had old russian equipment which shot down an f117 smartass... If it was used in conjunction with fighting forces, the results would most-likely have been worse. They had mig 21 which wasn't didn't have proper upkeep, and thus was unable to fly, they had special motorized infantry which was supposed to attack forces in Slovenia, but didn't even make it halfway because of mechanical problems. This tells you alot about their spendings and maintenance, and it's a wonder what they did in such crappy conditions.

I wonder how much USA spent on missiles.

 

They shot down one of many, many sorties that flew over belgrade right through their SAM zone; since the SAMs were mobile, it wasn't possible for the planners to know exactly where they were located, so a 50km threat zone was drawn around Belgrade. The SAMs failed to protect Belgrade from stealth fighters.

 

You're wrong, modern pulse radars and cw radars are so strong that they detect snorkels/esm in sea when they go up in a matter of seconds.

 

Snorkels and ESM masts stay up longer than an F-35's bay doors stay open. Not only that, they're not particularly stealthy objects, either.

 

As soon as f35 would fire a missile, it's position would be known to all (missile fumes, missile radar, f35 bay... it's all like a music, just broadcasting the position), and once radar pinpoints a target no current stealth can break the lock. (Perhaps it could go on sides, drop chaff as the pulse radars work by measuring veliocity, but i'm sure that wouldn't work on stronger / older radars)

 

Once radar pinpoints a target, the F-35 will easily break the lock. See, small RCS also helps with ECM. Old radars also help with ECM ... by being more vulnerable to it.

 

Again quoting balkans conflict, how about a real proper enemy... The one where he could fight back.

Do you have any kind of reference that can prove what you're saying?

What if the Serbian doctrine was to protect strategic/C4/POL targets?

 

Who cares? They lost.

 

Yes, but apart from old 1850 anti air systems, nowdays vehicles can move, and tracking can prove difficult. ADF are mostly mobile now (even giant arse s300/s400)

 

Planes move faster, and SAMs still have set up/break down time. An F-35 can detect the missile battery the moment it launches a missile. An F-35 flight can have weapons heading that way a very short time thereafter.

 

Wrong and wrong. Two missiles cost as much as an average taxpayer would earn in his life. Hope you think about that a little.

 

Really? I could buy one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition

 

Heck, I could buy a few.

 

How about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb

 

Let's have a look at a paveway:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II

 

Some of these can and will fly rather far, and they're all quite accurate.

[GGTharos]

Yes, the SAMs were completely supressed.

 

Yes, the SAM's were surpassed to some degree, but, you, GGTharos said a while ago, about the number of HARMS that were launched over Yugoslavia.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, the SAMs were completely supressed.

No they were not completely supressed. That's the reason why A-10 had a 15 000 feet ceiling and NATO only engaged soft targets. Even NATO pilots were publicly talking (Discovery channel) about flying "smart" over Yugoslavia. They defined "smart" as high and fast. That's the reason they couldn't hit mobile targets and often hit civilian buses and agricultural tractors.

 

I suggest you read the Newsweek magazine from May 15, 2000. It was written by John Barry and Even Thomas. The name of the article was ":The Kosovo cover up". Also, check the UK parliament commission, investigating the effectiveness of UK dumb bombs over Kosov and Metohija. More then 98% of bombs missed their target.

 

Oh .. BTW SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

Yes, they were. No one shoots HARMs or bombs MANPADS usually, they're not a SEAD target.

 

No they were not completely supressed. That's the reason why A-10 had a 15 000 feet ceiling and NATO only engaged soft targets.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, they were.

Not completely. What brought F-117 and F-16 down?

 

No one shoots HARMs or bombs MANPADS usually, they're not a SEAD target.

So what? HARMS effectiveness was almost completely diminished by decoys and if I am not mistaken most SAM systems had optical sights. Ready to engage if NATO decided to engage military targets. And MANPAD is a SAM, isn't it?

 

While, there is no question that some SAM sites and systems were destroyed, the fact is that NATO eventually gave up and decided to go for a peace treaty.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

Not completely. What brought F-117 and F-16 down?

 

How many sorties did they miss?

 

So what? HARMS effectiveness was almost completely diminished by decoys and if I am not mistaken most SAM systems had optical sights. Ready to engage if NATO decided to engage military targets. And MANPAD is a SAM, isn't it?

 

HARMs were quite effective. You're thinking DEAD, not SEAD. And newer HARMs should now be much more resistant to decoys.

MANPADS are not targets of SEAD, at least insofar as I know.

 

While, there is no question that some SAM sites and systems were destroyed, the fact is that NATO eventually gave up and decided to go for a peace treaty.

 

That may be, but who did what and how outside of things relating to weapons (And specifically F-35's here) is OT, and I'm sorry I mentioned it myself. If you really want to discuss the politics of it all with me, you can PM me.

[tflash]

Dear Balkan friends,

 

 

What on earth has the Yugo conflict to do with the simple fact that Northrop Grumman developed a quite amazing piece of kit with the AAQ-37, that simply puts "labels on" possible targets? If someone would fly labels on in Lockon you would all cry foul. Are you seriously going to claim that it is not useful to be able to determine where a shot comes from? It's the kind of technologies everyone in the industry is pursuing for all the good reasons.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Dear Balkan friends,

 

What on earth has the Yugo conflict to do with the simple fact that Northrop Grumman developed a quite amazing piece of kit with the AAQ-37, that simply puts "labels on" possible targets?

He, he, he ... You are absolutely right. But, GGTharos decided to bring NATO use of military over Yugoslavia in this discussion. There are many kids here who don't know the whole story and can easily believe everything GG says. That's why I challenge GG's spin on some events over Yugoslavia.

 

And, again it wasn't me, who brought this discussion up. When GG stops spinning, I'll stop responding.

 

Also, I am amazed with the the AAQ-37 capabilities. However, it is not perfect, and it can be fulled.