Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:34 am

    Seems like American are already in an advanced stage with S-400 killer.

    This is JASSM and JASSM-ER , it is fast , very stealthy , has great stand off range and can fly very low altitude and can reprogram in flight. Amazing Stuff

    http://vpk.name/news/73795_ubiica_sovetskoi_pvo_zavershaet_ispyitaniya.html
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:24 am

    TO be more accurate, the title is killer of Soviet PVO, not modern Russian Wink.

    Flying low will castrate its range greatly, it gets the best figures when deployed from a fast aircraft flying high up.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:36 pm

    Hmmm, low flying stealthy cruise missile.

    Isn't that kinda one of the things S-400 is designed to engage?

    Pretty sure that is one of the things TOR and Pantsir-S1 were designed to defeat as well.

    Hmmm... stealthy, with a jet engine, transmits video back to the launch platform, IR seeker, can engage "new" targets on its flight.

    So it will have an IR signature and wake, will be transmitting video signals, has an IR optical port in its nose that something like the EO sensors for detecting snipers mounted in binoculars and likely in every future Russian armoured vehicle can detect and deal with (ie vulnerable to DIRCM), and could be defeated simply by activating a transmission of an attractive signal... like a beam of a radar associated with the S-500 system... which would obviously be a very high priority target... $5 emitter every 500km or so in Russian territory with a $500 IR/radar pump up decoy and lets see how many of these stealthy missiles the US wants to expend.

    BTW amusing claiming that this is something "new"... the whole concept of the cruise missile is that it flys low and has a small RCS, is accurate, etc etc.

    Saying this weapon is the end of the Soviet or Russian PVO is silly, because neither exist now anyway.

    I guess the S-500 is the end of western strategic missile forces, and S-400 is the end of western air power.

    And Kornet EM is the end of western armour and helicopters and UAVs... hahahaha... that just sounds stupid.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:56 pm


    JASSM and JASSM-ER used as DEAD weapons ?

    Razz Razz Razz

    A similar level of tabloid-like ,low amateurish coverage of a military subjects in an article should be punished with a very expensive fine to the media producing it.


    Stand-off subsonic cruise missiles attacks is a concept very very old in the doctrine of leading military powers worldwide and theirs CONOPS has been widely debated and established within military planner rooms since '70 years : in a conventional scenario theirs employment, against a major opponent, is limited for unescapable temporal reasons, ,to the neutralization of critical fixed enemy assets and installations through concentrated saturating attacks in the hopes that some will pass the defense's layers (at least for the NATO side Very Happy ).

    JASSM and JASSM-ER, in this kind of weapons ,represent moreover nothing more than projects aimed at develops widely scaled-down samples of stand-off cruise missiles that was possible to mount also on tactical/strike aircraft instead of strategic bombers only , platforms that obviously immensely greater weight and volumetric limits in respect to ground/naval based ones.


    Theirs employment against highly time-sensitive targets (for remain silent ,of course, of dispersable vehicles capable of times of deployment/undeployment inferior to 5 minutes ) is an idea as laughable as totally absurd ; in facts in the sick idea to execute a DEAD missions Rolling Eyes, even only against a single battery of enemy mobile, AD systems using similar weapons someone should committ an enormous, concentrated amount of those critical and very costly assets in a stand-off "journey" of one hour/one hour and half in enemy territory (where naturally ,for unescapable radars gain and radiated energy dispersion at ranges, the purpose to mantain target-position update link with those cruise missiles against the enemy active and passive EW enemy assets present in the in the hundreds of km covered would appear pathetically comical ) with the result that :


    - admitted that the battery reveal itself nothing more than a decoy battery (Kosovo situation multiplied 10.000 times anyone ? )
    - admitted that the battery ,in the meantime, has not changed completly its position at least 3-4 times
    - admitted that the battery's elements don't disperse momentarily "disappearing" under a pair of layers of heavy Radar/IR dispersing camonets.


    to this AD battery would be sufficient in the last 5-6 minutes of arrival of the concentrated ,saturating subsonic cruise missile salvo to enter in the most near mouth of an Air Defense redeploying tunnel, civilian undergound parking ,road tunnel or even between civilian buildings to reduce this immensely costly offensive in a nuissance of no more of 6-7 minutes single ; and all without even waste a single, bullet ,SAM or specialized EW system air delivered missile at theirs destruction !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Was just for this reason that stand-off ground based cruise missiles - with vastly superior parameters and capable naturally to quiclky disperse ,disappear anywhere, reload and attack over and over and over all the day long....- was prohibited in NATO-URSS agreements while air force delivered ones not, in fact ironically are just the Air Force assets at being incredibly vulnerable to concentrated ,stand-off cruise missile attacks .

    A single attack against those targets very big ,totally fixed and well known, full of very soft skinned vehicles ,concentrated munition depots and high flammable fuel's reserves and you will be forced and find the pieces of your air-delivered cruise missile offensive plan among countless of flaming scraps of metal dispersed in a desolating field of smoking craters and blazing silos Laughing Laughing

    Is best to leave the "copyrigth" of similar absurd as laughable "creative" CONOPS for cruise missiles to thread on F-16 . net and similaria.




    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:25 pm

    Thanks Garry and Mindstorm for clarifying this , seems JASSM has its own shortcoming and is not as strong as its made out to be.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:42 pm

    It is american... they are never as strong as they are made out to be.

    Americas greatest strength is its marketing department...

    Of course against a third world country it makes it a push button war because most fixed centres of communication, and command centres and communication hubs, major military bases, etc etc would all be fixed and fairly well known in advance, and the performance of the defending AD would leave much to be desired... and of course no means to retaliate in kind is a huge bonus for the west as well.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:34 am




    Of course against a third world country it makes it a push button war because most fixed centres of communication, and command centres and communication hubs, major military bases, etc etc would all be fixed and fairly well known in advance, and the performance of the defending AD would leave much to be desired... and of course no means to retaliate in kind is a huge bonus for the west as well.


    Exactly GarryB ,is not possible to express this concept with better words Smile


    The point with several US weapon system projects is that them are obviously developed to respond to the requirements dictated by theirs specific military/economic influence expansionist doctrine that naturally don't even foresee a conflict against a powerful opponent but a progressive direct or indirect annexion and control of area hosting foreign strategic resources.

    As previously explained ,those weapon optimizations designed against enemies completely incapable to react, wouldn't cancel that the same foundations of a similar US air centric doctrine, moreover devoid of even only the most elementary guise of defense structure and single systems designed and deployed to defeat typical offensive means used by military powerful enemies , would reveal itself quickly self defeating against any major opponent in a conflict not influenced by the nuclear factor.

    Anyone can image what would be the disturbing effects that would have even a little salvo of Chinese DH-10 on this tender scenario of Diego Garcia AB







    May be that it is only mine eyes , but here i are completely incapable to see even the most elementary guise of any type of passive or active defense for literally any primary and secondary AB element. Laughing Laughing

    My scarce sight ,memory and lack of imagination ,moreover, prevent also to me to detect and remember, at this moment, the precise position and ....the name..... of the US corresponding of TOR-M1/2 ,Pantsyr or even only of Tunguska-M1 batteries of point defences committed at the defense of this strategically important AB, and a strange mental block prevent to me to identify too, at the moment, where the other layers of the IADS - as the immense area around it covered by the purposely optimized US corresponding of MiG-31 ,for remain completely silent of the hundreds of Km covered by overlapping and fully mobile layers of medium ,long and very long range defenses, point and area EW assets, ELS, defense aid systems etc..etc..- at protection of this key asset would be ...taking also in consideration that it is completely insulated in plain Ocean. Razz


    That happen ,obviously, when your doctrine ,strategic stance and force organization is constructed around the chance to project quickly and efficiently your military and political influence very far from your borders against vastly inferior opponents; against any enemy so advanced to have the chance to capitalize the enormous fragility which come from a similar strategic stance and force organization you can always point on the thermonuclear MAD factor (at the end of the day it is well proven if it managed to prevent Warsaw Pact's Forces to conventionally crush you , for over 40 years).

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Austin on Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:01 pm

    Came across this Official Ratheyon video which shows USN Tomahawk Block 4 targeting RuN Cruiser and S-300 batteries

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluabEE1ls8


    The capabilities of block 4 like loitering capability over target , Satcom communication and inflight retargetting are very nice , wish some day RuN Club has it as well
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  TR1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:54 am

    Runavy uses Kalibr, pretty sure it has Satcom link.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:31 am

    Granits used satcom links in the 1980s.

    Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Austin on Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:56 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

    Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

    Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

    Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Viktor on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:38 pm

    Austin wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

    Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

    Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

    Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.

    Good luck with that Very Happy Very Happy

    Shooting practice.
    avatar
    Shadåw

    Posts : 81
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2012-07-29

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Shadåw on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:12 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    Austin wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

    Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

    Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

    Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.

    Good luck with that Very Happy Very Happy

    Shooting practice.

    I`m going to assume this will only be used on incompetent 3rd world armies rather then any modern, well trained and equiped force?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Came across this Official Ratheyon video which shows USN Tomahawk Block 4 targeting RuN Cruiser and S-300 batteries

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:22 am

    As mentioned a subsonic missile emitting MMW radar energy will not be a problem for a modern defence.

    If you want a MALE or HALE then send one.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    NickM

    Posts : 181
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  NickM on Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:24 pm

    GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:20 pm

    NickM wrote:
    GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    Cruise Missiles are very slow and such targets are rather "easy" to intercept by ships and their defensive capabilities they possess.
    Kashtan and before that TOR missiles which were designed to intercept incoming threats. Unless those missiles are not Iskander type in engagement or phase-end guiding than its not a bigger threat than russian cruise missiles would be to US ships, actually it's vice versa since defensive technologies in russia have a higher priority and there for a higher capabilities than in any other country.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:40 am

    Nah Werewolf, its American, it cant be countered by teh Asiatic missile systems.

    Asians are famously bad at math so they can't make systems to hit moving targets.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:15 am

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    Neither the Russian, Chinese, or Indian Navies have Battleships.

    The smallest Russian Corvette however is fitted with air defence systems able to defeat long range cruise missiles at medium ranges using both SAM and CIWS.

    They all also have extensive IR decoy and masking systems that nearly instantly deliver an enormous cloud of IR opaque smoke with burning elements within it to form a large IR target near the ship or boat that the incoming missile will find to be much larger and rather more attractive a target.

    BTW the old export model SS-N-2 Styx came in two models with active radar homing and passive IR guidance.

    The domestic model had both an IR sensor and active radar guidance.

    I believe India used the IR guided models effectively against land targets in Pakistan that included large oil storage containers that had been heated by the sun during the day and represented an IR contrasting target for the anti ship missiles to be used effectively against them.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:39 pm

    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:11 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

    Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:19 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

    Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.

    But surprisingly enough no supersonic anti-ship missiles in US inventories.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:44 pm

    I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

    Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

    With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

     russia
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:32 am

    Mike E wrote:I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

    Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

    With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

     russia

    Long range is a good attribute, except the missiles have to be able to hit their targets, and subsonic missiles are much easier to engage, and considering how attack subs are the main vehicle for that as you said it actually makes more sense to develop them for your subs than for your surface fleet. Having supersonic AShM's for attack makes more sense because the U.S. attack sub fleet is already considered a stealthy asset already, and the supersonic AShm's will be harder targets to neutralize and will also have superior penetration compared to subsonic Harpoons due to increased kinetic energy. A U.S. attack sub could fire 6 newly developed supersonic AShM's with 300 km range, and while that's not as good as a AShM Tomahawk range of 450 km (which is measly compared to land attack Tomahawk), by the time the supersonic AShM hits a surface vessel a U.S. attack sub could be long gone. Range is good, but speed is better!

    And I agree, the US Navy should develop better AShM's, because they're one of the more cost-effective systems a navy could have! The cost of buying, building, maintaining a carrier fleet for a year would cost a lot, the same amount of money spent on AShM's would buy you enough missiles to sink all the world's carrier fleets several times over!
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:50 am

    The best is a mixture of both range and speed. Imagine something like a "supersonic tipped" Kalibr that has a range of over 1000 km!

     - You hit the nail on the head. The US navy must be smoking something!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:49 am

    The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 am