The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
DarthAmerica    POSTER REPLY   4/11/2009 2:00:31 PM
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT AGREE TO DISAGREE POSTER? YOUR STYLE OF DEBATE IS UNNECESSARILY CONFRONTATIONAL POSTER. I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND BECAUSE I AM OFFENDED BY THE WAY YOU REPLY TO ME I AM CHOOSING TO NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING YOU POST ON THIS ISSUE POSTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FRIENDLY CASUAL DISCUSSION POSTER. THAT IS IT FOR YOU AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED POSTER. I HOPE YOU GET THE POINT OF THIS POST POSTER. MOREOVER, SINCE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT MY OPINION IS INCOMPETENT, WHY NOT MOVE ON TO OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH LIKE MINDED POSTERS, POSTER? DO YOU SEE ME IN YOUR THREADS INSULTING YOU POSTER? NO YOU DON'T POSTER. GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY POSTER.



-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Darth Reply   4/11/2009 2:07:04 PM

I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.

 

It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces.
 
Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.

Yes - some things never change...
 
First - the Predator is not designed for air combat, it would take extensive modification and still remain unsuitable due to g forces and speed. 
 
The Predator is a UAV not a UCAV - it is flown by remote - so now you bring in additional items such as bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion.  Any of which makes the manned fighter a better choice and the Predator easy meat (as displayed by Saddam's air force when they shot one down).
 
Second, your point about an unmanned bomber just underscores what I am referring to.  The unmanned UCAV projects are designed to strike fixed targets pre-designated before launch.  The unmanned strategic bomber project is a nuclear role not a tactical or even CAS role.  There are other factors which one can program for but its kind of like sending in a Tomahawk that can return from the mission. 
 
The Predator C is a jet version designed to compete with Global Hawk at a lower price.  Great for recce but not intended for combat roles.  Again - not a suitable example of anything close to replace the F-22.
 
Finally, the X-45 and X-47 systems are the only UCAV types under consideration.  They are experimental and will take years to mature the technology.  They have yet to prove one can land on a carrier much less take on other aircraft in combat.  They have been used in tests with relatively simple strike missions in comparison to taking on an SA-20, fighting off SU-27s and striking a command bunker filled with Generals.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 2:20:27 PM
Thios is what I meran by incompetent presentation. A desperate cut and paste jonb without thinking about a few things.
I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.







It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces. The MQ-9 would not even need to carry the sensors necessary to guide the weapon. Through Datalinks, the MQ-9 could act as a shooter using information from off board sensors as Current manned aircraft do. At high altitude, there would be plenty of target sets this UCAV/AAM combo could threaten during an air superiority mission. Would this be an adequate substitute for manned fighters? In some situations, yes. That answer changes to YES with a purpose built platform like an F-4, Mig-17, F-16 or F-35 modified to fly unmanned.




People reading this need to understand the proper context of what I'm saying. I know that the technology is new, need improvement and will not replace our manned fighters for a whole lot of reasons as soon as it could. I do not deny that. What I deny is that it is not POSSIBLE. I'm not sure why anyone familiar with the technologies involved would say it's not possible. That's probably why people who are familiar are not saying that at all. This technology is progressing very rapidly and we should expect to see some exciting things next decade. Things like the Predator C for instance...





link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 10px; background-position: initial initial; ">Jet-powered Predator C makes first flight and gains funding support


link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; font-size: 11px; background-position: 0% 100%; ">

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems flew its jet-powered Predator C unmanned aircraft system for the first time in early April, chief executive Thomas Cassidy has told Flight International.


The next-generation surveillance and attack UAS completed the first flight with "absolutely no problems", Cassidy says. "It was ready to go again right after it landed."


Cassidy declines to reveal details about the secretive aircraft's features or performance. Since 2005, General Atomicshas been internally developing the Predator C in anticipation of a US Air Force requirement for a next-generation UAS, but federal funding is likely to appear shortly.


Brian Bilbray, a California congressman, has asked to insert $26 million in an unnamed appropriations bill for the Predator C, citing personal interest from Gen David McKiernan, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan.


"Predator C will provide the USAF and other customers with an additional covert capability, enhanced by much higher operational and transit speeds for quick response and quick repositioning for improved mission flexibility and survivability," Bilbray says.


It is understood that Duncan Hunter, another California congressman, also plans to submit a similar request for government funding for the Predator C.


Cassidy says the first flight, originally scheduled for the third quarter of last year, was delayed by several months due to technical and regulatory issues. In 2006, he described the Predator C as having a new wing-form and stealthy features.




The programme is moving forward even as the US Department of Defense plans to buy at least 66 MQ-9 Reapers (Predator Bs) over the next two years, as it seeks to establish 50 permanent orbits of Predator- and Reaper-class UAS. 







Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.




 

-DA 










 




 




 

1. The kilowatts to operate an air combat  radar don't exist in the bird. In a Global Hawk yes but you virtually have to gut the bird to squeeze in the radar and the power supply.
 
 
The MQ-9C  is designed to compete with Global Hawk.
 
 
 
Artist's coinjecture.
 
Its development has been trouble plagued. Furthermore it is aimed as a jet-powered surveillance competitor in the HALE program.
 
So once again an assertion, a desperately grabbed article that has nothing to do with the assertion and in sum, BS.
 
From this very site
 
 
 
Let me quote........
 
 

The Secret Predator Blasts Off

April 10, 2009: General Atomics, the developer and manufacturer of the Predator, let slip that the larger, jet powered "Predator C" had finally, after two years of delays, had its first flight recently. Not to be confused with the MQ-1C Sky Warrior, Predator C is a project that was started before Sky Warrior, and has taken much longer to get off the ground.

Predator C is a larger, jet powered version of the five ton Predator B, and has long been delayed in development. It was supposed to start flight tests by the end of 2006, but that was pushed into 2007, and then 2008. The Predator B costs about seven million dollars each, and the Predator C is expected to weigh twice as much, and cost three times as much. But that will still be about half the cost of a 13 ton Global Hawk.

The Predator C is expected to deliver about 85 percent of the performance of the Global Hawk, at about half the price. To compete with this, there is a "Global Hawk Lite" in development. The Predator C is designed to fly high (up to 60,000 feet) and cross oceans. Officially, Predator C doesn't exist, and is a "black" (secret) program. But it's an open secret

Most of the cost of these "strategic UAVs" is in the space satellite grade sensors. The MQ-4 Global Hawk, with minimal electronics, costs about $40 million. But you can easily add over $60 million worth of satellite grade gear to either a $20 million Predator C, or a $40 million Global Hawk. Thus Global Atomics is trying to come up with a lot of improved features (more reliable, easier to maintain, cheaper to run) for their Global Hawk competitor.

General Atomics is building a HALE bird. (look it up)
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 2:29:02 PM


WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT AGREE TO DISAGREE POSTER? YOUR STYLE OF DEBATE IS UNNECESSARILY CONFRONTATIONAL POSTER. I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND BECAUSE I AM OFFENDED BY THE WAY YOU REPLY TO ME I AM CHOOSING TO NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING YOU POST ON THIS ISSUE POSTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FRIENDLY CASUAL DISCUSSION POSTER. THAT IS IT FOR YOU AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED POSTER. I HOPE YOU GET THE POINT OF THIS POST POSTER. MOREOVER, SINCE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT MY OPINION IS INCOMPETENT^1, WHY NOT MOVE ON TO OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH LIKE MINDED POSTERS, POSTER? DO YOU SEE ME IN YOUR THREADS INSULTING YOU POSTER? NO YOU DON'T POSTER. GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY POSTER.










-DA 

 




More TEXT shouting, more emotional personal attacks, (bolded),  more attempted bullying (red) and not a single technical point worth discussing.
 
Herald
 
^1 When I set out to prove a case by data and example , that means I am not expressing an opinion. I am building a case based on facts. 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 2:34:10 PM




I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.

It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces.

Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.
Yes - some things never change...

First - the Predator is not designed for air combat, it would take extensive modification and still remain unsuitable due to g forces and speed. 

 I agree that it is not an ideal design considering todays concepts.
 

The Predator is a UAV not a UCAV - it is flown by remote - so now you bring in additional items such as bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion.  Any of which makes the manned fighter a better choice and the Predator easy meat (as displayed by Saddam's air force when they shot one down).

No, it's a UCAV now by definition. That it is flown by remote has nothing to do with whether or not its a UCAV or UAV.  Sorry but thats the way UAV and UCAV are defined. Bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion are issues we have or can solve for this application. If the definition has changed since I last checked please correct me. But it's all rather semantic don't you think?
 

 

Second, your point about an unmanned bomber just underscores what I am referring to.  The unmanned UCAV projects are designed to strike fixed targets pre-designated before launch.  The unmanned strategic bomber project is a nuclear role not a tactical or even CAS role.  There are other factors which one can program for but its kind of like sending in a Tomahawk that can return from the mission. 

That makes it a UCAV by definition. Now what's so hard to visualize about a UCAV doing the same thing?
 

The Predator C is a jet version designed to compete with Global Hawk at a lower price.  Great for recce but not intended for combat roles.  Again - not a suitable example of anything close to replace the F-22.

Nope, it's got an attack role too.

 
Finally, the X-45 and X-47 systems are the only UCAV types under consideration.  They are experimental and will take years to mature the technology.  They have yet to prove one can land on a carrier much less take on other aircraft in combat.  They have been used in tests with relatively simple strike missions in comparison to taking on an SA-20, fighting off SU-27s and striking a command bunker filled with Generals.
 
For now and that the public is aware of not counting Predator C which also qualifies. If you give GA, Boeing or LM part of that 9 billion in Raptor savings and a 2014 deadline.  I bet you would be amazed at how fast they could get one ready for IOC.


-DA




 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid reply   4/11/2009 2:43:38 PM

Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.

 

That didn't work out so hot the one time they tried it.


Just another thought on this post. Various Missile Defense Systems didn't work well the first time as well. Imagine if we just threw our hands up and walked away then.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/11/2009 2:45:13 PM
DA,
 
It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 2:58:53 PM

DA,

 

It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?

The 187 F-22's in our Air Force would be enough. Of course without any kind of elaboration on ORBATs, Geography and objectives to put things in context it is impossible to go into any detail.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    More assertions and NOT ONE FACT.   4/11/2009 3:39:08 PM
The "Predator C" will not vary much from the configuration from that which it is designed to compete against.
 
ASSERTION is not proof.  General Atomics own people are telling us Predator C or actually the revamped RQ-9C it is a response to their failure to successfully compete against Global Hawk for the high end market with their Mariner (not enough kilowatts power for the desired sensor fit!)

Until that poster can produce evidence that one single statement he's said on topic is merited by real published and easily checkable facts his opinion is unqualified.
 
And that is by the way NOT an opinion: it is what the evidence continues to show in this matter in spades.
 
Where is the analysis? Where is the proof/
 
Herald 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    More assertions and NOT ONE FACT.   4/11/2009 3:42:13 PM
As to BMD, how LONG did that take? First systems were 1972 and were crude. We are 2009 and we can engage at last with a fair degree of success.
 
Notice the word FAIR.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/11/2009 3:50:13 PM




DA,



 



It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?




The 187 F-22's in our Air Force would be enough. Of course without any kind of elaboration on ORBATs, Geography and objectives to put things in context it is impossible to go into any detail.




-DA 


Everyone knows that 187 only means around 120-130 available for combat and maybe even less given there previous readiness rate due to unavoidable growing pains. Who knows what it would be in 2015. So are you suggesting that 120-130 planes is the right number to do the job? Details is irrelevant but you must have done some type of ORBAT analysis to support your final number.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Test   4/11/2009 4:12:20 PM










DA,







 







It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?










The 187 F-22's in our Air Force would be enough. Of course without any kind of elaboration on ORBATs, Geography and objectives to put things in context it is impossible to go into any detail.










-DA 






Everyone knows that 187 only means around 120-130 available for combat and maybe even less given there previous readiness rate due to unavoidable growing pains. Who knows what it would be in 2015. So are you suggesting that 120-130 planes is the right number to do the job? Details is irrelevant but you must have done some type of ORBAT analysis to support your final number.


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 4:34:28 PM
Mustang,
 
In either theater, which to me both are highly unrealistic but I'll address a hypothetical, 48-96 F-22's plus our other air assets is enough to deal with any force our opponents could bring to bear. For instance, China would be almost incapable of meaningful force projection in the air too far away from the mainland and they would be limited in the numbers they could mass.The Russians demonstrated in Georgia what they are capable of. As impressive as it was, the air component of their force was nothing near the cold war levels that prompted the ATF program in the first place.
 
So in brief, I don't see a scenario where the Raptor components of our force would need to exceed 48-96 and if it did we would still have a reserve to draw on.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/11/2009 5:09:39 PM

Herald, what is the expected attrition rate for the F-22 (expected or realistic?)?

I mean, training accidents, etc happen and equipment, even brand new kit, goes down.

Accidents of one sort or another are bound to occur. So what happens when we have capped our most valuable air to air bird and we start incurring annual attrition that we cannot replace?

Are they to become hanger queens out of fear of losing one or are they to simply be whittled down until there is not enough birds (assuming we have enough at the cap) to kick down the doors we face in the future?

Or are we to assume the F-22 will go 20 years with out losing a single bird in due to one reason or another?

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/11/2009 5:30:34 PM

Mustang,

 

In either theater, which to me both are highly unrealistic but I'll address a hypothetical, 48-96 F-22's plus our other air assets is enough to deal with any force our opponents could bring to bear. For instance, China would be almost incapable of meaningful force projection in the air too far away from the mainland and they would be limited in the numbers they could mass.The Russians demonstrated in Georgia what they are capable of. As impressive as it was, the air component of their force was nothing near the cold war levels that prompted the ATF program in the first place.


 

So in brief, I don't see a scenario where the Raptor components of our force would need to exceed 48-96 and if it did we would still have a reserve to draw on.

 

-DA


Where are the numbers?
 
 
 
 
 
Now then, the fly in the cited poster's ointment is this happy gang of rocketeers:
 
 
 
Now I don't know about you but 48-96 Raptors to cover an air front that big from Hainan to Alaska and from the Philippines forward and then have added to it, the mission of getting our strike forces into at least Fujian, Liaoning, and Julin airspace to go DF-13, 15, and 32 hunting? 
 
Just how incompetent was that statement made on the basis of the CURRENT known threat estimates again?
 
We do not have counterbattery rocket forces, hypersonic nunitions are very few, and our subsonic cruise missiles cannot hit a moving target TEL that can shoot and move in as little as 30 minutes. We have to in trude aircraft, and we have to be on top of them or at least within a hundred seconds of them to neutralize a TEL launcher.
 
So tell me again that  48-96 Raptors will be enough to keep the PLAAF off the backs of our Super Hornets, Sparkies, and our worn out legacy Eagle force as we send them in to go Scud hunting?
 
The steps in the escalation rung from 14 to 32 depend on our conventionally being able to take down the Second Artillery and break up a political extortion attempt by the PRC bandits against the PACRIM allies. We have to raid them to thwart it. That means offensive air operations inside mainland China. That means we have to kill an estomated 300-900 PLAAF first line aircraft quickly inside their SAM defense zones and then neutralize their SAM sites so we can unmask their IRBM rocket batteries. Then its like stomping ants as the TELs run around the countryside. The F-22 coverage is thus not restricted to Taiwan or Guam. it also covers Japan and Korea at a mimimum. Like I said this is an entire air front, not just some isolated stretch of coast like the Formosa Straits. Such a scenario could involve the necessary total destruction of the PLAAF and the Second Artillery in the process of securing a settlement.
 
At some point, using the one down for maintenance rearm, one in the air and one in standby reserve rule, you realize that you need 1800 aircraft of all types, about one third of them air superiority types. Now do the math. 300 Eagles +187 Raptors to coiver the Falcons, Sparkies, Beagles, and Super Hornets = not enough air superiority birds to get the job done..
 
And that Mustang is a coverage analysis.
 
That is why I say the poster doesn't know what he discusses.
   
Herald


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy