The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 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
PierreLeGrand    @DarthAmerica    5/12/2009 4:35:37 AM

 
What I like with your posts (no flattery meant) is that at least they are substantiated by some level of technical meaning and not pure flame baits, let's debate then...

 Define LO for a start:

  EM LO.

  IR LO.

   Visual LO.

  EME LO.

    I don?t know which one of us told you that Rafale was L.O, how he putted it and in which contest, but in a sense he was right, L.O is not so hard to achieve in terms of signature management, in only MEAN Low-Observable, as opposed to VLO in the case of F-22.

   Where I think you lack in information is in the assumption that Rafale is not as LO as F/A-18, which is wrong.

  Aligning two vertical fins to the inlets lateral surfaces and adding S-Shaped gloves to them doesn't make F/A18 RCS lower than that of Rafale.

   Especially because it possesses two fins instead of one and uses more EM reflective materials in their construction by virtue of aerodynamic stress in this particular area, a problem Rafale doesn't have by design.

  Material (Beams, spars, skin and their thickness) is fully part of design for RCS reduction.

  Leading edge and trailing edge sweep is also a LO feature designed to reduce RCS.

 Wing/fuselage position and junctions are also known to reduce RCS.

 You can hardly compare F/A-18 to  F-22  at least for where the frontal aspect is concerned, but Rafale and F-22 have a similar leading edge sweep by a few of degrees, 48* vs 42* to be precise, while YF 22 leading edge sweep was ALSO 48*.

  I haven?t been looking at the rear aspect (trailing edge) but I know for a fact that the serrated surfaces between the two M88 are designed to reduce EM return.

 For the overall shape, I invite you to try to superimpose the front cross section of a Rafale on top of that of a YF-23.

 You will see yet another signature management feature Rafale possesses in its design that F/A-18 lacks:
 
Wing/fuselage blending, which is known to be reducing radar return since the invention of the Radar, contemporary of the development of increasingly large Karman junctions for fighter design of the time and YF-23 design was based on this.

 Rafale posses these features but also a little more than that, such as serrated surfaces at EM spike locations which dissipates EM energy instead of reflecting it, trailing edges, doors, engine/fuselage junction etc.


 
 IR signature management is also part of the equation.

  At this level Rafale beats every single US aircraft including F-35 (but not F-22 which posses TVC).

 The M 88 which people love to bash-up on the ground of its TWR only, possesses an extra cooling channel and set of con-di-nozzles to Ram-cool its external casing but also its airflow, while the second set of con-di is more prominent and shields the hot airflow from view under angles only F-22 can better.

  Rafale D  for "Discret" was the first serie-Rafale to be rolled-out, what you know about its signature management features is probably very incomplete.

  For example it was painted with a paint which was expected to be reducing radar return but had the disadvantage to be black.

  This paint was developed further to include reduction of visual range detection, it have some form of "chameleon" effect as you can see for yourself in the change of tone depending on weather cast, it makes it all the more difficult to spot and track visually against the sky in any kind of weather.

  I know little more about the RAM characteristics of this paint all I can tell you is that it took years to develop before been applied to the serie aircrafts and that it would not be RAM I wouldn't know it either, so I doubt you know more than we do.

 
 I could not possibly comment on the issue of EM Emission LO as these are highly classified but to summarize you can expect a company such as Thales to be at the top of the technology since they are specialized in it and Rafale pilots uses EM emission discretion very efficiently too, this is known to be part of a new, developing Squadron culture...

 

  So no I wouldn't assume that Rafale is MORE EM LO than F/A-18 because I know whish were the features included in its design to reduce its RCS and this can hardly be quantified by you or me, but I know for a FACT that Rafale IR LO is greater as well as its Visual LO, being slightly smaller, more compact and with a paint designed (and known to work) for the purpose of retarding its visual sighting.

 

  I hope this helps, I wish to say that we possess links to official sources for every single of these topics as well as pictures to make our points.

 

Regards, PlG

 

 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 5:23:26 AM
If you cite official source material that elaborates on some of the Rafales signature management features, I would appreciate it. I do know that the Rafale design is not neglectful with respect to efforts to minimize its signature. My point if that all late model 4th Gen jets are doing this either by design or in updates. Things like LOAN nozzles and gold canopy to extreme modification such as Super Hornet and Silent Eagle which actually get into LO category in many ways by design. I'd say if you took a F/A-18C and FA-18E a good guest is the Rafale would fall somewhere in between. Again, thats a guess but based on OSINT data it seems reasonable. I'm also sure that SPECTRA offers some additional survivability benefits. I certainly don't brush it off as an insignificant feature. But it's no klingon cloaking device and in terms of survivability benefit does not offer anywhere near the flexibility and wide band protection in the EM domain as the 5th Generation fighters do.

In sum it's like this. Does the Rafale offer France a more survivable fighter bomber to replace its previous platforms. The answer is yes. Is it as survivable as a contemporary stealth design against the highest levels of threat? Definitely not. Rather its a good balance of capabilities into a small size that adequately covered French security needs. But the Rafale as a platform does not fight within a system capable of the kinds of operations the USAF does. France can't forward deploy Rafales independent of coalitions abroad and fight against anything more than a modern equivalent to Argentina circa 1980s. When we are talking about sending single digit numbers of Rafales abroad up to maybe a dozen who have to provide their own OCA/SEAD/Strike/Tanking, the Rafale isn't survivable enough to remain combat effective for long against an alerted defense that requires sustained sorties to successfully attrit. Even if the Rafale is somewhat more survivable than previous French planes the law of averages and statistics will catch up. With so few, losing even one is a huge loss to the FAF.  So if we are conducting surprise air raid into Algeria or lobbing a long range CM into hostile airspace then the Rafale is capable. But like El Dorado Canyon you may lose one or two. I t will never do the things the USN/USAF do with their LO/VLO platforms due to the system it's designed to fight in


-DA

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 5:35:16 AM
Addendum and Brief Redux,

What a Rafale signature management does is allows you to approach by surprise at low altitude where it can hide in ground clutter. Its reduced signature will give it some degree of protection at the extreme edges of threat detection ranges and the EW suite will blind some of the threat RF systems that are known to it if they do detect it. 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/12/2009 6:10:04 AM

Addendum and Brief Redux,




What a Rafale signature management does is allows you to approach by surprise at low altitude where it can hide in ground clutter. Its reduced signature will give it some degree of protection at the extreme edges of threat detection ranges and the EW suite will blind some of the threat RF systems that are known to it if they do detect it. 







-DA 


  I think you continue to ignore FACTS as presented to you; in particular in the topics of shapes, materials and wing sweep, please don?t tell us it doesn't count because F-22 is the best example that these issues DOES matter.

   Your assumptions are based on the absence of knowledge of both aircrafts, their politico-industrial and development histories.

  As for the part related on the mission profiles you just forget that the only one in western service to compete vs Rafale in terms of low-level high/speed performances at full load is the F-15 K, the F/A-18 is a tad underpowered to achieve this and cannot come anywhere close to compete with these two at low level and high speed.

  AdA doctrine of use for this sort of mission doesn't mean anything in terms of LO features, terrain masking had always been used as far as I know from the first Mirage IIIE Squadron equipped with the first European Doppler Radar, the Cyrano IV.

  The only exception to this was the Mirage IV which was capable of sustained M 2.0+ flight for hours and still detains the European speed/distance record today.

  You visibly do not understand the way AdA works their strike missions and the reasons why, there is little wrong with this,  assuming a higher level of EM LO for F/A-18 which it purely technical terms is FAR from being clear cut is wrong.

  More to it, LO doesn't resolves around EM signature alone and neither you no myself can truly compute it, all we can do is count the number of known stealth EM features including all aspect of it which means knowing  at least the minimum on the aircraft structural materials, which you don't.

  Simple math, two fins with magnesium spars vs one fully composite need more EM reduction measure to keep F/A-18 low...

   At this level your assumptions are already wrong without even mentioning wing sweeps, and when it comes to OVERAL LO, Rafale is visibly more discreet than F/A-18 because it possesses features in the IR, visible and EME range that F/A-18 doesn't have, apart for the AESA radar and even so, Boeing is planning to fit the future SuperHornet with an A2A IRST for some good reasons...

 As for my sources, here they are, Fox3 is the official GIE (Dassault/Thales/SNECMA) magazine.
link

 

  I can only suggest that you get yourself the best sources available on the subject of LO and study the subject in more details.
Regards, PlG

 


 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Corrective.   5/12/2009 6:21:14 AM
I typoed Spars for Beams.
 
 F-18, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35 ALL have encountered the SAME aerodynamic problem which have been solved using the SAME solution, replacing the front, composite-made main fins beams by titanium made.
 
 This increases readar returns as does reducing the thickness of the wing skin on the case of F-35.
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       5/12/2009 6:32:20 AM
I think DA is nearly totally right in his two last messages.
At least, his conclusions are good.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @Seagul...   5/12/2009 6:45:35 AM

 Thinking is not enough.

  I think not and demonstrates duly and clearly why, with technical arguments that have little to be opposed to because they not only are valid, they also are proven and documented.

 F/A-18 is far from having the number of EM reduction features of a Rafale when it comes to the most reflective of them in the frontal area, wings and control surfaces including FIN materials.

  Now if you can elaborate and proves this points wrong it will do some good to the value of your PoV, for the time being I regard it a being totally unfunded and resting on non-validated grounds.

 I await your technical points with interests and please do care to validate them with proper sources.

 Regards, PlG

 

 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Illustrations   5/12/2009 7:49:20 AM
 
 
 NOW we can SEE what i meant can we?
 
Under the SAME angle the compressor blades on the Rafale inlets wouldn't be visible at all.
 
BTW, M88 was also designed with EM return reduction as requierements.
 
 
SAME treatment of EM spikes all over the airframe...
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 11:18:01 AM
PlG,

Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree. If you are right then I guess I just can't fathom why such an amazing aircraft isn't competitive on the open market vs virtually every other 4th Gen fighter competitor to include Russian and Chinese.


-DA  
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/12/2009 5:51:16 PM

PlG,




Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree. If you are right then I guess I just can't fathom why such an amazing aircraft isn't competitive on the open market vs virtually every other 4th Gen fighter competitor to include Russian and Chinese.







-DA  

  Nothing to do with technical aspects and it IS very competitive, only it haven't sold to the export market just yet.
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 6:19:59 PM

PlG,



Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree. If you are right then I guess I just can't fathom why such an amazing aircraft isn't competitive on the open market vs virtually every other 4th Gen fighter competitor to include Russian and Chinese.



-DA  


  Nothing to do with technical aspects and it IS very competitive, only it haven't sold to the export market just yet.


Regards, PlG


Just yet? Well it' getting a bit late in the game for 4th Generation fighters unless you can offer feature complete product with the latest capabilities in the Rafale's price range. It doesn't. Statements to the contrary are not realistic. For instance, IT MATTERS that Rafale does not have an operational AESA. All US designs do. F-16, F-15, F/A-18E and F-35. That's just one example PlG.

-DA 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Boy.   5/12/2009 6:43:05 PM
Here youstart to talk total MANURE.
 
Please go inform yourself, you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
From where i'm concerned your posts are not even worth reading.
 
Good night.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 7:13:38 PM
Here youstart to talk total MANURE.

Please go inform yourself, you have no clue what you're talking about.

From where i'm concerned your posts are not even worth reading.


Good night.


Well if that's how you feel about it very well. But if I may. You are a bit new around here and in case you haven't noticed from others vitriol doesn't do much for you when you are trying to make a point and that assumes you can back yourself up which of course you can't if you are suggesting the Rafale is a feature complete product. It's fallen well short for lack of some requirement or other and schedules in EVERY chance it's had to demonstrate why it should be chosen. This isn't me, this is the customer. It usually goes something like, "Great Plane but....I don't want to wait until middle of next decade for AESA and then only after I provide the funding to assist in development. Again, that's one example. Another is the obvious choice by tier 1 nations of a true 5th Generation VLO multirole platform to integrate into their system. That's something you need to think about if you are Dassault and trying to sell a warplane in todays environment. 

You see, the F-35, which actually is VLO, can if necessary fight independent of some of the obligatory support sorties a Rafale would need to survive in denied airspace without taking unacceptable losses. It's cool to claim SPECTRA makes up the difference but the truth is, it doesn't. So with these two issues we have a platform that would best be described as near sighted and very obvious to a modern opponent. To operate like that you need the numbers to absorb the attrition you will face while trading BVR shots and eating SAMs. At 100 million a pop though, it starts to get a bit unbearable. Adding to this the logistical requirements are different from my primary allies during wartime so now I have the additional burden of logistics and interoperability to be concerned about. Ever read about the Tower of Babel? Well now if you are reading this objectively you can start to see that these issues DO MATTER and when given the option Rafales are brushed aside by F-35, F-teens, Gripens, Typhoons and even Migs and Flankers. That should tell you something. The Rafale has clearly and undeniably failed with respect to export potential. 
 
Or perhaps the Rafale is so stealthy in fact that just being from the same country prevents one from seeing it as is so as to actually address the shortcomings? It certainly has outfoxed the fanboys, budget cutters, program managers who's job is was to make sure SPECTRA and RBE2 were performance and cost competitive so I guess its very stealthy indeed!

What the Rafale has taught combat aviation is that just because you think the world is centered on your unique requirements does not make it so. I have said and will say again. I actually like the Rafale and think it is a true Eurofighter. Had it been funded properly and developed with the input of other great European powers. All of the money spent on Rafale and Eurofighter could have been pooled along with the talent and resources. At a minimum that would have challenged the Russians position with regard to platforms IMV and quite possibly could have exceeded the F-15 series in terms of multirole capability and matched the F/A-18E/F.

See, there now. I've managed to express myself without the use of scatological language and vitriol. Try it if you are so convinced that your points can stand on merit.
 

-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/12/2009 7:37:17 PM
Technically speaking , there is very little wrong with the Rafale . It just needs to be F3+ asap .
 
Now , let 's forget the numbers for a moment and just imagine that you 're a pilot . First and foremost , is the jet pleasant and easy to fly ? That is of the utmost importance , it is like when you try few cars before to buy one . The "X" car was ok , fast , nervous but it wasn 't for you , something you did not like . Car "Y" , well you quickly find out that you don 't like it (maybe for your wife?) . The "Z" car took you in as soon as you sat in it , you started the engine , 1st gear , 2nd gear and you knew it : it was the one !
We all know that you will be a better driver in this car than in the others and it is the same with a jet . Almost every foreign pilot or test pilot who flew the Rafale was impressed with the aircraft and the most things talked about are the excellence of the FBW , the smooth ride at all regimes , the responsiveness of the M-88s and the sensor fusion .
I am not inventing it , I already posted many debriefs from Pilots who flew the Rafale .
 
When the pilot quickly finds his marks because the jet has an excellent behavior on the road (sorry , in the air) , because the "ride" feels safe and carefree , because the aircraft is showing you everything you need to know using a very friendly man-machine interface , you suddently become a more efficient pilot because you have more brain power and "free will" left to fight : the aircraft is taking care of itself .
 
This is what I would call a 5th generation capability .
The way the different sensors on the Rafale are used to ease the pilot 's decisions and safety are unseen on any other 4th generation aircraft . The effect on the pilot to have a full 360deg bubble awareness in both EM and IR is enormous . You don 't spend your time anymore wandering if someone has seen you or has a lock on you , the aircraft is telling you about the threat before entering the danger zone with great accuracy (azimuth and range) and can even put the threat on screen for you by automatically slaving the long range TV cam . You look into the enemy 's eyes at 50km (joke but true) without him knowing . As a pilot , I would feel like I have the edge and I can decide what proper action I can take . The state of mind is what makes a soldier going beyond himself with assurance and belief .
I 've been long enough in the Forces to learn and experience the feeling . When you feel good , you fight good .
The Rafale has been designed with this very idea in mind : to free the pilot as much as possible .
It does its job , I can assure you .
What we French would like you to acknowledge is that Rafale is the best 4th generation aircraft around (nevermind the 4.5) . We 've been saying so for as long as I can remember (6 , 7 years ?) and more the time is passing , more it seems that we were right and more material we have to prove it to the readers .
I have tried to show you what a 5th generation cockpit looks like but you discarded it with dedain . This was not about "nice and big colorfull screens" but about the stuff running the show in the background , unfortunatly nobody "clicked" on what I was saying ...
No the rafale is not a VLO aircraft but it is a real LO jet when it needs to be and has been designed this way from day one . Being "LO" is not only about physical shape , RAM , tooth edges , IR shadowing , etc ... The Rafale has all of them but it is only one side of the LO capabilities . The other side is made of different things like knowing first that there is a threat so you can avoid it (you can 't be observed) , knowing what and where the threat is and acting accordingly (you can 't be observed) , precisely jam that radar and not the other six around leaving them wandering what is happening (you can 't be observed) , using the enemy 's EM emmisions to passively direct your weapons (you can 't be observed) , etc . You did not even switch the RBE2 on !
Are these capabilitie "compatible" with an average 4th generation Fighter ? I just ask ...
 
Cheers .
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/12/2009 7:47:31 PM
Under the SAME angle the compressor blades on the Rafale inlets wouldn't be visible at all.
 
They are not visible at all on the F/A-18E/F even at that angle.  The things you see in the Super Hornet photo are not fan blades.  The angled, radiating vanes are part of the radar blocking system (reference here since you appear to be unfamiliar).  The vanes reflect RF that would otherwise strike the fan blades and redirect it into the RAM in the curved inlets.
 
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