The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 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: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
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   NEXT
gf0012-aust       5/11/2009 3:05:53 AM
Pierrre Le Petit

Well, now that you have abandoned the fight let me point again something patently obvious.

For all your bluff and techno babble - not one. not one scintilla of a sale to any Tier 1 force, to any Tier 2 Force and to any Tier 3 Force even with the French President trying the personal approach and giving a shopping bag of goodies to any potential buyer.

9 air forces have already spoken.

zero, zip, zilch, nada.  not one bite from a major airforce anywhere in the world.  no doubt we will now see the Brazilians elevated to the status of a premier  fighting force in the vain hope that it will add credibility to a sale.

you're another teenage wannabe. :)  

it only counts when the rubber hits the road.  everything else is just babble.  
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/11/2009 3:13:16 AM

Pierrre Le Petit




Well, now that you have abandoned the fight let me point again something patently obvious.




For all your bluff and techno babble - not one. not one scintilla of a sale to any Tier 1 force, to any Tier 2 Force and to any Tier 3 Force even with the French President trying the personal approach and giving a shopping bag of goodies to any potential buyer.




9 air forces have already spoken.




zero, zip, zilch, nada.  not one bite from a major airforce anywhere in the world.  no doubt we will now see the Brazilians elevated to the status of a premier  fighting force in the vain hope that it will add credibility to a sale.




you're another teenage wannabe. :)  




it only counts when the rubber hits the road.  everything else is just babble.  

everything else is just babble.  
 
  You're damned right; expecialy your insistance into pretending that sales are a criteria for superiority, ask the Russians they are laughing at you, they have several best sellers under their belts...
 
  This argument is yet another flamer's classic expecialy these days.
 
  So when you're finished demonstrating this point and the very FACT that mine still stands and that not one of you have ever demonstrated anything remotly technical, you come back with more low flying jokes...
 
  PS:  De grace, keep your familiarities for yourself, your posts are already lacking enough...
 
  Regards, PlG

 
Quote    Reply

Spritie    Rafale   5/11/2009 5:59:11 PM

These discussions about the Rafale wouldn?t be happing if the French hadn?t decided to opt out of the European consortium and go it alone back in the mid 80?s. If the French had stayed in the consortium, they would have gotten an aircraft that was mostly what they wanted and needed and a nice chunk of the manufacturing and export sales.  

            It?s ironic that the Rafale is built to 100% French needs and is for sale but no buyers and the Raptor is built to 100% American needs and is not for sale, but does have buyers!

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/11/2009 6:03:14 PM


You're damned right; expecialy your insistance into pretending that sales are a criteria for superiority, ask the Russians they are laughing at you, they have several best sellers under their belts...

This argument is yet another flamer's classic expecialy these days.

So when you're finished demonstrating this point and the very FACT that mine still stands and that not one of you have ever demonstrated anything remotly technical, you come back with more low flying jokes...

PS:  De grace, keep your familiarities for yourself, your posts are already lacking enough...

Regards, PlG



ah, the simpletons response.

of course, sales is important because sales don't occur within professional airforces without some degree of expertise and  analysis.

countries don't buy aircraft on a whim like some aviation truffle expedition.  there is rigour and analysis.  your attempt to dumb this down into sales as its most simplistic level, and your continued focus on the platform as opposed to countries looking at systems shows the shallowness of your own debate.

you're the typical teenage fan clubber coming in here and looking at spec sheets as though they're the grail in the debate.

of course, I expect you new response will be that none have bought it due to some latent anti-french mindset, or worse, that the americans have politically out manouvred the french  and bough pressure to bear.  of course that would be the easy response - and unsurprisingly has been used in here before.

of course none of the airforces and countriesd which have rejected Rafale did any serious analysis.  It was also based on personal feelings rather than an evaluation on technical competency and capability fit..

/sarcasm off

 
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       5/11/2009 6:35:37 PM
One thing that isn't wrong with Rafale, is its ability to generate more forum traffic than any other plane out there 
 Three Rafale threads in SP's "hot topics".

While there's a lot of contradictory noise  about radars, Spectra, Mica and what not, apparently nobody's contesting Rafale's aerodynamic qualities and its FBW system ?
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/11/2009 6:47:37 PM












You're damned right; expecialy your insistance into pretending that sales are a criteria for superiority, ask the Russians they are laughing at you, they have several best sellers under their belts...




This argument is yet another flamer's classic expecialy these days.




So when you're finished demonstrating this point and the very FACT that mine still stands and that not one of you have ever demonstrated anything remotly technical, you come back with more low flying jokes...




PS:  De grace, keep your familiarities for yourself, your posts are already lacking enough...



Regards, PlG








ah, the simpletons response.




of course, sales is important because sales don't occur within professional airforces without some degree of expertise and  analysis.




countries don't buy aircraft on a whim like some aviation truffle expedition.  there is rigour and analysis.  your attempt to dumb this down into sales as its most simplistic level, and your continued focus on the platform as opposed to countries looking at systems shows the shallowness of your own debate.




you're the typical teenage fan clubber coming in here and looking at spec sheets as though they're the grail in the debate.




of course, I expect you new response will be that none have bought it due to some latent anti-french mindset, or worse, that the americans have politically out manouvred the french  and bough pressure to bear.  of course that would be the easy response - and unsurprisingly has been used in here before.




of course none of the airforces and countriesd which have rejected Rafale did any serious analysis.  It was also based on personal feelings rather than an evaluation on technical competency and capability fit..




/sarcasm off




 

/sarcasm off
 
  Sacrasm is all you got for show, for the simple reason that Rafale was ahead of Typhoon in literaly EVERY single competition they were pited against each .
 
  You can't have it both way can you?  It's either serious technical evaluations by impartial countries of a joke.
 
  So your posts are very much a case of revisionism and saracsms in the pure flamer's vs reality tradition, where lack of imformation is compensated for by the sort of things thast you know, you still dare to share with us.
 
  But if you want more fun here is a good one for you boy...
 
  The DUTCH competition results shows CLEARLY that without stealth Rafale was only a few point behind F-35 well ahead of Typhoon...
 
  JSF  6.97.
 
  Rafale, 6.95.
 
  Eurofighter Typhoon, 5.85
link
 
  You guys have NOTHING substantial or remotly technical to explain Rafale failure to export but i'm sure you will find something to say about the Dutch and their evaluation processes.
 
  I concede that the subject is certainly a very good platform for you to sart your usual wiwi contests but when it comes to elaborate on the subject and bring serious evidences of what you allege, you're nowhere near to be seen with a reply worth reading.
 
 

Spritie 
they would have gotten an aircraft that was mostly what they wanted and needed and a nice chunk of the manufacturing and export sales. 
 
  WRONG:

  Rafale programe and unit cost are way lower than what it is or would have been if France had stayed with the consortium with NO benefits for the French industry.
 
  NOW France have the best 4th generation platform in service, the most advanced systems in a 4th generation aircraft and the most comprehensive upgrade path including every aspects of the aircraft, 90 kN engines, AESA actice radar, new generation Electro-optical and IR systems etc.
 
  The fact that you dont know this proves only that you need to inform yourself a little more.
 
  As for the european partners of Eurofighter, they didn't buy all the goodies that would make of Typhoon T3 come close to the the equivalent of a Rafale, didn't manage to deploy it anywhere near a warzone, and are even considering seriously reducing their numbers in their own forces.
link
 
  As for the French forces, 300 front line aircrafts is the total foreseen by the last Defense White book and all will eventualy be Rafale, we still wait for exports but we wont get rid of them, guess why?
link
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       5/11/2009 6:54:01 PM
http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=84
" target="_blank">link "
we wont get rid of them, guess why?

French aviation industry, suppliers and government would be forced to confess error?  Is why.  France will be moving ahead with joint UCAV soon enough to cover.  Now that is a positive direction for a change.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/11/2009 7:25:18 PM

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/11/2009 7:31:57 PM
You know Pierre , most of the posters here (not all of them) simply don 't want to listen , read and make the effort to admit the obvious .
 
I do not count the time I spent here posting official French links (sometimes coming from the Assemblée Nationale ~French Congress~) , or countless pdfs from Dassault , Thalès , SNECMA , MBDA , AREVA , etc  . Mostly in vain ...
 
The US stuff has to be the best in everything ... No wander why they get harsh wake up calls from time to time , underestimating the other is a typical American thing .
Pierre , just a quick question please : How do you understand the following :
 
""Signal & image processing
? Image Processing, Automatic
Target Recognition, algorithms
for terminal guidance of Stand
Off Missiles
? Image Processing for Anti Air
Counter Countermeasures
(CCM) applications
? Data fusion algorithms""
 
This is coming from MBDA~Thalès . It seems to be some of their recent work , what I would like to understand fully is this :
""Image Processing for Anti Air Counter Countermeasures (CCM) applications""

To me , it seems that the "active cancellation" path is going ahead . If you build EM "pictures" of an aircraft with the desire to send them back to trick the adverse radar , it seems like active cancellation to me . I always said here on SP (and in other places) that Dassault and Thalès have been working hand to hand from day one . Just read this :
 
""Rafale's Low Observable (LO) design is unique. Compared with the normal US  approach to LO, Dassault starts at the opposite end of the process,  beginning with details and working towards the whole. The most important  tool is not the outdoor radar cross-section (RCS) range or a large far-field  indoor range, which gathers a global RCS picture, but a relatively small anechoic chamber that builds up the RCS from detailed measurements of each  part of the aircraft. The result is that the dominant signature in any given frequency band or aspect can be treated until the desired performance is obtained. "We know what is important and which component is contributing to the RCS," says Delanglade. "Is it the missile, or is it the fin? We know which antenna has to be treated.""


(I spoke about this a thousand times to Herald and the others but they don 't want to understand .)
So , could the technology be present in the newest SPECTRA F3 version ? Since it has incorporated the latest interferrometry tricks from the ICMS Mk III and the algorithyms from the ICMS Mk IV , could SPECTRA use some kind of EM images to trick an adverse radar ?
 
Cheers .


 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/11/2009 8:04:41 PM

>You know Pierre , most of the posters here (not all of them) simply don 't want to listen , read and make the effort to admit the obvious .

 

>>I do not count the time I spent here posting official French links (sometimes coming from the Assemblée Nationale ~French Congress~) , or countless pdfs from Dassault , Thalès , SNECMA , MBDA , AREVA , etc  . Mostly in vain ...

 

>>>The US stuff has to be the best in everything ... No wander why they get harsh wake up calls from time to time , underestimating the other is a typical American thing .


>>>>Pierre , just a quick question please : How do you understand the following :
   
>They cant listen to a subject they have ZERO interest in.
 
>> We saw this elsewhere and know why, look at you dogfight tricks topic....
 
>>>Typical.
 
>>>> I dont actualy, it would take me some more serious research work and i cant comment on most topics...
 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/11/2009 8:13:34 PM
Pierre :
""it would take me some more serious research work""
 
Could you please do ? I 'm already on it since yesterday :-)
Anything at AirDef ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Another Rafale thread   5/11/2009 9:43:36 PM
Any nation that employs flying low as a major tactic is admitting two things.  One, their platform can't cut it, and two, they don't have the assets to help it out.
 
All of this garbage about maneuverability is like arguing over whether the Zero, I-153, or Oscar was the most maneuverable WW2 fighter.  It's not part of any discussion on best fighter.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/11/2009 11:17:23 PM
Sacrasm is all you got for show, for the simple reason that Rafale was ahead of Typhoon in literaly EVERY single competition they were pited against each .

You can't have it both way can you?  It's either serious technical evaluations by impartial countries of a joke.

So your posts are very much a case of revisionism and saracsms in the pure flamer's vs reality tradition, where lack of imformation is compensated for by the sort of things thast you know, you still dare to share with us.

But if you want more fun here is a good one for you boy...

The DUTCH competition results shows CLEARLY that without stealth Rafale was only a few point behind F-35 well ahead of Typhoon...

 JSF  6.97.
 Rafale, 6.95.
 Eurofighter Typhoon, 5.85

link target="_blank">link

You guys have NOTHING substantial or remotly technical to explain Rafale failure to export but i'm sure you will find something to say about the Dutch and their evaluation processes.

I concede that the subject is certainly a very good platform for you to sart your usual wiwi contests but when it comes to elaborate on the subject and bring serious evidences of what you allege, you're nowhere near to be seen with a reply worth reading.

ROFLMAO.  you're nothing but a troll.  like a few other gems in here you quote selective data in isolation - and when confronted with the reality of rejection by professional evaluations by 9 other countries, you then impugn their reputation by suggesting corruption or incompetence. 

to date, all you've done is demonstrate that you've a loyal Rafale backer - not one piece of technical explanation.

again 9:0 on sales and ipos facto, assessment by 9 other airforces
an orphaned asset 
no tier 1 buyers
no tier 2 buyers
no tier 3 buyers
reduced production
no confidence in upgrading earlier tranches to be competitive (no govt willing to inest)
and no fellow europeans indicating an interest even when France has played the EU loyalty card.

you can carry on about me as much as you like - but the facts are there for all to see.  a lonely orphaned asset where not one rated military outside of france has indicated interest.

feel free to shoot me as much as you like - it doesn't change the reality of  a plane without an export future, and where the only sales now are minor players or those at the bottom of the original wish list.

the only troll in here is you.  but you just continue waving that tricolour in the vain hope that accusing us of being anti-french or anti-rafale is why we're not falling over ourselves trying to buy it.

and as for the stupid comment by BW that we only have eyes for US technology, thats the comment of a simpleton who hasn't even bothered to see how much french gear we already use.

Rafale is travelling the same path as Leclerc, and we all know from past experience how many claims were made of Leclercs success in the export market.  It's deja vu.  another platform over priced compared to competitors and with declining sales if not production (which in Lelcercs case was a precursor to production suspension.

I'm glad that you understand sarcasm, because thats all you're worthy of.   Continue to froth away on here, but if you're so capable at explaining its capabilities, then  you need to preach to procurement and airforce teams, not engage in moronic jousting on the internet with a virtual audience who basically don't give a rats arse what you think..  If you had any clue as to how assessmnents are done you'd realise that everything that you're hanging your hat on is worth bugger all in the overall evaluation - and yes, I have been on procurement and assessment teams and I even worked with a french company.  Thank god they weren't employing people like you to get their gear in place.

 

 

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/12/2009 2:40:08 AM
ROFLMAO.  you're nothing but a troll.
 
 
Please dont make of yourself an universal standard.
 
On top of trollingthis topic with absolutly no subtance whasoever and NO tecgnical argument to add toi the debates you argue that you favorite tool is that of other.
 
  Boy i dont need top be sarcastic, at the very least i understand the subject and what i write about you visibly don't.
 
 


 like a few other gems in here you quote selective data in isolation -
 
  To reply in details to those precisely trying to isolate points and selective datas in isolation there is only one proper way to do so; demonstrating they are wrong.
 
  YOU have no response to that but implying that people are doing exactly what YOU are doing with a difference; you have NO idea what you are talking about.
 
  I'm more than satisfied i have responded properly with proper sources to allegations which were made by muninformed people like yourself, so did Bluewings but for you it is not enough, as you canot counter these points technicaly, starting a wiwi contest is the next ressort and you have done just that.
 
  Admit it, you got ZERO credential or arguments to add to the subject, your knowledge base is FAR too low and you have been proving this particupar time and time again.
 
  If i were you i'd call it a day and stop humilating myself in public.
 
  As far as i'm concerned you're down in flame, have a nice day, boy.
 
 
 
earlm
Any nation that employs flying low as a major tactic is admitting two things.  One, their platform can't cut it, and two, they don't have the assets to help it out.


For your info AdA and MN always top the scoreshit for PGM expecialy in operation, during the Kosovo campaign it was so well ahead of any other allied A-F including USAF/USN, there are recopdr to prove it and we have them on tap.

  Your argument is laughable at least.

 
All of this garbage about maneuverability is like arguing over whether the Zero, I-153, or Oscar was the most maneuverable WW2 fighter.  It's not part of any discussion on best fighter. 
 
Well we understod dearleir on in view of the low technical level of the debate over here that everything remotly technical would eventualy end up been qualified of garbage.
 
 On the topic of maneuvrability; ask F-22 pilots what they think of it, a tip, spend a few years in any proper Air Force serving.
 
  If you can make it through the Cadet Scool door perhaps you will have a chance to learn enough to comprehend half of what is writen.
 
  All we have seen so far are people who have visibly now studied the subject of aeronautic the slightest and even less in any form of detail.
 
  Keep amusing us boys.
 
  Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 3:22:44 AM
To the French among us. I realize that any discussion of the Rafale will bring out the worst in a lot of us. But seriously, If you want to be taken seriously. Stop claiming that the Rafale is LO. Like a lot of 4th Gen jets, it does use to basic signature management techniques which clearly are of benefit as opposed to not doing it. It would be in the same category as LOAN nozzles and golden canopy or other such similar features. Not LO but some care to reduce the signature. Not as extensive as a Super Hornet and far from the F-117, F-35 and F-22. I know the Rafale D was said to be more of a Super Hornet type in terms of signature management.

When you guys come in here claiming otherwise it reality calls into question your credibility. The Rafale is stealthy in the way an F-111 is stealthy. On the deck below the radar horizon and it enjoys marginal detection range reduction advantages over predecessors in some conditions. I'll be fair and say it includes a fairly sophisticated ECM that would be comparable to other fighters of it's era. Another comparison with be IDF/AF. With good knowledge of the enemy threat RF characteristics, the Rafale could be made to penetrate certain types of IADs just like the IDF/AF did in Syria if the intel is there. Just think about this logically. If I was in a radar evading EW intense LO jet, why would I need to fly on the deck and risk MANPADS / SHORAD / AAA and burn all that fuel pushing though dense air when I could simply thread the needle around detection radius of IADs?


But it is not a stealth aircraft or LO. None of that applies to Rafale. Claiming or even hinting otherwise is just silly.

-DA 
 
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   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