Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-10 Chopping Block...KC-46 Right Choice?  
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 469 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

With the KC-10 now possibly on the chopping block, was KC-46 still the right choice? Essentially as I see it the KC-46 could be the replacement for both KC-10 and KC-135, if in fact the KC-10 is shown the graveyard. Would the KC-45 (A330 MRTT) would have been a better choice to replace both tankers? Will the Air Force put out another bid for a KC-10 replacement ( which is I think is high unlikely)?

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

B had a 777 proposal for the KC-10 replecement iirc. Probably based on the 77L?

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The KC 46 is adaptable to cover everything the KC-10 did.. the first batch may not, but subsequent batches will. Adding another model (KC-77) into the mix has real questionable value.

User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1441 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Once enough KC-46's become operational, is there a market for the USAF KC-10's ? Would it still be a viable aircraft?

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):
With the KC-10 now possibly on the chopping block, was KC-46 still the right choice?

Yes. The bulk of the USAF tanker and cargo fleet is the KC-135 and the KC-46 is a better fit for that role than the KC-45 (A330 MRTT) was.


Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):
Will the Air Force put out another bid for a KC-10 replacement ( which is I think is high unlikely)?

I do not believe so. The additional capacity the KC-46 offers over the KC-135 should cover the retirement of the KC-10 fleet.



Quoting sweair (Reply 1):
B had a 777 proposal for the KC-10 replecement iirc. Probably based on the 77L?

It was based on the 777F, but was really almost a gag meant to tell the USAF that if "bigger was better", than why "settle" for an A330 when you could have a 777.  


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 2):

The KC 46 is adaptable to cover everything the KC-10 did.. the first batch may not, but subsequent batches will. Adding another model (KC-77) into the mix has real questionable value.

But to be honest there can be a business case made. (Using the 777F as basis) Correct me if I am wrong on any if these points.

- A KC-777 would be able to provide same lift as up three C-130's
- The developmental cost would be minimal as most the technology would come from the KC-46
-The longer range it would provide would negate the need to be refueled in flight, but can be if needed
-KC-777 could draw from the KC-46 pilot pool and pilots could operate both no sweat
-Accelerated retirement of older airlift aircraft
- Would be able to hold 37 463L pallets compared to 18 (C-17), 19 (KC-46), 5 (C-130J), 27( KC10)

Thats what I got


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6032 times:

The KC-10 was scheduled to be replaced in the KC-Y program, which I am not sure will happen now as currently planned. A KC-777F would be a good choice, and if defense budgets can be fixed in the next few years, Boeing could offer the KC-777F at a bargain price to help keep the B-777 line going until the B-777X is in full production. A fleet of about 96 KC-777Fs would fill 12 squadrons, 4 on the east coast, 4 on the west coast, and 4 throughout the middle of the country, including the training squadron.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):

But to be honest there can be a business case made.

The whole point of retiring the KC-10s would be to save money by getting rid of an entire type. In this budget climate I cannot see a single reason the retirement of the KC-10s would enable a business case for any tanker aircraft other than the KC-46.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):

- A KC-777 would be able to provide same lift as up three C-130's

And yet not land on a short rough field, the whole point of a C-130.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
-Accelerated retirement of older airlift aircraft

Will happen anyway when required, aircraft don't need to be replaced one for one.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
- Would be able to hold 37 463L pallets compared to 18 (C-17), 19 (KC-46), 5 (C-130J), 27( KC10)

If transporting pallets are what you are worried about it is far cheaper to lease the assets from the civilian sector when you need them. After all, if a major conflict occurs there would be plenty of slack in the civilian freight sector.

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 3):
is there a market for the USAF KC-10's

The Dutch seem to like the tanker and transport capabilities of their two KC-10s so there may be a few nations who could operate a used KC-10 effectively, such as Israel. I would also expect Omega to pick up 4 to 6 and expand their contract AAR operation.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
Thats what I got

And how many would you propose to be sitting around with flight /maintenance crews because the usage requirements didn't need either the range or capacity?

Look at the average yearly utilization of today's fleet, subtract training flights and what's left -- - only K-46 capacity needs.


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5921 times:

Forgive me because I think I missed something along the way. I thought the KC-46 was meant to replace the KC-135s, with the KC-10 remaining in the fleet. Is the USAF going to keep the 135 in favor of replacing the -10 with the -46 or are they just looking to axe it completely and go with a single tanker platform?


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5905 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The KC-46 replaces the KC-135 primarily and allows the surplus of the aging KC-10s as part of the budget crunch.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5799 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 9):
Is the USAF going to keep the 135 in favor of replacing the -10 with the -46 or are they just looking to axe it completely and go with a single tanker platform?

Without knowing a solitary thing: the AF brass will do whatever politics tells them is stylish to do.

They couldn't spec KC-X competition to favor the KC-30 because that would not be stylish. Now, suddenly they will retire the KC-10 and KC-135, needing expensive KC-45s which were not meant to replace KC-10. Maybe the 45 will do fine as a replacement except when huge offloads are needed. For all I know, that's incredibly rare.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
Now, suddenly they will retire the KC-10 and KC-135, needing expensive KC-45s which were not meant to replace KC-10.

I don't see the USAF revisiting the KC-45. They don't have the money right now for any new tanker except the KC-46.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
, Boeing could offer the KC-777F at a bargain price to help keep the B-777 line going until the B-777X is in full production.

Not necessarily true as there may be enough demand for commercial 777F to serve that purpose. Once the 777X production line takes over, you'll likely see a 777-8F.

Note that the 777X will have much different wing and fuselage than the current 777. Thus the benefit of keeping the existing 777 line open would only be beneficial short term but may be a liability long term when the 777 commercial lines shuts down.

Still it may be a moot point as any KC-X program may not materialize in time . . . timing will have to be impeccable.

Boeing is already having to figure out what to do with the P-8A line going forward once the MAX is at full speed. The cost savings of having a common 737 frame would not be as significant as was predicted at the beginning of the program.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5392 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
And yet not land on a short rough field, the whole point of a C-130.

To replace in strictly airlift missions base to base.. My point was where C-130 is being used in an airlift capability from base to base (to moving supplies and other palletable items) the KC-777 could easily free up three C-130's to do other missions such as moving vehicles. When it comes to airdrop or landing on improvised strips the C-130 and C-17s will always have that job.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
My point was where C-130 is being used in an airlift capability from base to base

In peace time the C-130 is used that way only because the USAF has it.

When conflicts occur, as has been the case for the last 10+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq, the C-130 is used primarily for short range cargo runs with a load of pallets or people from one airfield to the next. The advantage a C-130 has is it requires little to no airfield infrastructure and can land on just about any airfield irrespective of the surface. The larger cargo runs are operated by C-17s, again custom aircraft that can operate with little airfield infrastructure and land on a large number of runway surfaces.

If we look at Afghanistan as an example, NATO uses large military and civilian transport aircraft to fly supplies into the large bases, such as Kabul, Kandahar and Bagram, and then distributes this amongst the smaller bases. C-17s, C-5s, AN-124s, IL-76s etc are used for the large base runs and then the C-130s, C-17s and other smaller rough field capable aircraft land or airdrop those supplies around the respective smaller bases. The US is not using KC-135s, or KC-10s, to transport anything to the larger bases and certainly not into the smaller ones. It is cheaper to use the specialized freighter aircraft, both military and commercial, to do the large base runs.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
C-130's to do other missions such as moving vehicles

The C-130 is a terrible vehicle mover, anything a decent size or weight for the battlefield is too big and heavy for a C-130.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

KC-46 in some respects CAN'T replace the KC-10. However, the KC-10's ability to loft massive payloads for short distances isn't as important as it once was. Over longer ranged/durations the lower fuel burn does leave the KC-46 in a good place to replace the KC-10.

While the USAF expressed the idea that the KC-Y bid would be for a larger plane than KC-X, political reality means that there is very little chance it will be anything other than KC-46 bought for quite some time. A bid process for anything else is just not going to happen. Even if they wanted a KC-777X, KC-748, or a airbus frame of some stripe.... Its simply infinitely easier to get 2x the number of smaller KC-46 frames.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 13):
Not necessarily true as there may be enough demand for commercial 777F to serve that purpose. Once the 777X production line takes over, you'll likely see a 777-8F.

Probably not for a solid decade or so.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 13):
Boeing is already having to figure out what to do with the P-8A line going forward once the MAX is at full speed. The cost savings of having a common 737 frame would not be as significant as was predicted at the beginning of the program.

They were fools for selling off all the land at the Renton site. Short term gain, long term pain...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 16):
However, the KC-10's ability to loft massive payloads for short distances isn't as important as it once was. Over longer ranged/durations the lower fuel burn does leave the KC-46 in a good place to replace the KC-10.

I was reading wiki's page on KC-10 which says:

Quote:

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Air Force commenced Operation Nickel Grass to supply Israel with weapons and supplies. The operation demonstrated the necessity for adequate air-refueling capabilities; denied landing rights in Europe, C-5 Galaxies were forced to carry a fraction of their maximum payload on direct flights from the continental United States to Israel.[3][4] To address this shortfall in mobility, in 1975, under the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft Program, four aircraft were evaluated: the C-5 itself, the Boeing 747, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and the Lockheed L-1011.[5] The only serious contenders were Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. On 19 December 1977, McDonnell Douglas's DC-10 was chosen. The primary reason of this choice was the KC-10's ability to operate from shorter runways.

So it seems the requirement was for a tanker that could escort C-5s from the US to the Middle East region with no use of European/African airfields, something the KC-135s could not do. I'd imagine the KC-46 could do this, based on what we know about the 763ER capabilities, but it would not do it with the kind of margins that the KC-10 has.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 16):
While the USAF expressed the idea that the KC-Y bid would be for a larger plane than KC-X, political reality means that there is very little chance it will be anything other than KC-46 bought for quite some time. A bid process for anything else is just not going to happen. Even if they wanted a KC-777X, KC-748, or a airbus frame of some stripe.... Its simply infinitely easier to get 2x the number of smaller KC-46 frames.

I agree. Perhaps some had this same idea when they were pushing for KC-45, but that's not what the spec was for, so the bid was tossed out and the new bid really favored a pure KC-135 replacement rather than something that could cover for both.

I suppose in retrospect I would have been more in favor of the KC-45 if the goal was to replace both a/c. It would have been cool to have an A330 plant in Mobile.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2607 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Air Force commenced Operation Nickel Grass to supply Israel with weapons and supplies. The operation demonstrated the necessity for adequate air-refueling capabilities; denied landing rights in Europe

Denied landing rights in Europe? Honestly, I didn't know this. Which countries denied landing rights?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 20):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Air Force commenced Operation Nickel Grass to supply Israel with weapons and supplies. The operation demonstrated the necessity for adequate air-refueling capabilities; denied landing rights in Europe

Denied landing rights in Europe? Honestly, I didn't know this. Which countries denied landing rights?

France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal (although the use of Lajas AB, Azores was allowed). The UK and Germany allowed landings of the USAF C-5s and KC-135s. In 1973 the C-141 was not air refuelable yet.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 13):
Boeing is already having to figure out what to do with the P-8A line going forward once the MAX is at full speed.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
They were fools for selling off all the land at the Renton site. Short term gain, long term pain...

Boeing did want to use Long Beach for military 737 programs (as well as the 737-700C), however IAM 751 effectively killed that plan.

That being said, Boeing is increasing the number of airframe assembly stations by a third as well as doubling the number of wing assembly stations. And as I understand it, the P-8 line is capable of building both commercial and military versions (though it will require ITAR-cleared personnel to work on the commercial frames) so Boeing might be able to send 737 MAX airframes down that line, as well.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4824 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Boeing might be able to send 737 MAX airframes down that line, as well.

The MAX and the NG is close enough in design to keep the economy of scale in the FA. But you've lost the buying power of all those NG engines. Fly-away cost of each P-8 will go up. Unless of course if GE can continue to churn out the older engines for the replacement market   

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I seem to recall Boeing was going to keep the NG in production, not just for military derivatives, but for customers with existing fleets that wanted replacements and expansion capabilities without introducing a new model.. I doubt that the engine manufacturer will curtail production with military and spares requirements.

User currently offlineStoobie From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4508 times:

So can 179 KC-46's match the production and availability of 400+ KC-135's?

User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2245 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (6 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting Stoobie (Reply 23):
So can 179 KC-46's match the production and availability of 400+ KC-135's?

No, they were never intended to do that. The first order of KC-46s were to replace the E-models that have been parked. It has always been in the plan to add to that number of KC-46s as the R-models get older and start to need replacement.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
25 kanban : Also future KC-46's that are destined for special missions will be built with that in mind, not modified later.
26 N14AZ : Thank you very much for your explanations. I became curious and read the Wikipedia webpages about Operation Nickel Grass. In the section "effects" th
27 KC135TopBoom : Yes, a little bit exaggerated. The C-5B program was a new and separate program (started in 1982) that incorporated all of the mods to date of the C-5
28 JohnM : I know this is off topic, but the H mod ( re wing program) was a wing box replacement, not just skin. A very major TCTO that took many years. ALDCS h
29 Revelation : I do appreciate all the comments but am also interested in focusing on the thread starter: is the KC-46 going to be an adequate fill-in should the KC-
30 KC135TopBoom : Correct, H Mod also replaced a lot of wring etc. in the wing. The modified airplanes looked strange during refueling, the airplanes had the original
31 Revelation : Indeed, but as above, no one is expecting them to be replaced by anything any time soon, so we really should consider the post KC-10 world and ask if
32 columba : Would be a sad to see the KC 10 leave the fleet. The Dc 10 is one of the best looking aircraft ever build too sad its time is over.
33 buckeyetech : In my opinion the 767 & A330 were way too much airplane for the tanker role. The Air Force 10 years ago seemed to have an unlimited budget, and C
34 Post contains links Revelation : Doubtful. One would like something with solid Trans Pacific range with full load, and that just isn't the 737. You need this for doing things like 'f
35 Stitch : If they were replacing the KC-135 fleet on a 1:1 basis, that would be very true, however the KC-46 fleet, even if built out to the level the USAF des
36 Revelation : Thanks for the numbers, Stitch! For comparison, Wiki sez the KC-46 capabilities are: Fuel Capacity: 212,299 lb (96,297 kg) Maximum Transfer Fuel Load
37 par13del : The pivot to the Pacific means that fighter drags require a tanker with greater range and offload capacity than the KC-135, something which the KC-10
38 KC135TopBoom : No, not enough fuel carrying capability. Actually for USAF weight and balance, each crewmember's weight includes his/her extra baggage weight. The pr
39 Post contains links and images buckeyetech : Too bad the 757 still isn't in production, it might have well had the fuel capacity that the 737 didn't at the time the KC-X program started. One of m
40 Max Q : It's a good Aircraft but it just doesn't carry enough fuel to be a tanker, basically 75000 pounds is full tanks. Enough to give it a very good range
41 Post contains links PC12Fan : Just armchair quarter backing here, and a couple references have been made, but why not consider the 748F as a super tanker platform? True the 777X wo
42 kanban : two concerns that I can think of.. the plane is too long for a tail boom to stay clear of ground contact on take off, and two fuel carrying quantity
43 Stitch : That's a fair bit of overkill in both cargo and tanker capability, IMO. As KC135TopBoom noted, the issue is the endurance of the fighter crews. So th
44 PC12Fan : Thanks for the replies guys. I appreciate your educational response instead of the sometimes delivered - "think about it dumbass" input. That aside,
45 XT6Wagon : 767 is as close to a 707 replacement as you can get in terms of payload lift. 737's are much smaller planes even if the passenger numbers look close
46 Revelation : It does seem the KC-46 will be a very close KC-135 replacement, which again begs the question what will happen when the KC-10s are retired?
47 Stitch : If you need to move a large amount of palletized cargo, but it would be cheaper for the USAF to source that via charter on the commercial freighter m
48 Post contains links cargotanker : Nothing. The premise of this thread "KC-10 Chopping Block" is in reference to the USAF floating a plan to divest itself of its entire fleet of KC-10s
49 Revelation : Based on that, then, we can shut down the KC-10 fleet tomorrow... My real question is if there are missions to be performed that only the KC-10 can p
50 BigJKU : There are of course missions only the KC-10 can do in the sense that there are missions the KC-10 is better at than the KC-135 is or the KC-46 will b
51 kanban : That leads to the question: Are there sufficient missions on a routine basis to justify the fleet, crewing and maintenance? At one time it wa a sprin
52 infiniti329 : What if boeing tailors the Kc-777 to Kc-46 in which their share a great deal of commonality? For the pilots, boom operator and maintainers? That coul
53 Flighty : There is really no commonality there. The KC-46 will be a 767 with a lot of custom systems. 777 shares no pilot rating, probably a few fasteners, a f
54 cargotanker : Understood, I was replying that no new procurement will take place to replace the KC-10 if it is divested. Once the KC-46 comes online, I do not thin
55 BigJKU : This is true precisely because of what you cited here... The marginal cost of having even a few dozen more KC-46's in the fleet is far less than the
56 Revelation : Agree in general. Seems that the KC-46 will have the 787 display tech and one can think it will find its way onto 777X but that's not very significan
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-10 Chopping Block...KC-46 Right Choice?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Plane Is Likely To Replace The KC-10? posted Sun Jun 10 2012 08:02:02 by 747400sp
KC-10 Max Range? posted Wed May 25 2011 12:58:11 by tsugambler
Insane KC-10 Take-off posted Fri Mar 4 2011 11:58:09 by dtw9
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
KC-10 At AVP posted Mon Apr 6 2009 19:36:51 by Devil505x
KC-10 Extenders posted Sat Mar 28 2009 11:23:51 by C5LOAD
More Insight On 787-10/Possible KC-777? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 15:17:58 by USAF336TFS
Constellation Program On The Chopping Block? posted Wed Jan 27 2010 23:57:35 by SEAchaz
KC-46 Tanker Production Begins In Wichita posted Wed May 22 2013 13:07:46 by KarelXWB
First Piece Of KC-46 Begins Production posted Thu Oct 18 2012 12:03:38 by Revelation

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format