Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Galaxy, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. Galaxy

    Galaxy Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,093
    Likes Received:
    3,897
    Location:
    Delhi
    Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets

    [​IMG]
    Nov 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland has chosen to replace its fighter jet fleet with Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab's JAS-39 Gripen, Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources close to the government.

    Neutral Switzerland has wrangled for the past three years over whether to replace its ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981, with up to 33 new aircraft.

    Saab shares were up 8.5 percent to 117.10 Swedish crowns by 1345 GMT after the newspaper report.

    The newspaper said the cost of purchasing 22 jets would be about 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion), 1 billion less than the same number of rival models would cost.

    In September, the Swiss lower house of parliament approved a 5 billion francs defence budget for 2013 to finance a 100,000 strong army and the purchase of new fighter jets.

    Other bidders included the Rafale built by french company Dassault Aviation and EADS's Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter Typhoon.


    RPT-Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets - paper | Reuters
     
  2.  
  3. SpArK

    SpArK SORCERER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Location:
    KINGDOM OF TRAVANCORE
    This helps the gripen program to extend its life.

    A move that was much expected in swiss competition.

    Another loss for Rafale.
     
  4. indian_sukhoi

    indian_sukhoi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    A Billion dollars got saved for country which has threats at all.

    Choosing SAAB Gripen makes it a lot more sensible. It does deliver lower acquisition and maintenance costs, Than other Competing Aircraft.

    Has Expected, Seems at end of day France will be the only Customer of Rafale.

     
  5. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,906
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    The Swiss chose what may have been the lowest performer in the flight evaluations over the one which topped the Swiss evaluations, Rafale.

    It's their choice though.

    The price seems steep, but realistic. $150Million for the Gripens compared to what could have been $200million for Rafale. This will come with training, spares and support for 10 years IMO. Reduce by two times and this could be the unit costs of the birds.
     
  6. indian_sukhoi

    indian_sukhoi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    150$ million a piece with training and support??. What if they manufacture those aircrafts and spares in their own country, Like the MRCA deal.
    Can Dassault come up with a discount, maybe like offering Offsets?. Sweden offered TOT for Gripen.
    How will it be useful in our MRCA deal?


    I wonder what this technical evaluation consists of, But has you said Price evaluation must been top priority. Swiss doesn't need an top class fighter to replace some Cold War era junk.


    Girpen isnt that bad, When you comparing it with t/w ratio and maintenance.

    JAS-39 Gripen could be a solid investment for Taiwan, as neither requires long runways and both could provide strike and air superiority capabilities under difficult conditions.
    Since they wont gonna be offered Rafale or F-35s anyway.
     
  7. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,615
    Likes Received:
    5,680
  8. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,615
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Evaluation of the three fighters in pictorial form

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,615
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    A swiss newspaper summarized the details in an article

    Here is the translation

    Original link

    Avion de combat: Ce qu’Ueli Maurer a caché - Suisse - lematin.ch
     
  10. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,615
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    From the Report

    [​IMG]
     
  11. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    300
    Again a thread in "Americas" for no reason...

    I think this is interessting:
    Why Switzerland bought the Tiger (In German, so you should use Google Translator) - NZZ Online

    Some points:
    - originally 9 aircrafts from 8 companies were evaluated, among them were Saab (with two models), Fiat, Dassault and Ling-Temco-Vought.
    - first evaluation: LTV A-7 Corsair was winner, followed by Fiat G.91Y. Then came (unordered) the Spectat Jaguar (British/French), the Dassault Mirage 5 in a version nicknamed "Milan" and the Saab 105XH. One of Saab's aircraift was last, second last was the Dassault Mirage 5 Milan.
    - French government didn't want the Swiss people to buy a non-French aircraft and told them to reevalute
    - In reevaluation some new aircraft were accepted for evaluation like an upgraded version of the Hunter. A Swiss official said that they would even evaluate upgraded Spitfires or Me 109s if someone would offer these to them.
    - Crosair was again first, Mirage 5 was now third as some time could be used to improve it
    - Real tests in 1972 showed that the Mirge 5 failed hard, while the Crosair achieved best results. France never accepted the tests results, instead increases politcal pressure on the Swiss people
    - The Americans came with 16 technicians for 2 Crossair, the French with 120 for 2 Dassault Mirage 5 Milan
    - Following continued political pressure the Swiss government declared not to buy any new aircraft
    - As short-term solution 30 British Occasions-Hunters, originally from the 1950s, were bought
    - Only one fabric new aircraft with was rather cheap could be bought as mid-term/long-term solution: the F-5E Tiger, which actually did not fullfill performance requirements
    - the current backbone of the Swiss airforce is the F/A-18 Hornet, which also nearly was not bought because the French wanted to sell their Mirage 2000-5, which back then existed only on paper.
    - from 1964 to 2003 the Swiss operated the Mirage-III as fighter, already having a political scandal, the so called Mirage afair (German wikipedia article, use Google Translator) - about 100 were ordered, but due to rising costs only 57 were finally delievered
    - as fighter-bomber the 152 Hunter (some being model "Occasion") were operated from 1958 to 1994
     
  12. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,158
    Likes Received:
    12,107
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat


    Well it doest not matter to Swiss whether they choose grippen or ancient mig 15.Nobody gonna attack them. They need air force for just for name sake..
     
  13. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    30,812
    Likes Received:
    38,427
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    DRDO Chief Takes A Spin In A Gripen

    [​IMG]

    Livefist: DRDO Chief Takes A Spin In A Gripen
     
    Koovie, bhramos and Zebra like this.
  14. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,280
    Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne took a flight in the French Dassault’s Rafale aircraft on a visit to France. The Rafale has been selected the preferred bid for the IAF’s tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

    DRDO head, Dr. V.K. Saraswat, took a backseat ride in the Swedish Saab's Gripen C/D aircraft on the sidelines of the Aerospace Forum held at Linköping, Sweden, last week.

    June 7, 2012,

    India’s top defense scientist has finally discovered what it takes to be a fighter pilot. Dr. V.K. Saraswat, the Scientific Adviser to the defense minister took a backseat ride in the Swedish Saab’s Gripen D aircraft on the sidelines of the Aerospace Forum held at Linköping, Sweden, last week.

    [​IMG]

    Saraswat, who also heads the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which is developing the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), was visibly excited by the prospect of the flight when he walked down the tarmac to the aircraft in his flight suit.

    Happily posing for photographers he gave them a thumbs up before he took off and when he landed around an hour later, seemed to have pushed himself hard pulling Gs. Grinning with a sense of accomplishment, he called the Gripen a ‘very user friendly’ aircraft and said he ‘did 2.2Gs’ and a vertical climb.

    Interestingly, this flight took place a week after the head of the Indian Air Force (IAF),

    [​IMG]

    During the course of the five-year long MMRCA contest, the six aircraft companies competing in the tender invited journalists, Members of Parliament, film stars, industrialists and other prominent people to take a backseat ride in their respective fighter aircraft. But until Browne, senior air force and defense officials had always refrained from accepting invitations to fly in any of the aircraft, lest the ride be considered an endorsement.

    Presumably, such considerations are no longer in play four months after the selection of the Rafale, which was in competition against Lockheed Martin’s F-16, Boeing’s F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter Typhoon and the Gripen.

    The Gripen and the DRDO’s LCA, both, run on the same engine, the GE F-404 for the earlier model and the F-414 for the later variants. In comparison to the development path from the Gripen A/B to the C/D and now Gripen E/F or NG, DRDO is attempting a development leap from the LCA to the Mk II and so the challenges are considerable. The DRDO has been facing problems integrating the new engine into the LCA for the Mk II and could possibly benefit from Saab’s experience with the development of the Gripen. It is understood that the DRDO and Saab have discussed this idea in their ongoing dialogue.

    Top Gun Saraswat | StratPost
     
  15. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    15,442
    Likes Received:
    9,718
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    its ok with Airforce pilots and chiefs, and also fit men like you is is OK, but Scientists and fat men like me also can fly in fighters!!!
     
  16. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,825
    Likes Received:
    14,814
    chief next time take ride in LCA, twin seater.
     
  17. Payeng

    Payeng Daku Mongol Singh

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    Neistan
    The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
    [​IMG]
    The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.

    The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”

    The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

    “At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”

    In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

    The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

    The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane’s estimates for all aircraft.

    There are several caveats to this assessment. “Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation,” says the report, but adds, “However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft.”

    The report stresses that ‘without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe’ the results ‘can only be regarded as approximate’ and ‘are an average cost across an entire fleet’.

    The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 ‘with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.’

    The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that ‘the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane’s estimates’ for them.

    The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs ‘owing to the absence of actual in-service data’. “IHS Jane’s does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs,” it says.

    Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane’s also considered data thrown up by a ‘modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage’. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane’s arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost.
    [​IMG]
    The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.

    The study ‘determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft’.

    The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were ‘more usually considered as part of the platform’s capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation’.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the ‘aircrafts’ fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust’, not ‘necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie’.

    As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.

    In the case of the F-35, the study says the different ‘costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases’. The study says, “The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected.” It adds that, although obviously, ‘accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist’, ‘the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft’, considering ‘the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems’.

    The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is ‘due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating’ it, compared to the ‘small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability’. It points out that ‘RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve’.

    But the report also says the Super Hornet has ‘relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft’. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F ‘engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly’ compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.

    Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s | StratPost
     
    p2prada likes this.
  18. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,280
    July 4, 2012

    The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

    [​IMG]

    The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.

    The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”

    The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

    “At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”

    In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

    The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

    The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane’s estimates for all aircraft.

    There are several caveats to this assessment. “Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation,” says the report, but adds, “However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft.”

    The report stresses that ‘without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe’ the results ‘can only be regarded as approximate’ and ‘are an average cost across an entire fleet’.

    The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 ‘with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.’

    The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that ‘the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane’s estimates’ for them.

    The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs ‘owing to the absence of actual in-service data’. “IHS Jane’s does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs,” it says.

    Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane’s also considered data thrown up by a ‘modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage’. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane’s arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost......

    Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s | StratPost

    cont.....
     
    pmaitra, LETHALFORCE, p2prada and 2 others like this.
  19. Payeng

    Payeng Daku Mongol Singh

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    Neistan
  20. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,280
    [​IMG]

    The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.



    The study ‘determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft’.

    The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were ‘more usually considered as part of the platform’s capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation’.

    CPFH composition:

    On the basis of a 2005 US Air Force study of its F-16 fleet, IHS Jane’s thinks the CPFH is composed of approximately:

    – 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical components)
    – 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
    – 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance

    [​IMG]
    The study also points to less quantifiable and more intangible factors that could impact CPFH.


    [​IMG]

    For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the ‘aircrafts’ fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust’, not ‘necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie’.

    As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.

    In the case of the F-35, the study says the different ‘costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases’. The study says, “The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected.” It adds that, although obviously, ‘accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist’, ‘the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft’, considering ‘the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems’.

    The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is ‘due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating’ it, compared to the ‘small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability’. It points out that ‘RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve’.

    But the report also says the Super Hornet has ‘relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft’. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F ‘engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly’ compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.

    Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s | StratPost
     
  21. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,280

Share This Page