Jump to content

Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?


Hoser360

Recommended Posts

Uh.....no, per the head of Air Combat Command:

No, per the head of the USAF's fighter force, the F-35's all aspect "stealth" is better than the F-22........the aircraft rumored to best all others is the B-2......which being apart of the nuclear triad, they won't publicly confirm.

hey D2.0... have you stayed away long enough... to avoid all those pointedly critical references to the F-35? Why, I even replied to you directly with a couple of those... and yet somehow you've managed to ignore them and all of a sudden pop-up when stealth reference comes forward. Go figure, hey! The again, those many pages of non-F35 derail discussion did help the 'bury job' on all those critical posts, right?

let me remind you that Gen. Mike Hostage has been retired almost 2 years now... but we had some 'fun' with earlier comments of his, right? You remember where he stated, "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.". That really went over quite well - all that ensuing "heated debate in aerospace and defence circles", yes? I guess since no countries outside the U.S. have F-22s, why... that sort of fits right into the mold of JSF doesn't it? The U.S. gets all these "nation partners" to line-up and become the "fodder F-35s" feeding successive waves of the next U.S. led "intervention"... and the next, and the next, etc.. But hey now, I guess that comment of his fits right in with the F-35 not being able to "dogfight", right? :D

so let's go back those couple of years and examine the retired Gen. Hostage's remarks on F-35 versus F-22 stealth... and particularly all his trumpeted statements on how he would deploy 'x' number of F-35s in the first wave, etc., - what's that based on... 2 years ago? Hell, what's it even based on today - simulators? :lol:

certainly, by the strict numbers of RCS, the F-35 can't match the F-22 - and that's just the 'head on' look... clearly the F-35 'bottom/top/sides' presentation signature doesn't come close to the 'head on' number, right? But then again, you used the words, "all aspect stealth" and don't bother to elaborate further. Imagine that! - then again, all this talk/hype about resurrecting the F-22, where's that coming from and how does it reflect upon the F-35, hey? And you can't dismiss that as "blog talk", can you... not when it reaches into the top echelon of military and political discussion, right?

of course one could look at the context of the retired Gen. Hostage's remarks and view it as just 'internal USAF versus USN' banter/posturing... and their respective 'philosophy differences', yes? There is a reason why the USN hasn't quite embraced the F-35... what could it be, what could it be?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low frequency band radars (VHF/UHF) can't direct (guide) missiles, anymore than 1950s rabbit ears on a tv can, due to the fact that they are low frequency and are subject to "ghosting"......as accurate as playing darts blindfolded..........in addition, unlike high frequency radars (fire control/search radars), low frequency bands can't be strobed (turned on and off rapidly), making them more susceptible to anti-radiation attacks........any emitting (active) radar can be "seen" long before by attackers then the inverse.

The F-35's radar/DAS can track something as small as a mortar round or as fast as a ballistic missile........The West might start taking notice of the Russians (or Chinese) once they join the rest of the world in this century........

uhhh... clearly, low-band detection of stealth aircraft has been there for some years now - and here I understood the only thing constraining the discernment of targets more precisely was... improved computing power - yes? All that "talk" of Chinese and Russian pursuits to that end... that's just talk? Seems to me you've used that convenient, "where there's smoke, there's fire", comment in the past - yes? And you seem so, so, certain too!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are entitled to your conspiracy theory, as that is a story that you have heard.......I'll take a clear statement from the head of the USAF's fighter force

nice! Again... the guy you keep touting has been retired almost 2 years now - update your talking point, please! Clearly, anything from the U.S. military that aligns with your position/agenda... that's not propaganda fueled by LockMart/JPO influence... that's absolute and "statement of fact"... to you, anyways! Does that mean you also accept his comments on the limitation of F-35 "dog-fighting and air-superiority" capabilities... those too?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like these now long retired aircraft, Canada's CF-188's should have been in museums years ago.

oh my! Not that its needed, but if there ever was a statement that clearly shows your lack of knowledge... this is it! Care to comment on the current inventory of active Hornets in the USMC and USN? Why... I understand the USMC just extended the life of it's Hornets to 2035... a 'paper-shuffle' with the Harrier coming forward 5 years; apparently more cost effective to extend the Hornets over the Harrier jets. Well, that... and the continued delays with the F-35!

these links are just weeks old now:

Navy Lays Bare F/A-18 Readiness Gaps, Could Take Year to Surge Air Wing

Navy Digging Out Of Fighter Shortfall; Marines Still Struggling To Fly At Home

if you suggest Canada's Hornets, "should be in museums years ago"... where does that position the USN and USMC Hornets, expected to be there to 2040, 2035 respectively? :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey D2.0... have you stayed away long enough... to avoid all those pointedly critical references to the F-35? Why, I even replied to you directly with a couple of those... and yet somehow you've managed to ignore them and all of a sudden pop-up when stealth reference comes forward. Go figure, hey! The again, those many pages of non-F35 derail discussion did help the 'bury job' on all those critical posts, right?

Believe it or not, some people have a life that doesn't involve MLW.......by all means ask your questions again, but I have no intention of sifting through the histories of Indian wars and the other pages of derail.

let me remind you that Gen. Mike Hostage has been retired almost 2 years now... but we had some 'fun' with earlier comments of his, right? You remember where he stated, "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.". That really went over quite well - all that ensuing "heated debate in aerospace and defence circles", yes? I guess since no countries outside the U.S. have F-22s, why... that sort of fits right into the mold of JSF doesn't it? The U.S. gets all these "nation partners" to line-up and become the "fodder F-35s" feeding successive waves of the next U.S. led "intervention"... and the next, and the next, etc.. But hey now, I guess that comment of his fits right in with the F-35 not being able to "dogfight", right?

No idea he retired.........or was he forced out ;)

Joking aside, I do remember said remarks and the context they were spoken in.

certainly, by the strict numbers of RCS, the F-35 can't match the F-22 - and that's just the 'head on' look... clearly the F-35 'bottom/top/sides' presentation signature doesn't come close to the 'head on' number, right? But then again, you used the words, "all aspect stealth" and don't bother to elaborate further. Imagine that! - then again, all this talk/hype about resurrecting the F-22, where's that coming from and how does it reflect upon the F-35, hey? And you can't dismiss that as "blog talk", can you... not when it reaches into the top echelon of military and political discussion, right?

Where are these strict numbers?
All aspect means "stealth" is more than RCS.......it includes heat (important to those Russian uber aircraft) signature, radio/communications emissions......etc
And no, I don't dismiss the F-22 "reboot" at all........of course its predicated on being able to utilize the avionics and computing systems developed for the F-35 and have them incorporated into the F-22 airframe.......all comes down to money.
* As to your other posts, I'll attempt to get to them (and the ones I missed?) in the next day or so, if not weekend, fore I have to go do things.... in exchange for money... from these groups of people ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-117A Stealth Fighter was shot down 18 years ago by a Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora. The F-117A has a similar radar profile as F-35, the F-22 radar profile is smaller. The SR-71 managed to never be shot down, but it was engaged during combat over 800 times. It was not its stealth characteristics that help it, but speed and altitude.

An F117 was shot down over Serbia, but there may have been more issues at play here than just its level of stealth... NATO was re-using flight paths, and they were using un-encrypted channels for at least some of their communications. This allowed the Serbians to predict when and where planes would be and react accordingly.

Overall, I think the incident says more about the risks of lax protocols in running an air campaign than it does about the value of stealth.

I rather suspect that pretty much any other plane of the same vintage (F16/F18/etc.) that was used in the same manner (flying regular flight paths, location broadcast in the clear) would likewise have been detected and been shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh.....no, per the head of Air Combat Command:

by what measurement? He says it has a smaller cross-section. I guess that's true, since it's a smaller plane, but from all accounts I've read it has a significantly bigger radar cross-section. Interesting use of words!

And your source that the Russians have or are even near "solving stealth"? :rolleyes:

I didn't say they were. I said it's conceivable that they could/will since they'll have had 20+ years to work on it. It would be stupid not to be concerned by that possibility.

I know this is tough for you Derek, but please try to argue what people are actually saying rather than whatever boneheaded interpretation you invent so you can pretend to cleverly argue nothing.

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your source that the Russians have or are even near "solving stealth"?

I didn't say they were. I said it's conceivable that they could/will since they'll have had 20+ years to work on it. It would be stupid not to be concerned by that possibility.

It's certainly possible that stealth can be "solved" by technology. However, remember that you're dealing with some hard physical limits... as much as the Russians might want, the nature of radio waves just can't easily be changed.

Add to the fact that, in general, Russian technology seems to lag that of the U.S. (There are exceptions, but I still think the U.S. leads the Russians and Chinese in military technology, and probably will for some time.)

And not only is Russia and China the issue, western powers also have to contend with smaller powers who purchase their technology from Russia/China, and even if they have some new "stealth-solving technology", it will take years for that tech to be widely dispersed throughout the world. If the tech is available now, why don't we see it being sold on the marketplace now?

Lets say some new anti-stealth technology appears, then gets sold to various militaries throughout the world over the next few decades.... That doesn't mean the investment of stealth was useless; it still would have given users of the F35 a few decades of comparative advantage. It seems strange to give up such an advantage just because eventually the technology will be defeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhhh... clearly, low-band detection of stealth aircraft has been there for some years now - and here I understood the only thing constraining the discernment of targets more precisely was... improved computing power - yes?

Low band radar has been a reality for decades without a doubt, but its far more complex then just computing power or triangulation. Low-Band frequencies are far easier to jam (using Vietnam era technology), negating their effectiveness. Also, as mentioned, a powerful emitting (turned on) low band set will be "seen" at a far greater distance (like any radar, but far more pronounced with a lower band) allowing the attacker to attack the radar set before it would be able to detect and pass off to a fire control set a "stealth" target.............this again all goes back to the CNO's (often quoted) remarks regarding stealth/stand-off munitions............and is the modern day equivalent to Vietnam era A-6 Intruders flying "Iron Hand", the targeting of an enemy's radars.

Very old hat.

All that "talk" of Chinese and Russian pursuits to that end... that's just talk? Seems to me you've used that convenient, "where there's smoke, there's fire", comment in the past - yes? And you seem so, so, certain too!

Again, Russian/Chinese technology isn't in stasis, I've never said otherwise, but it is markedly behind the West.......the very reason the West continues to develop new technology.........Without a doubt, even today, the most modern of Russian technology (see S-400) would/could pose a considerable risk to 4/4.5 generation aircraft, further to that, even during the '03 invasion of Iraq, Saddam's diminished air defense network still negated all aircraft (absent the F-117 and B-2) from attacking Baghdad proper.......And Saddam was sporting Soviet SAMs and radars from the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice! Again... the guy you keep touting has been retired almost 2 years now - update your talking point, please! Clearly, anything from the U.S. military that aligns with your position/agenda... that's not propaganda fueled by LockMart/JPO influence... that's absolute and "statement of fact"... to you, anyways! Does that mean you also accept his comments on the limitation of F-35 "dog-fighting and air-superiority" capabilities... those too?

.

Contrasted with the F-22? Without a doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically for stealth critics, the F-22 is useless in the future, and that's why the Russians and Chinese are so busy trying to copy it. They should have purchased Super Hornets instead !!

And there be the dichotomy........the Russians and Chinese claim they can or are close to "defeating Stealth"....yet they are proceeding with their own "stealth" programs.....go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically for stealth critics, the F-22 is useless in the future, and that's why the Russians and Chinese are so busy trying to copy it. They should have purchased Super Hornets instead !!

you claim to be a former USNguy... from the chiefCheese: Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert:

- "You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated. ... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point."

- {2012}..."better computing power would ultimately greatly undermine the value of stealth".

- "Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons"

- "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them."

as for the Russian and Chinese stealth pursuits you presume to apply your wedge with, why my read has them aligned with the USN top dog... pursuing UAV: do ya think the Chinese name 'Divine Eagle' has any implication?

so again... why hasn't the USN embraced the F-35... why is that, hey?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please show where the former USAF 'head of combat' was drawing a contrast with the F-22... sure you can!

.

He contrasted both aircraft in the link I provided regarding "stealth".

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.

Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

The F-35, critics say, can be spotted by low frequency radar (as can almost any aircraft, no matter how stealthy) and isn’t as good at dogfighting as is the F-22. But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft. The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.

But the F-35 possesses much superior sensors compared with the F-16 or the F-15. For example, its Distributed Aperture System gives the pilot the ability to see all around the plane (on top, underneath, in front of and behind) with extremely high resolution. When the DAS or some of the other sensors pick up the signature of an enemy plane or weapon, the F-35’s so-called fusion engine advises the pilot about the best weapon to use against the threat.

It does this by collating data from all of the plane’s sensors, from other F-35s and accompanying planes, analyzing them, comparing the data to a “library” of threats and making recommendations to the pilot, usually right on his highly-advanced helmet’s visor. If there are multiple threats then the F-35 identifies the highest value targets and recommends what weapons to use against them and makes recommendations to the pilot about the order in which to deal with each threat.

Add to the sensors’ sensitivities and the fusion engine’s abilities the fact that a squadron of F-35s share data with each other.

“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it,” Hostage says.

As said countless times, the comparison between the F-22 and F-35 is apples to oranges, as both aircraft are intended for differing roles (with some overlap).......likewise, as noted through countless threads, diminishing the F-35 because the F-22 is superior in certain roles is akin to crapping on the F-16 or the Hornets because they're not F-15s....truly is apples to oranges.

If they decide rebooting the F-22 production, instead of going straight to the planned 6th generation platform, to replace the remaining F-15C and F-15E fleets that is a good thing, and will complement the F-35 just as the F-15 s presently do with the F-16 fleets (or in our case the Hornet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean you also accept his comments on the limitation of F-35 "dog-fighting and air-superiority" capabilities... those too?

Contrasted with the F-22? Without a doubt.

please show where the former USAF 'head of combat' was drawing a contrast with the F-22... sure you can!

He contrasted both aircraft in the link I provided regarding "stealth".

classic! Because you continually do this... steer off and away from the actual focus/discussion, I've taken the trouble of showing the sequence of related posts... in fact, as shown, you bold-highlighted the sentence in my post you were replying directly to... you did that, you bold-highlighted the reference to, "dog-fighting and air-superiority". Of course, the prior focus had been on the (now retired) former head of the USAF's Air Combat Command's statement, "The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22". That is not "contrasting with/to/against the F-22... that was speaking to the inherent limitations of the F-35! And when I ask you to show where that supposed drawn contrast was made... you steer off and away to speak to stealth. Notwithstanding, as already stated, even in that stealth context, the broad statement is made that F-35 stealth "is better" than the F-22... and the guy never states why - never elaborates... just makes the statement that you presume to then leverage and extend upon.

again, yet another of your classic moves!

of course, in those earlier years, LockMart/JPO did tout the F-35 as a 'dog-fighter'... a highly proficient close-range fighter with high-maneuverability! And how many countries signed on over that long-trumpeted theme? Then somehow, over time, the message began to shift, to change and 'air-to-air fighting' capability was dropped in favour of the "new reality" realized in initial testing... suddenly the F-35 became the "best ground-attack" fighter... and the "best designed plane to engage, shoot and kill the enemy from long distances”. Have I missed anything? :D

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

classic! Because you continually do this... steer off and away from the actual focus/discussion, I've taken the trouble of showing the sequence of related posts... in fact, as shown, you bold-highlighted the sentence in my post you were replying directly to... you did that, you bold-highlighted the reference to, "dog-fighting and air-superiority". Of course, the prior focus had been on the (now retired) former head of the USAF's Air Combat Command's statement, "The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22". That is not "contrasting with/to/against the F-22... that was speaking to the inherent limitations of the F-35! And when I ask you to show where that supposed drawn contrast was made... you steer off and away to speak to stealth. Notwithstanding, as already stated, even in that stealth context, the broad statement is made that F-35 stealth "is better" than the F-22... and the guy never states why - never elaborates... just makes the statement that you presume to then leverage and extend upon.

I clearly highlighted the retired General's contrast between the two aircraft, which included far more than just "stealth"

of course, in those earlier years, LockMart/JPO did tout the F-35 as a 'dog-fighter'... a highly proficient close-range fighter with high-maneuverability! And how many countries signed on over that long-trumpeted theme? Then somehow, over time, the message began to shift, to change and 'air-to-air fighting' capability was dropped in favour of the "new reality" realized in initial testing... suddenly the F-35 became the "best ground-attack" fighter... and the "best designed plane to engage, shoot and kill the enemy from long distances”. Have I missed anything? :D

The F-35 was never suggested to be another Raptor........and again, as highlighted above, it is touted as vastly superior to current legacy types, including the F-15, which has only been surpassed by the F-22..........as stated, surpassing the aircraft it was intending to replace and the F-15 is exactly why many countries have and will sign up.........

In the context of Canada, a vast improvement over our current Hornets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no! When the former head of USAF Air Combat Command stated, "The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22"... he, quite obviously, wasn't speaking in terms of a comparison/contrast between the F-35 and the F-22. Only you are continuing with that ridiculous premise.

Canada's multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says

in it's response to the F-16 kickin' the F-35's azz, JPO came right out and stated the F-35 was never designed for close-range dogfighting... and per that Janes article commentary I posted, the following still stands as LockMart/JPO have not been able to prove otherwise:

"The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so..... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not."

which ties in directly with the USAF Gen. Hostage's comment, vis-a-vis the F-35 lacking in maneuverability/short range air combat capability... not built as an air superiority platform!

as for your other comment, are you now categorically stating that the F-35 was never marketed as a, "highly proficient close-range fighter with high-maneuverability"? Is that what you're saying?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Indeed....F-35's are strutting their stuff at Farnborough 2016....here it dances the old AV8B Harrier nay nay:

airshows are particularly good for 'smoke and mirrors'! But hey now, I just read the latest 'cock-up' with F-35 injection seats is set to shift so-called "full rate" production another year ahead... into latter 2020! (but then again, who gave 2019 any legitimacy anyways... well, other than LockMart and its fanboys?).

oh my! And the best is yet to come as the most rigorous and complex testing still awaits. Talk about reinforcing that CF-18 capability gap and the need for some form of "interim relief", hey!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of Great Britain - waddabout the impact of Brexit on UK military spending... or across Europe proper for that matter? Why... forecasts are rosy for an increase in the export of Britain's own military arms sales... the dropping pound and all. However, "experts" forecast a significant decrease in overall military budgeting... so... with a dropping pound, the F-35 becomes more expensive potentially impact on total procurement numbers and overall cost for the F-35. For Defense Firms, Brexit Could Be Europe’s Sequester

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feeding the gap! Been there some years back... photo of donated CF-18

.

How is sending a retired aircraft to a museum "feeding the gap"? The RCAF has been retiring Hornets no longer suitable to fly for decades now.....so become "gate guards", some become static training aides and some become beer cans and razors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

airshows are particularly good for 'smoke and mirrors'! But hey now, I just read the latest 'cock-up' with F-35 injection seats is set to shift so-called "full rate" production another year ahead... into latter 2020! (but then again, who gave 2019 any legitimacy anyways... well, other than LockMart and its fanboys?).

.

The ~140 lbs weight limitation on the F-35 seat is the same current limitation on our current Hornets and the Super Hornet........in one of the other threads (I think in discussion with you, but it could have been OGFT) I provided a graphic of the "impact" of the bottom weight limitations for USAF service.......IIRC, it would effect ~5% of males and ~15% of females, granted it would likely have a greater impact in Asian service......but for Canada, no difference then the current bottom weight limits.

oh my! And the best is yet to come as the most rigorous and complex testing still awaits. Talk about reinforcing that CF-18 capability gap and the need for some form of "interim relief", hey!

.

Hey now, has the lethal Super Hornet oxygen generation faults been solved yet? ;)
Edited by Derek 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of Great Britain - waddabout the impact of Brexit on UK military spending... or across Europe proper for that matter? Why... forecasts are rosy for an increase in the export of Britain's own military arms sales... the dropping pound and all. However, "experts" forecast a significant decrease in overall military budgeting... so... with a dropping pound, the F-35 becomes more expensive potentially impact on total procurement numbers and overall cost for the F-35. For Defense Firms, Brexit Could Be Europe’s Sequester

.

It could, but of course the economic impact of BREXIT is but a short-medium term uncertainty........none the less, a decreased pound could be offset by a split purchase resulting in a mixed fleet for the RAF and RN FAA......a mixed fleet of F-35s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...