F-32 vs F-35

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...



I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands but
the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance fighter
not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in India.
The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
country with aspirations.



Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote



I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands
but
the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance
fighter
not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in
India.
The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
country with aspirations.



Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought all
tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...


Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought
all
tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.


Not really, they licensed the design but the Gnat remained in production
by Hawker (who bought out Folland) until 1965 while the Indians
produced their first aircraft in 1962.

The Ajeet was an improved version developed in India that had
4 pylons instead of 2 , improved avionics, more fuel capacity, a
slab tail and improved landing gear. It entered production in 1976.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote

Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought
all
tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.


Not really, they licensed the design but the Gnat remained in production
by Hawker (who bought out Folland) until 1965 while the Indians
produced their first aircraft in 1962.

The Ajeet was an improved version developed in India that had
4 pylons instead of 2 , improved avionics, more fuel capacity, a
slab tail and improved landing gear. It entered production in 1976.

Thanks for the correction.

Paul F Austin wrote:
I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its
hands but the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high
performance fighter not adopted by the originating country that was
very successful in India. The Folland Gnat was designed with much
the same philosphy of simplicity that Ed Heineman used on the A-4,
making it attractive for a third world country with aspirations.

I knew there was at least one I was missing. The Gnat is of course a
product of its era, when you really could design a fighter for a reasonable
sum of money and not have to worry too much about system integration or
optimization. Like the F-5, it also had the great benefit of not trying to
compete head-to-head with any type that was actually adopted by the source
country (in significant numbers, anyway).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in
the
strategic
development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition
winner
was
announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole
concept
rather
than push forward with it.

I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into
their
UCAV
conceptual vehicle.

No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform
itself
was
pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.

Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.

It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
technological
areas.

Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.

That is not what I said and thus you're question is misleading.

Then it is by definition "inferior". Where is this wonderful "impressive
technological" performance you keep ranting about? Its screwed up wing? Its
lack of sufficient tail area? Its inadequate power plant or putrid STOVL
system? Where is this vaunted performance?

snip




The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing
hasn't
proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
this may be.

LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit
ogf
the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the
latter
is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure
the
major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!

Once again you're equating similar with identical.

No, once again I am equating a poorly designed and performing X-32 with
numerous obvious and serious design and performance shortfalls with
requiring comparitively MORE subsequent R&D funding to try and turn it into
a LESS capable fighter than the X-35-to-F-35 progression.




That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.

As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
you'd
expect that.

And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the
fifteen
hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the
X-32
development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding
that
the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just
went
way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if
you
think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
F-35.

I did not think you'd be able to fight that one.

snip


Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from
being
an
F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.

I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should
be
scrapped.

Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to
dump
*more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than
it
would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and
just
buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?

No, I'm saying it's cheaper to pick up the development of an existing
design
than start fresh. I've already said that not everyone will want an F-35.

You have ignored the fact that (a) R&D to get a clunky X-32 into the shape
needed to be a viable fighter aircraft is going to be more than it takes to
get the much-closer-to-final-product X-35 to the F-35 stage, and (b) for
that additional monetary committment, you end up with an aircraft that is
less capable than the F-35. How many nations are going to say, "Yeah, let's
commit a few billion dollars to R&D, and then buy the resulting F-32 at X
million dollars per copy, as opposed to just paying X million dollars per
copy for the MORE capable F-35, and let's start our own logisitics and
service support structure for our F-32's to boot!"? Not many, IMO.

snip


Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the
same
as
the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of
the
F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
inferior.

Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes!

Inferior to one set of requirements doesn't imply inferior to all others.
Compromise, adaption....

Nope. Name an area where your F-32 would NOT be an inferior performer to the
F-35. Any area, any mission.


What you
are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective*
based
upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based
upon
final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35,

Forget the damn JSF requirements and the F-35, it's decided and over. That
specific market is gone so, stop locking yourself into a narrow view of
"it
must be a JSF/F-35 equal".

Well gee, it appears MOST rational nations prefer to spend their money on
the best performance they can afford. Since we (myself and a slew of other
posters) have repeatedly shown that you are extremely unlikely to bring any
F-32 online at any significant savings per unit copy compared to the F-35,
then you are left with being able to sell your notional F-32's only to
irrational governments that might want to plunk down the same money for less
performance, so where does that leave your argument standing?


What about the rest of the world and the possibility that the X-32 could
be
adapted to meet a different but not wildly dis-similar set of
requirements.
Sure, it's a challenging proposition but fare more practical than starting
with a blank piece of paper because, beyond that, no other option exists
for
a similar role.

If they don't need JSF level performance they would be much better off
buying later block F-16's, F-18E/F, Gripen, Mirage 2000, etc. Which don't
require the oodles of R&D committment that your F-32 does. You seem to be
advocating development of an F-32 that offers F-16-like performance, but at
greater than F-16 cost--bad strategy, IMO.


and that just is not
gonna happen. Period.

That might be the case. It's a matter of exploring possibilities here,
hence
asking the questions.

As others have pointed out, this question is just a non-starter from the
get-go. It is a BAD idea.




and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
into making *that* a reality.

I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
with
a
100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
development not be wasted and that it could be developed into
something
viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it.
The
X32
has the potentional to fill that market.

But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!

That's you're assumption and you're welcome to it. We know that if the
X-32
had been selected it would have needed redesign that the X-35 didn't.
Beyond
that we could assume that either aircraft would probably consume a similar
amount of SDD funding to meet the final production spec.

I was postulating that with a pre-existing design, not yet locked in
concrete, and a new set of non-JSF specific requirements it would be far
easier/cheaper to get an aircraft into production than start afresh.

You've made some very good comments about development costs, unit prices,
finding customers, funding etc. They are obviously serious issues and
issues
worth considering.



Not a good way of doing business, even at the
governmental level.


There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
competition
wouldn't have taken place.

No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
competitor for further development.

So what happens with the X-32 design? Plenty of good research and design
there that could be picked up by someone, albeit someone(s) with lots of
money.

Not that much good design, from what I have read. Boeing will take what good
parts there are and try to use them in their UCAV proposal; beyond that,
they are going to take that overweight pony that is the X-32 out into the
desert and put it out of its misery, more than likely.



Which was decided by the government and their end users who had
specific
requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
those
of
everyone else but, they may come close.

The fact that two companies competed to
the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the
market

Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has
such
a
limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
able
to sell it elsewhere.

What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"?

No, please reread. Obviously market size (particularly units forecast) did
play a part in the JSF competition.

But NOT in determining how the procurement would be played out in terms of
the issue of whether to have a competitive fly-off or to just select the
best final proposal for a one-off flying demo. OK?


Or the US
committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"?

You stated previously "The fact that two companies competed to the point
that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market". Now you're
suggesting market size was significant in attracting bidders....

They competed to that point because the USG funded that level of
competition. The USG could just as easily have said it was going to only
fund one flying prototype from among the best final proposals--it has done
so in the past.


The fact is that we
COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has
enjoyed
some significant export success in spite of it never having been
involved
in
a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose
to
have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual
vehicles--that
decision was not a product of the market, however.

It was a product of a specific market segment, the USG and various
partners
waving the 4000 unit "carrot" in front of the competitors.

Size of market had precious little to do with it.


The decision to fund a fly-off was expensive but justified from the
viewpoint that the requirements could not be met with any existing or
modified design. It had to be new, to mitigate the risk of an all new
aircraft it was necessary and practical to justify funding a fly-off.

Bingo! Now you have it! The above was the justification for going to the
point of a competitive fly-off--nothing to do with the export market size.


snip


Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
them?
If
you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and
bow
out
of the competition.

The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding.

Yes but I suspect that both competitors also spent some of their own money
in the hope of edging out the competitor.

Yep, they did. And Boeing made some bad choices with how to pursue it using
those funds, resulting in a poorly performing prototype. You recall there
was not much whining from the Boeing camp when the X-35 was announced as
winner--the Boeing folks knew they had been outperformed.


And Boeing did not
realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after
it
entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their
teeth
and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they
might
get the contract

Admittedly not the wisest choice.

At that point they did not have much choice--the lion's share of the
expenses had already been absorbed, as had their share of the USG funding,
so there was nothing to lose by pushing through to the bitter end.


(the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD
might
be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous
political
consideration in their favor).

Yes, there were the political aspects as well as the logic that putting
all
the eggs into the one basket (or bird in this case) was not necessarily
the
wisest thing to do.

On the contrary--using the X-35 as the basis for all of the variants to be
developed offers significant future savings in terms of logisitics and unit
costs. If by the "one basket" bit you mean putting both the ATF and JSF
projects in the same corporate hands, it again is not such a bad thing. LMCO
holding the JSF with its admittedly better performing F-35 means that LMCO
does not squeal quite as loudly when the DoD (very possibly) rams home its
plans to reduce the purchase quantity of the much more expensive F/A-22.


You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then
there
is
potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may
be
limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
Hence,
an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
capabl
e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be
attractive
in
some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
not
required by most customers - VTOL).

I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was
taken
to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
great.

A. The requirements were for a platform to have capabilities that no
existing aircraft has.
B. The requirments were predicated on a few primary partners with
differing
and sometimes unique goals.
C. Some of the broader capabilities are desirable to a wider audience than
the current JSF partners.
D. Therefore there is a market for more than the proposed JSF/F-35
production.
E. Boeing having lost the JSF market may find it viable to chase that
broader, albeit smaller, non-JSF partner market.
F. Boeing would be free of the JSF requirements which may give scope for
differing approaches.
G. Some of the lesser JSF partners may also find the Boeing alternative
attractive.
H. The broad market now has two options, even if they aren't identical in
capabilities.

See earlier arguments why the F-32 can't compete in that environment due to
both cost and existing platforms that already fill that niche.


That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
higher priced final product than the F-35.

I accept that could be the case.

It would be. Leaving you with an aircraft in the F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen
capability range, at the cost of the F-35, or at least very near to it. That
just is not marketable.





Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
similar
and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds
to
see
the
X32 developed into something.

OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations
who
(a)
are on our good guys list,

I suggested a few but there would be others.

What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up
the
fee for joining the F-35 program,


Stop spreading lies.
Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.




Yet are now enquiring about them, which suggests they can afford them OR
will be able to get concessions somehow.

Sure they will be able to afford buying the aircraft, using US aid money
just as they currently do for all of their US aircraft purchases. But they
could NOT pony up the R&D requirement for your F-32--witness their immediate
collapse of the Lavi program the instant the USG funding was pulled.


and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
the total R&D for the F-32 would be.

Doesn't tie you to buying it either. You may be able to afford a
partnership
but not buy, alternatively you might be able to afford them but don't see
the point in funding the development.

That last point is obviously a serious one if Boeing were to develop the
X-32

Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
the potential of alienating other potential members who would be
unwilling
to participate with them on an equal basis.

Hence they don't become partners and then bring political pressure to bear
later on.

You mentioned Taiwan,

Its reported that they expressed interest but then I doubt that they are
really considering it.

but taiwan
has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter,

Less capable than what?

Than what they can get their hands on otherwise.


especially one
that is not fully compatable with US military systems--

Why wouldn't the F-35, or a Boeing wildcard, not be compatible with US
systems?

The F-35 IS going to be compatible with US systems--that is one of its big
selling points. Any wildcard F-32 won't be--we won't carry its logistics
load in the USAF if the USAF is not a user.


In any case, take a look at the Eurocopter Tigre. The Tigre is being made
compatible with US systems because a small customer wants it. Of course,
the
manufacturer see the benefit in being US systems compatible.

There is comaptible, and there is compatible. Most nations that envision the
US as a likely ally want to have some form of close compatibility with US
sytems, so they BUY US systems. Beyond that there is the issue of logistical
support, not to be minimized, either--an F-16 or F-35 operator knows that he
can get spares and support from the USG, and that in a coalition effort the
US can even further support his aircraft if required. Buying a bunch of
F-32's that are NOT operated by the USG is not going to give you that
capability.


witness their early
exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became availabl
e.
NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out.

Only if you assume that a Boeing option wouldn't be US systems compatible,
which there is no reason to believe.

IT WON'T BE OPERATED BY THE US. It won't be supported, as an entire system,
by the USG, meaning you have to set up your own indigenous support network.
Bad move.


The
Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further
delays
in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?


(b) are not already committed to other expensive
R&D efforts, and

Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone,

Alone, agreed.

and besides, they are smart
enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment
to
the F-35 is the way to go.

The Australian argument isn't that straight forward. If it was that clear
cut the AIR6000 project would have come to that conclusion long before the
politicians made their last minute decision under pressure from the JSF
marketing team and local industry.

Australia has two choices--go with the US, or go with a European system. If
it chooses a US system, it will invariably be one that the USG is itself
operating--they know from experience how difficult it can get when they
operate a system no longer in the USG inventory (though they have taken
advantage of some surplus offers of F-111's to facilitate spares supply).


You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have
to
support that fleet for a few decades.

Note that Boeing has lots of experience supporting orphan aircraft. The
RAAF
also have lots of experience with otherwise unsupportable aircraft types.

But without the backbone of a US military logistics support network, not to
mention the advantage in terms of cost due to the much larger volume of
spares purchased, the F-32 buyer is left at a distinct disadvantage.


Taking advantage of an established US
logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating
a
new one from scratch on your own.

Agreed, but there are many pipelines to choose so it's rarely a sole
source
issue predicated solely on cost.

So you think buying 50 F-32 widgets for your orphan force is going to be as
cheap as buying 50 widgets for the F-35 on top of the 1000 F-35 widgets
purchased by the US military? Nope.




(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
cost
more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
the
F-35

You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for,
which
reduces the cost somewhat.

Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some
$28
billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would
cost?

Forget the F-35, I wasn't talking about it here. The X-32 has had heaps of
R&D money pumped into it so, why not start from this position than a blank
page?

But that IS a comparitive blank page! The X-32 was MUCH further from being
an F-32 and is going to require substantially more redesign, flight testing,
etc. to make it one.

snip

Brooks

"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip


What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony
up
the
fee for joining the F-35 program,


Stop spreading lies.
Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.

Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to
be more timely with your curveball attampts.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm

Brooks

snip

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip


What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony
up
the
fee for joining the F-35 program,


Stop spreading lies.
Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.

Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to
be more timely with your curveball attampts.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm

Brooks

snip



You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35
program", but it did.

I never talked about the level of participation. According to the
newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to
the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the
government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the
lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period.

Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this
ng.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:57:59 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
make it.

How do levels 1 to 3 work?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip


What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even
pony
up
the
fee for joining the F-35 program,


Stop spreading lies.
Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.

Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did
not
make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really
need to
be more timely with your curveball attampts.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm

Brooks

snip



You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35
program", but it did.

I never talked about the level of participation. According to the
newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to
the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the
government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the
lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period.

Your ignorance of, or simple ignoring of, facts seems to help your argument.
Israel wanted into the program as a *development partner* but could
not/would not pony up the money required--this was the source of some
consternation with Israel as the window for nations to join that effort came
to a close, with Israeli officials trying to get onboard without paying the
same fees that other nations were required to pay. The "Security Cooperation
Participant" category was then created so that Israel, and Singapore IIRC,
could get their bids in on receiving at least some kind of priority (after
the development partners) towards later purchase of the F-35 and getting
some subcontractor work. What Israel did NOT get was its desired development
partner status, where it could influence the design/development process, at
no cost (or reduced cost) to Israel. For once, thank goodness, the US
treated Israel *fairly* in comparison to other nations and did not give it
special consideration (hooray!).

Brooks


Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this
ng.