Should the Republic buy Jet Fighters for Air Force?

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,479
Dasayev said:
Why do we need an air-force?

-to avoid dependence on foreign air-forces and protect our neutrality.
If you want an airforce capable of protecting our neutrality, then it needs to be capable of withstanding attack from ANYONE. Have we got the hundreds of billions required to have that?

-to patrol the skies during EU summits and US Presidential visits.
Looking for what?

-to intercept hijacked aircraft.
If an aircraft is hijacked at the eastern boundary of Irish airspace, it can then be ploughing into Leinster House, the Aras, or the GPO in FIVE MINUTES. There is no air force in the world with the capacity to intercept that. So if you wanted to hijack a plane and hit a target in Ireland, that's how you'd do it.

-to support our army at home and on UN duty.
How would jet fighters support our army at home? And on UN duty, if you're referring to troop transports, they're a different matter entirely - and its far more cost-efficient to hire them as needed rather than buy them.

To help the navy patrol our seas
No, jet fighters are the last thing we need to patrol our seas. Ships travel at a speed of about 30 knots max. Jet fighters do up to 800 knots. Imagine the amount of back-and-forth flying required for a jet fighter to keep an eye on a ship.

and in case of trouble in the future
Eh?

-to help win a Civil War should Unionists fail to accept a United Ireland after a referendum in favour of it.
:roll: Oh for God's sake. What are you suggesting? That Unionists will be dropping bombs on Dublin (using non-existent B-52s from the arsenal of the UVF), and that fighters will be needed to intercept them? Dear God, please cop on.

-to protect our independence during a possible war between NATO and Russia (Ireland holds great strategic value should there be a conflict in the Atlantic)
No it doesn't. It did 70 years ago, but it doesn't now. It can just be overflown. And anyway, Ireland is right in the centre of the NATO area. If the Russians make it to here, they'll have got past Germany, France and Britain, and all the assistance provided by the US. In which case the game is up anyway. If we need to protect our independence in those circumstances we'd need HUNDREDS of jet fighters, at a cost of trillions - I'm not exaggerating. We'd also need a nuclear strike capacity - because if our hundreds of fighters caused the Russians any trouble, they'd just nuke us.

Really, does anyone actually think these things through?
 


Vinegarhill

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
18
Hiding behind the poster, what you say makes sense, I would still favour getting more choppers and an airlift capacity for these so they could be deployed with our UN forces. More, longer range fisheries patrol aircraft would help preserve fish stocks and assist in the fight against drug traffickers. A modern anti aircraft missile system is imperative to provide our ground troops with some kind of cover, again with the Chad mission we had to go cap in hand to get this sort of support.

The reality is that in the even of conventual war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the US would have occupied our airports and ports as the last European landfall available. Knock is perfect for this and their must be more than a grain of truth to the old romours about its funding.
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
hiding behind a poster said:
If you want an airforce capable of protecting our neutrality, then it needs to be capable of withstanding attack from ANYONE. Have we got the hundreds of billions required to have that?
What are you talking about? Relying on a member of NATO to provide air cover in Irish airspace compromises our neutrality. Therefore having a small number of second hand jets [something like we had before] means that we no longer have to depend on anybody.

hiding behind a poster said:
Looking for what?
As I already mentioned, during the EU Presidency the Air Corps mounted air patrols over Dublin. The government obviously felt it was necessary.

hiding behind a poster said:
If an aircraft is hijacked at the eastern boundary of Irish airspace, it can then be ploughing into Leinster House, the Aras, or the GPO in FIVE MINUTES. There is no air force in the world with the capacity to intercept that. So if you wanted to hijack a plane and hit a target in Ireland, that's how you'd do it.
Well I was thinking of more of a conventional hijacking but in any case even if a plane was hijacked with the intent of crashing it in Ireland, we would be depending on the RAF, flying from hundreds of miles away, to intercept the aircraft. If time is of the essence then that is clearly not an ideal situation.

hiding behind a poster said:
No, jet fighters are the last thing we need to patrol our seas. Ships travel at a speed of about 30 knots max. Jet fighters do up to 800 knots. Imagine the amount of back-and-forth flying required for a jet fighter to keep an eye on a ship.
This is a crazy post. You do know that we have a plane already doing this kind of work?

http://www.military.ie/aircorps/fleet/casa/index.htm

A jet can cover an area quickly and help direct our naval service to intercept trawlers and possible drug traffickers. Our seas are unprotected, it's about time something was done about it.

hiding behind a poster said:
Oh for God's sake. What are you suggesting? That Unionists will be dropping bombs on Dublin (using non-existent B-52s from the arsenal of the UVF), and that fighters will be needed to intercept them? Dear God, please cop on
What!?

What happens if some Unionists [former British soldiers etc, lead by some firebrand Paisley type], after being defeated in a referendum, decide that they will not accept the vote and instead try to repartition the North?

In such a scenario the Irish army would be sent in to protect the nationalist population and defeat the break away group. Air support would help ensure that any conflict would be ended quickly.

I'd like to think the Unionists would accept the vote but they've threatened violence for so long now we should be prepared for anything.

hiding behind a poster said:
No it doesn't. It did 70 years ago, but it doesn't now. It can just be overflown. And anyway, Ireland is right in the centre of the NATO area. If the Russians make it to here, they'll have got past Germany, France and Britain, and all the assistance provided by the US. In which case the game is up anyway. If we need to protect our independence in those circumstances we'd need HUNDREDS of jet fighters, at a cost of trillions - I'm not exaggerating. We'd also need a nuclear strike capacity - because if our hundreds of fighters caused the Russians any trouble, they'd just nuke us.
The Atlantic is and will continue to be of vast strategic importance to both Russia and NATO. In any war Russia would seek to control the Atlantic and blockade Europe. With NATO cut in two, Russia could then defeat NATO's European forces. That would put Ireland at the centre of a conflict.



hiding behind a poster said:
Really, does anyone actually think these things through?
It would appear not ;)
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,479
Dasayev said:
hiding behind a poster said:
If you want an airforce capable of protecting our neutrality, then it needs to be capable of withstanding attack from ANYONE. Have we got the hundreds of billions required to have that?
What are you talking about? Relying on a member of NATO to provide air cover in Irish airspace compromises our neutrality. Therefore having a small number of second hand jets [something like we had before] means that we no longer have to depend on anybody.
You're mixing up "compromising our neutrality" with "protecting our neutrality". If we want to protect our neutrality, we have to be able to defend it. To do that, we need a military capability the equivalent to the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. Having a handful of jets doesn't do that.


As I already mentioned, during the EU Presidency the Air Corps mounted air patrols over Dublin. The government obviously felt it was necessary.
Yes they did, but not with jet fighters. They used helicopters and slow-moving surveillance aircraft like the Defender used by GASU. Why? Because they were monitoring activity on the ground. Jet fighters aren't much use for that.


Well I was thinking of more of a conventional hijacking but in any case even if a plane was hijacked with the intent of crashing it in Ireland, we would be depending on the RAF, flying from hundreds of miles away, to intercept the aircraft. If time is of the essence then that is clearly not an ideal situation.
Its not hundreds of miles away, for a start. RAF Valley is only about 60 miles from the Irish coast. But the fact is that it only takes about 15 minutes for an airborne passenger jet to cross Ireland - so if a hijack happens anywhere in Irish airspace, the hijacked plane would either be flown to an airport within Ireland, crashed into a target in Ireland, or flown out of Irish airspace BEFORE any Irish fighters could intercept. Like I said earlier, the best airforces in the world operate on a ten-minute standby. Even if we could manage that (which requires phenomenal investment in aircraft, ground infrastructure, crews and maintenance, we still could do NOTHING about hijacks in Irish airspace. Anyway, intercepts almost never happen with hijacks anywhere in the world. Even in the USA on 9/11, it was only after several previous hijacks that morning that a jet strike capability was mobilised to intercept possible further hijacks.

hiding behind a poster said:
No, jet fighters are the last thing we need to patrol our seas. Ships travel at a speed of about 30 knots max. Jet fighters do up to 800 knots. Imagine the amount of back-and-forth flying required for a jet fighter to keep an eye on a ship.
This is a crazy post. You do know that we have a plane already doing this kind of work?

http://www.military.ie/aircorps/fleet/casa/index.htm[/quote]

Yep, the CASA. Ideal for the work it does, and not a jet, nor a fighter. Its cruising speed is about 240 knots, which is a lot better for the job it does, that the 800kts a jet fighter does. We could use a couple more CASA's, mind.

A jet can cover an area quickly and help direct our naval service to intercept trawlers and possible drug traffickers. Our seas are unprotected, it's about time something was done about it.
Not really. Our coast is unprotected, which is a matter for land defence, not air defence. The CASAs can cover the whole of the Atlantic seaboard in a day, and they do that every day. But spotting ships doesn't mean knowing that they're carrying drugs, and a jet fighter is no better at that than a CASA.


What happens if some Unionists [former British soldiers etc, lead by some firebrand Paisley type], after being defeated in a referendum, decide that they will not accept the vote and instead try to repartition the North?

In such a scenario the Irish army would be sent in to protect the nationalist population and defeat the break away group. Air support would help ensure that any conflict would be ended quickly.

I'd like to think the Unionists would accept the vote but they've threatened violence for so long now we should be prepared for anything.
Possible in theory, but air support in that context would NOT mean jet fighters. It would mean surveillance aircraft, which we already have. Even if the Unionist breakaway group was armed to the teeth, they wouldn't be able to strike anything airborne above about 1500 feet. So our existing choppers, PC-9s, etc would do that job just fine. The Irish government is not going to bomb Irish territory, however much you might like them to.



The Atlantic is and will continue to be of vast strategic importance to both Russia and NATO. In any war Russia would seek to control the Atlantic and blockade Europe. With NATO cut in two, Russia could then defeat NATO's European forces. That would put Ireland at the centre of a conflict.
If that happens, NATO will defend the Atlantic, not us. I don't think you're even considering the amount of military hardware required to be relevant in such a scenario. Anyway, you say the Atlantic is important strategically - it is. But a small island at the edge of it isn't. It'd be just like WW2 - if the Germans had deemed us significant enough to invade, they would have invaded us. Likewise the Brits would have done the same. And had the Germans invaded, the Brits wouldve been over the Border in minutes, and we would have become a battlefield. Just like now, if a war between NATO and Russia were to result in the scenario you're suggesting, we'd just be trampled on - jets or no jets. Don't kid yourself that anyone would respect our neutrality.
 

trekkypj

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
233
Hmm I read somewhere that a Eurofighter costs about $65-70m each.

UPDATE: It's $45-50m depending on features, according to this article...

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Nov/Eurofighter.htm

Not prohibitive for what you are getting.

Maybe order 4-5 for patrol and another 3 for spares?


On the other hand, while we're speculating what we could order instead, how about...

http://www.cnd-fx.com/ftp/junk/render/BSG_Viper_MK2/Viper_MarkII.jpg

I linked it because it is a *huge* image, but a fleet of Viper Mark IIs should safeguard us from invasion... right? :lol:
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,479
trekkypj said:
Hmm I read somewhere that a Eurofighter costs about $65-70m each.

UPDATE: It's $45-50m depending on features, according to this article...

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Nov/Eurofighter.htm

Not prohibitive for what you are getting.

Maybe order 4-5 for patrol and another 3 for spares?

How about maintenance costs? How about crew costs? If you were gonna have sufficient crew to be on a ten minute, H24 standby, you'd be looking at at least 25 crew per aircraft - with rostered crew, rostered maintenance and technical crew, etc.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Fallen_Angel said:
I know that the Irish government has an agreement with the Royal Air Force that the RAF protects Irish airspace. Why? :D

Maybe we need to increase our Military Expenditure and buy Jet Fighters like every other country in Europe. I don't see why we are piggy-backing on UK Air Force.

Apparently we have our own Air Force, but all we have is helicopters :lol:

We also need to increase the size of the Irish navy as we have one of the largest coastlines in Europe.

The reality is the whole of the defence forces need to be reconstructed according to modern needs. There should be more patrol boats for the Naval service as well as a modern coast guard service instead of relying on the RNLI.

The army should be cut to 3,500 elite and fit light infantry air assault/mechanised infantry troops with all the bells and whistles,including more choppers which can move at least two companies at a time(about 14 medium sized troop carrying choppers) and light armour to support 1 battalion, the FCA , which is basically an outdated and poorly trained local milita, cut from 13,000 to 4,000 with more of a garda and civil defence support role. A reserve of 5,000 ex servicemen who train two wekends a yr should be created who could be called on to serve in a national emergency, if needed.

The Irish army should become a 3,500 strong elite air assault brigade, abit like this (below) but without the para role, (a light weight version of this), also with one battalion of mechanised infantry, two companies of elite air defence/mobility troop.

The army should be capable of Spearheading an EU battle group with one battalion, which would be good for national pride, ex British and US NCO instructors who have Irish origins should be offered generous terms of employment, so the army can benefit from their experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCDVa62b ... re=related

What is the point of outdated artillery guns and no air support,is it so we can bombard republicans if they get a bit uppy and take over part of Dublin ?

Modern artillery is digital/gps and relies on satellites, which we don't have.

The defence forces are still based on a 1920s model which expects an internal uprising, in reality modern counter revolutionary and counter subversive warfare is intelligence led.

We are now in the age of the digital battlefield.

As for fighters, unless defence spending is increased massively forget it.

For a start they need very expensive logistic support and cost about 35k an hour to keep in the air. The money would be better spent on ground based, air defence systems.

Perhaps a coast guard or full time ambulance service in the west of Ireland would be money better spent and a fraction of the cost.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
This is what the Irish defence forces needs for air defence,not jets,the Stinger portable shoulder launched SAM system, only 25k a shot. In the Falklands also used against enemy bunkers.The PIRA also had some of these but not the cards that programme them.

A SAM system which can be carried is a much better option for a small force then buying larger air defence systems, which can simply be destroyed by Cruise missiles from 500 miles away.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7 ... re=related
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
hiding behind a poster said:
You're mixing up "compromising our neutrality" with "protecting our neutrality". If we want to protect our neutrality, we have to be able to defend it. To do that, we need a military capability the equivalent to the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. Having a handful of jets doesn't do that.
You are being ridiculous now. Ireland doesn't need an air force the equivalent size of NATO et al in order to protect its neutrality. That's why the Swiss don't have thousands of planes in their air force.

Its not hundreds of miles away, for a start. RAF Valley is only about 60 miles from the Irish coast. But the fact is that it only takes about 15 minutes for an airborne passenger jet to cross Ireland - so if a hijack happens anywhere in Irish airspace, the hijacked plane would either be flown to an airport within Ireland, crashed into a target in Ireland, or flown out of Irish airspace BEFORE any Irish fighters could intercept. Like I said earlier, the best airforces in the world operate on a ten-minute standby. Even if we could manage that (which requires phenomenal investment in aircraft, ground infrastructure, crews and maintenance, we still could do NOTHING about hijacks in Irish airspace. Anyway, intercepts almost never happen with hijacks anywhere in the world. Even in the USA on 9/11, it was only after several previous hijacks that morning that a jet strike capability was mobilised to intercept possible further hijacks.
RAF Valley is unlikely to be able to deal with any situation. Plus what happens if an aircraft is hijacked over the Atlantic heading towards Ireland. We are then relying on an RAF aircraft flying from either Lincolnshire or Fife, instead of having our own based at Shannon.

Yep, the CASA. Ideal for the work it does, and not a jet, nor a fighter. Its cruising speed is about 240 knots, which is a lot better for the job it does, that the 800kts a jet fighter does. We could use a couple more CASA's, mind.
Careful now, you'll bankrupt the country with talk like that. However jets have been used in the maritime reconnaissance role;

SAAB Maritime reconnaissance Jet

hiding behind a poster said:
Possible in theory, but air support in that context would NOT mean jet fighters. It would mean surveillance aircraft, which we already have. Even if the Unionist breakaway group was armed to the teeth, they wouldn't be able to strike anything airborne above about 1500 feet. So our existing choppers, PC-9s, etc would do that job just fine.
What if Irish troops needed immediate air support? A jet would be able to assist them in little or no time and would be able to carry more bombs than the Pilatus trainer.

hiding behind a poster said:
The Irish government is not going to bomb Irish territory, however much you might like them to.
What an odd remark to make.

hiding behind a poster said:
If that happens, NATO will defend the Atlantic, not us. I don't think you're even considering the amount of military hardware required to be relevant in such a scenario. Anyway, you say the Atlantic is important strategically - it is. But a small island at the edge of it isn't. It'd be just like WW2 - if the Germans had deemed us significant enough to invade, they would have invaded us. Likewise the Brits would have done the same. And had the Germans invaded, the Brits wouldve been over the Border in minutes, and we would have become a battlefield. Just like now, if a war between NATO and Russia were to result in the scenario you're suggesting, we'd just be trampled on - jets or no jets. Don't kid yourself that anyone would respect our neutrality.
The Atlantic is strategically important but not the land right next to it?!

How could the Germans have invaded us in WWII? Paratroopers wouldn't of had a hope without support from the sea.

Russia and NATO will not respect our neutrality if the country is defenceless.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
The country is defenceless and NATO has always respected the republics neutality. NATO views the republic as an air corridor to its western flank.

Obviously Britain/NATO would defend the republic from aggression for stategic reasons. This is on record, Britsih NATO commanders are also on record as saying Northern Ireland is of strategic importance in terms of the western Atlantic air corridor.

In regard to jets, a squadron of jet fighters would make little difference in terms of the republics ability to defend itself from lets say previously a Soviet invasion.

Switzerland spends about 10x what the republic does on defence, it is also surrounded by mountains, and only accessible via air or mountain passes, which is the key difference. Infact since WWII all passes and tunnels into Switzeland are mined by the Swiss army and can be blown at short notice.

Swiss air force fighters would be used to target heavy armour on mountain passes.

The defence of the repubic is far more difficult because its an island.
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
Kalif said:
The country is defenceless and NATO has always respected the republics neutality. NATO views the republic as an air corridor to its western flank.

Obviously Britain/NATO would defend the republic from aggression for stategic reasons. This is on record, Britsih NATO commanders are also on record as saying Northern Ireland is of strategic importance in terms of the western Atlantic air corridor.

In regard to jets, a squadron of jet fighters would make little difference in terms of the republics ability to defend itself from lets say previously a Soviet invasion.

Switzerland spends about 10x what the republic does on defence, it is also surrounded by mountains, and only accessible via air or mountain passes, which is the key difference. Infact since WWII all passes and tunnels into Switzeland are mined by the Swiss army and can be blown at short notice.

Swiss air force fighters would be used to target heavy armour on mountain passes.

The defence of the repubic is far more difficult because its an island.
At least the Swiss don't need an Navy,
 

fergalr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
354
Actually, I believe their navy is larger than ours.
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
Kalif said:
The country is defenceless and NATO has always respected the republics neutality. NATO views the republic as an air corridor to its western flank.

Obviously Britain/NATO would defend the republic from aggression for stategic reasons. This is on record, Britsih NATO commanders are also on record as saying Northern Ireland is of strategic importance in terms of the western Atlantic air corridor.

In regard to jets, a squadron of jet fighters would make little difference in terms of the republics ability to defend itself from lets say previously a Soviet invasion.

Switzerland spends about 10x what the republic does on defence, it is also surrounded by mountains, and only accessible via air or mountain passes, which is the key difference. Infact since WWII all passes and tunnels into Switzeland are mined by the Swiss army and can be blown at short notice.

Swiss air force fighters would be used to target heavy armour on mountain passes.

The defence of the repubic is far more difficult because its an island.
It is best for Ireland to stay out of any potential future conflict between Russia and NATO. We don't want to have to rely on other nations strategic interests for our protection. Jets, with various roles including anti-ship, would be our first line of defence against any nation thinking about interfering in Ireland. This, combined with a well equiped army would help persuade Russia and NATO that, although they may prevail over Ireland, it would come at a great cost to themselves.

I don't follow you with regard to our island status. To be surrounded by water is an excellent natural defence.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Obviously a country only accessible by air or mountain passes is easier to defend then one with a large coast line.

To bring the defence forces up to Swiss levels would mean increasing the defence budget x 10, the republic spends around 600 million euro on defence, Switzeland around 6 billion, it also has conscription, which keeps the wage bill down.

The backbone of the Swiss air force are 33 F-18s, soon to be replaced by eurofighters, and around 100 outdated f-5s.

I cant see this going down well in a country which has no dedicated air ambulances or adequate naval/coast guard service.
 

Vinegarhill

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
18
Talk of reducing the army to 3500 men is I’m afraid misguided, as I believe you need approximately 4 troops in reserve to every one you deploy. This is to cover support and logistics, illness, home duties, leave etc. To reduce the army to such a small force would require the employment of a huge number of contractors in support roles, this is the Dick Chaney model and I’m not convinced its been hugely sucessful
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Vinegarhill said:
Talk of reducing the army to 3500 men is I’m afraid misguided, as I believe you need approximately 4 troops in reserve to every one you deploy. This is to cover support and logistics, illness, home duties, leave etc. To reduce the army to such a small force would require the employment of a huge number of contractors in support roles, this is the Dick Chaney model and I’m not convinced its been hugely sucessful

A small well equipped infantry air assault/mechanised infantry role is a much better option then having a 10,000 strong army with virtually no choppers, mostly outdated light armour and not enough equipment to properly field two batallions and even then not in an NBC theatre because most of the budget goes on wages and pensions. Armed security guards can be trained to guard the banks and prisons. Its a total waste of resources. There is no reason for the FCA to be 12,OOO strong, incase of a national emergency, ex servicemen should train two weekends per year and be called up incase of such an unlikely event.

The only way forward without spending more money is leaner and better equipped with well trained reservists filling the gaps as they do in Britain and the US.

The problem is the defence forces is seen as a job for life, hence the conservative thinking in protecting positions.

The Chaney positin is very different, its about cutting heavy armour (tanks), and forces being more geared to a light air assault role.

The republic does not have heavy armour, all I am suggesting is making the army leaner and better equipped and cutting the wage bill so we can have a air defence capability etc and be more efficient and able to deploy.
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,573
Of course we should have jet fighter capability. We need to protect our economic interests such as our Power stations and chemical industries etc. Regular patrolling by jet fighters over our landmass would act as a deterrent to those who would contemplate crashing a hijack jet into one of these facilities. Can you imagine if we lost Moneypoint because at present we can't defend it? Can you imagine what would happen if they crashed into one of the major chemical plants in Cork or what the economic losses would be if the Dell plant in Limerick were lost.

Recently the Chief of Staff (maybe not the present one) stated we do not need fighters, I was astounded by his remarks but since he is coming from an army background he was probably trying to ensure adequate budgets for that branch of the service into the future.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Lets say a plane taking off from Dublin air port was hijacked taking off, fighters could not be deployed in enough him to stop it crashing on Dublin or anywhere else in the republic....thats the reality.

The chief of staff is correct, the defence forces need more choppers and modern light armour, the naval service larger and more ships................not fighters, w orhich would most likely never see action.
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,573
Kalif said:
Lets say a plane taking off from Dublin air port was hijacked taking off, fighters could not be deployed in enough him to stop it crashing on Dublin or anywhere else in the republic....thats the reality.

The chief of staff is correct, the defence forces need more choppers and modern light armour, the naval service larger and more ships................not fighters, w orhich would most likely never see action.
Would you not agree that regular patrols by jet fighters would act as a deterrent?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom