Skip to content

The Once and Future Strike Fighter

March 4, 2010

How the Navy Will Kill JSF

I am an unashamed fan of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. It may be the best USN decision in the last 20 years. The upgraded F/A-18C Hornet, which was smaller and short legged was a good plane but this is better. Not the best American naval plane of all time mind you, but it was the right decision, and right on time, as an entire class of naval fighters and bombers designed and procured during the Vietnam conflict was reaching the end of their illustrious careers.

So when I see precious airpower funds siphoning off to a program which suffers repeated delays, costing more and more each year, and probably will be no better, or even worse than the aircraft it is replacing, naturally this is cause for concern. The signs are increasingly evident the F-35 Lightning II is the F-111 of our era (sad proof the same mindset is still at work at the DoD), and probably the worse Navy decision in recent memory, but hopefully rationale will soon intervene. Here is James Hasik:

Back in February, we all got to watch Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri, who represents the area around the factory that makes the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, rather lecture US Defense Secretary Bob Gates about the difference between his favorite plane and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Akin was particularly miffed that the secretary wouldn’t commit to another multiyear contract for Super Hornets, which would lower the cost per aircraft (according to Gates) by roughly six percent. As the congressman’s press release put it, “the Super Hornet [has] an active production line, and is dramatically cheaper than the JSF, which may not deliver anywhere close to on time.”

The JSF gets more expensive, the Super Hornet gets cheaper. Whats not to love? The problem is, a lot of hopes have been placed on the newer plane to replace a bevy of Cold War era fighters–F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, AV-8s, which are facing block retirement. Notice that I didn’t say block obsolescence since for the most part the older legacy planes are still very useful, and have been helping win all America’s wars since the fall of the Iron Curtain, while replacement programs suffer from countless delays. It’s not that the older jets are no longer useful, just worn out from over-use and extreme age.

So some new build Super Hornets would be a shot into the arm for our pilots desperately seeking some type of new air frame to fly to war, rather than the same well-used ones their fathers and even grandfathers flew in combat. But how to get past the Red Tape imposed by the floundering JSF programs? Hasik has a few ideas on how to cancel the billion-dollar mess:

  1. Fracture International Interest-In other words, primary support for the JSF comes from our allies seeking to replace their own Cold War stocks of mostly American-built platforms like the F-16. These nations might be prepared to offer their own versions of JSF alternatives like the Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter Typhoon. It seems logical then in order to maintain diversity and keep open essential aircraft industries overseas that the JSF must be dropped.
  2. Depend More on UAVs-The JSF may be obsolete already, with the current calls for ever more numerous and capable unmanned aerial vehicles. Utilized in conjunction with Raptors and Super Hornets, the the Reapers, Predators, and perhaps soon the X-47 UCAS drones can handle most functions which are listed in the JSF specifications, from close air support, bomber, everything but the air superiority role.

Hasik also points to at least one JSF variant which might survive, the F-35B vertical take-off and landing or V/STOL plane. Here is something no other jet except the very old Harrier can do and which shouldn’t interfere with any other program. Much like the F-111 from the 1960s, which was meant to be an air force and naval fighter, plus bomber, electronic warfare plane and so on, it only really excelled in the last two roles, the naval fighter and air superiorty version being mercifully canceled.

40 Comments leave one →
  1. papa legba permalink
    March 6, 2010 11:46 am

    CBD,

    Thanks. That’s exactly what I was looking for. Good points about the AV-8B, as well.

  2. Mike Burleson permalink*
    March 6, 2010 8:11 am

    CBD-Thanks for the info!

  3. CBD permalink
    March 5, 2010 9:35 pm

    Legba,
    Try Defense Industry Daily’s coverage: Link.

    Mike & Smitty,
    Re: Harriers, Sortie rates &c.
    The CONOPS for the Harrier means that it does its real job just fine. The F-35B is/was an attempt to expand the independent strike capabilities of the USMC beyond what is really necessary. The whole purpose of the Marines is doorbusting; they are there to clear a beach head and move forward while other major forces follow. This has not been the case for the last 8 years, but it is really their purpose.

    Harriers are pretty directly CAS birds. Some independent strike and limited air coverage capability, but dedicated to fire support. The USMC doesn’t have a lot in the way of ship-based fire support (and what we do have does little good from greater than 40nm offshore)…that leaves the Harrier and Cobra as the main means of providing air support.

    In any major operation, a CVN would be on hand to take out air defenses, enemy fighters and major national infrastructure. The Harriers aren’t expected to provide air cover like the Super Hornets or the other (former) carrier aircraft…until recently, they didn’t have radar to even allow for air-to-air combat. To replace them with a fighter twice their weight but with limited improvements in bomb capacity; twice their price; and significantly larger is ridiculous. Yes, the huge engine on the Harrier is the least stealthy feature one could imagine…but they’re not trying to sneak up on the latest high-reaching Russian IAD systems or going off to a supersonic fight with enemy fighters.

    The point is, the F-35B is about 30% larger (floor area occupied) than the AV-8B. If the new LHA is specified for 22 examples of the F-35B, at least 28 AV-8Bs can fill an equivalent space (with room left over). That’s just the space filled by the planes themselves. Cut out the V-22s and you have space for both a significant number of Harriers, Cobras and whatever rotary transport wing the marines desire.

    As I mentioned in one thread a month ago, if EMALS works, it could be installed on a ramp on the LHA-6, allowing the Harriers to take off with even greater payloads. New engines, avionics and controls would help the Harrier become a modern CAS/strike fighter.

    It’s not about CAPs, it’s about support.

  4. papa legba permalink
    March 5, 2010 2:53 pm

    As an aside, does anyone have a good blog or news source that follows India’s MRCA competition? A large buy like that seems like it could have a direct effect on
    the flyaway costs of current aircraft and influence other foreign sales as well. It seems like those 140-ish planes that India plans to buy could cast a long shadow.

  5. Joe permalink
    March 5, 2010 9:48 am

    Chris,

    I hope you’re right. That is a logical thought pattern, just as is what BSmitty postulated about the inherent wisdom that surrounds purchasing more of what you’re institutionally familiar with. But respect for logic has been MIA for quite a while in procurement matters…

    I don’t feel manned air to be dead, nor do I think that UCAVs are ready to assume all airpower roles. They can make for a great pairing per their respective strengths, however. IF the F-35 does indeed go bye-bye, perhaps that will force a true bottom-up reevaluation of airpower matters…but I’m not holding my breath.

  6. Sanem permalink
    March 5, 2010 2:52 am

    my prognosis:
    – the USAF gets 1,500 F-35A’s
    – the USMC gets its F-35B’s, as do countries like Spain and Italy
    – the USN drops the F-35C
    – a few succer countries also get F-35A’s, like Australia (because, well, it’s Australia) and Japan (they don’t care much about cost. although I imagine they’d rather built them themselves, which still makes me hope for the Eurofighter). other partner nations will back off
    – so yes, another F-111 (oddly, Australia fell for it twice :o)

    my reasoning:
    – the USAF is hell bent on this one, they’ll get them no matter the cost
    – the USMC has no STOVL alternative, neither do Spain and Italy, to fly off their small carriers. In this scenario the F-35B is worth the price, because it has a unique ability
    – the USN’s backup plans suggest it has taken the safe road from day 1, like it did with the F-111
    – the average F-16 user (Netherlands, Norway) will realise the F-35B is simply too damn expensive for their small budgets (not to mention, they’ve been lie…, errr, price estimates where not adjusted to the current dollar value…). looks like 2020 will be the year of the Gripen
    – Japan and Australia get the F-35, because these countries are… special

    the good news:
    – the USAF is totally lacking in numbers, and is forced to finally accept the J-UCAS (I’m guessing it’ll be the X-45B)
    – the USMC and other small-carrier nations have their fancy STOVL craft, allowing them to chase armed fishermen in style
    – the USN becomes the first operational user of UCAVs

  7. Chris Stefan permalink
    March 5, 2010 2:41 am

    Joe,
    While the US has no plans to buy either the F-15 or F-16 enough foreign orders keep trickling in to keep the production lines open and continue new upgrades. I suspect as the cost of the F-35 continues to rise and the program encounters further delays that will be even more true as various countries have to replace their aging aircraft. Boeing seems to have enough confidence in the potential market for new F-15 variants to finance development of the Silent Eagle on its own.

    I’d say there is a good chance it will be possible for the USAF to buy new F-15 and F-16 variants by the time the plug finally gets pulled on the F-35. For that matter it should still be possible to restart F-22 production as long as the DoD doesn’t do something stupid like they did with the F-14 and order the tooling destroyed.

  8. Joe permalink
    March 5, 2010 12:14 am

    BSmitty,

    I wrote two short paragraphs, with the first being what I’d do given the present conditions on the ground, so to speak.

    The second represented more of something akin to a wishing-well situation. I did say “Air Force” and include the SH, but meant Air Force/Naval Air Force but short-handed it.

    The conditions on the ground (?in the air?) are that the Super is the only 4th-gen jet due to be procured between 2010 and 2020. Assuming no President, SecDef, or Congress changes that, then yes I’d ‘force’ it on the AF when older legacy jets have to be retired. I would not rate a new-build SH over a new-build F-16 or F-15, but I would rate the SH as superior to empty space.

    However, I do not argue with your F-16 comments. You are correct…upgraded F-16s should form the bulk of the Air Force with perhaps something like the F-15SE/F-15K next and the F-22 as the tip of the spear (bye bye F-35). That Congress and three different administrations have ignored logical arguments like yours doesn’t (to me) bode well for a sudden new-found appreciation of the gem that’s been flying above all our heads for all these years…even given the ever-increasing chance of the demise of the F-35.

  9. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 11:08 pm

    Joe,

    I wouldn’t force the Super Hornet on the USAF. Without the F-35, the F-16 Block 60+ should form the bulk of the force, as other F-16 variants do today. The USAF has vast institutional knowledge with the F-16, and the support system in place. APG-80, CFTs, F110-GE-132, new EW system, avionics, and so on will make for major upgrades over the existing fleet.

  10. Joe permalink
    March 4, 2010 10:18 pm

    To pick up on DesScorp’s comment, the Navy AND Air Force would be insane if they didn’t flesh out the entire air fleet with more Supers. Do we really need F-35’s to fulfill the Homeland Defense role of the F-16, for example? And as far as the Navy goes, stick with the F-18SH and flesh out specific long-range strike roles with UCAVs as they mature

    Whereas I’d once been a foe of the F-22, time and reading has convinced me that it’d make much more sense to see an Air Force that includes more of it plus *a lot more* of the planes we’ve shown we can build quite well (F-15, F-16, F-18SH). As Mike correctly pegs it, the F-111 of our time isn’t something we can afford, either monetarily or militarily.

  11. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 9:50 pm

    tangosix,

    Was the Aussie number the “flyaway” price? Program unit price?

  12. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 7:05 pm

    Thanks for restoring my posts Mike. Sorry about the dupes.

  13. March 4, 2010 6:34 pm

    Hello,

    didn’t the Australian order for Superhornets came to about $100 Million each?

    tangosix.

  14. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 5:58 pm

    Chris Stefan,

    This PDF has Navy budget estimates for 2010 and previous year costs for the Super Hornet.

    http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf

    (page 23)

    There is a significant year by year variance flyaway costs, but it does provide a useful starting point. A full-rate, multi-year buy should lower the average flyaway price, but many other factors come in to play.

  15. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 5:57 pm

    Chris Stefan,

    This PDF has Navy budget estimates for 2010 and previous year costs for the Super Hornet.

    http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf

    (page 23)

    There is a significant year by year variance flyaway costs, but it does provide a useful starting point. A full-rate, multi-year buy should lower the average flyaway price, but many other factors come in to play.

  16. Chuck Hill permalink
    March 4, 2010 5:55 pm

    With its mediocre performance as a fighter, I hope the F/A-18 fighter bomber doesn’t turn out to be the 21st century Blackburn Skua.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua

  17. Chris Stefan permalink
    March 4, 2010 5:11 pm

    DesCorp,
    Given how the dates for the F-35C keep slipping, doing further upgrades to the F/A-18E/F/G and forgetting about the F-35 might be the way to go for the Navy. Heck at this point having the USAF buy upgraded F-15Es, F-16s, or even F-18E/F/Gs might not be a bad idea, though given the F-22 is a known quantity picking up a few more of those might be in order as well.

    B.Smitty,
    It doesn’t help I’ve seen numbers anywhere from $50 million each to $80 million each cited for the Super Hornet. Though I think $50 million was Boeing’s lowball offer with a large number of planes to stay in the fighter game and $80 million might be for Growlers.

    Though almost entirely speculative at this point, it seems the realistic estimates for the F-35 range anywhere from $100 to $140 million each. The scary thing is these numbers assume a couple thousand planes will be built and not a couple hundred.

    You wonder what kind of price the F-22 would come out at if Lockheed got a firm order for say 1,700 of them? Possibly much less than the F-35A will cost each at this point, even without factoring in past or future development costs.

    For that matter both Boeing and Lockheed would probably give pretty good prices on upgraded new F-15Es, F-16s, or F/A-18E/F/Gs if several hundred were ordered at once.

  18. DesScorp permalink
    March 4, 2010 3:27 pm

    GE is offering more powerful F414’s. The newer AESA radars are now in produciton. The Super’s have a 1000+ mile range. Honestly, for around $50 million apiece, the Navy would be insane not to just fill out the fleet with these planes. They’ll fill their needs for another 15 years until F/A-XX can arrive.

  19. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 2:55 pm

    Chris Stefan,

    Grr.. Last two posts were lost in the ether. The flyaway cost for the 23 Super Hornets bought in FY09 was $61.6 million.

    There are many cost projections for the F-35. The problem is finding ones you believe.

  20. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 2:54 pm

    Chris Stefan,

    Grr.. Last post was lost to the ether.

    The flyaway cost for the 23 Super Hornets bought in FY09 was $61.6 million.

    http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf (pgs 22-31)

    There are many cost projections for the F-35. The problem is finding ones you believe.

  21. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 2:50 pm

    Chris Stefan,

    This link has more detail than anyone but an accountant would want about Super Hornet pricing. (pgs 22-31)

    http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf

    The total flyaway cost for the 23 Super Hornets bought in FY09 was $1,417,297,313, or around $61.6 million each.

    There are many cost estimates for the F-35. The problem is finding ones you believe.

  22. Chris Stefan permalink
    March 4, 2010 1:56 pm

    B.Smitty,
    Before the F-22 was terminated I had heard a flyaway cost of $130 million each or so, but that was for 200 or so aircraft I think.

    I asked about the flyaway costs of the Super Hornet simply because I don’t happen to have the information at my fingertips (nor for the recent blocks of the F-15 or F-16 in foreign sales).

    As for the F-35 I know we don’t really know what the per-aircraft flyaway cost will be, but certainly there must be some estimates based on test aircraft, LIRP airframes, and the current quantity of planned buys. You also have to factor in whatever development costs the program is going to continue to suck down as that money can be used to purchase new in-production aircraft or restart production on the F-22, A-10, or AV-8.

    The bottom line is the F-35A doesn’t make a lot of sense if the the per-aircraft flyaway costs get much above $90 million.
    The F-35B doesn’t make much sense if the per-aircraft flyaway costs get to be much more than about twice what the per-aircraft costs of restarting production of an upgraded AV-8 are.
    I’m not sure the F-35C makes much sense at all vs. a Super Hornet upgraded with technology developed for the F-35 and F-22 programs. Longer term you’d probably need to either look at the UCAVs under development or build a navalized version of the F-22.

  23. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 1:37 pm

    Mike Burleson said, “But how much is enough, and wouldn’t that depend on the circumstances? Is the Navy/Marine sorties standard still dependent on pre-precision airpower, which the navy still uses for its large decks?

    It would be heavily dependent on the circumstances. Six aircraft means maybe one or two persistent CAS or CAP orbits. That’s not a whole lot of capability.

    I doubt any sortie rate requirements are based on pre-precision airpower these days.

  24. James Daly permalink
    March 4, 2010 1:32 pm

    The UK’s role in the JSF programme is a bit of a pickle to say the least. The new carriers have been designed around operating them. I’m told by those in the know that redesigning them to fit cats would be problematic. They have also been delayed several years to bring them into line with the scheduled JSF in-service date, which has led to the costs going up. If we were to pull the plug on the JSF buy there would be some red faces among the Admirals, Ministers and Accountants.

    The fly in the ointment might be the RAF, who reportedly aren’t too fussed about acquiring the JSF and would happily sacrifice in order to get more eurofighters. That might not just be about the aircraft, as the RAF will be well aware that pulling out of their share of JSF would make the RN’s share untenable and hence also the carriers. The idea is for the JSF to replace the Harrier as an inter-operable RAF/RN platform, but the RAF have always been happy to get one over on the RN where aviation is concerned. Messy? It sure is.

    Its just a shame that the country that developed the Harrier cannot in this day and age put up a replacement.

  25. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 12:24 pm

    Chris Stefan said, “I’m curious what the incremental costs of the Super Hornet, F22, and the 3 variants of the F-35 are.

    Rand recently released a report about the cost of restarting the F-22 line. They only modeled an additional 75 aircraft though, so buying several hundred F-22s will drop the unit price significantly.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/rand-builds-case-for-zombie-f-.html

    Costs for the Super Hornet are fairly well established. For the F-35, it’s anyone’s guess what the numbers would eventually be.

  26. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 12:21 pm

    Matthew S said, “ Also there are dual purpose carrier/amphibs popping up around the world which are reliant on the F-35B as the primary combat aircraft. It seems it is too big too fail.

    The problem with this is, you have to shove 1,700 F-35As down the USAFs throat to make the unit cost low enough for all these nations (plus the USMC) to afford a few hundred F-35Bs.

    Hardly seems fair. (not to mention the fact that the USAF won’t be able to afford that many)

  27. Chris Stefan permalink
    March 4, 2010 11:15 am

    I’m curious what the incremental costs of the Super Hornet, F22, and the 3 variants of the F-35 are. Particularly if the Super Hornet or F22 buy was say 1/3 of the number of F-35C or F-35A models planned.

    While I expect the F-22 to remain expensive the incremental per-plane cost is probably close to the F-35A. One way to keep the line hot and keep the costs down some is to remove the restriction on exporting the F-22 and develop an exportable version that can be sold to close allies like Japan and Australia.

    I agree with Mike that the USAF in particular needs to look at procuring some new-buy F-15Es and F-16s, though I would be curious what the incremental per-plane costs are for the latest blocks as well.

    Setting up a production line for new-build A-10s shouldn’t be that hard considering all the parts produced to support the existing aircraft and the SLEP program.

    Similarly producing new AV-8s shouldn’t be that hard.

    You can incorporate much of the technology developed for the F-22 and F35 programs into new-build F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, AV-8s, and Super Hornets. For that matter technology developed for the F-35 can be used to upgrade both current and future F-22s.

    Politically I don’t see much chance of anything other than continuing Navy procurement of the Super Hornet, the A-10 SLEP program perhaps evolving to include some new-build planes, and as a longshot, an export version of the F-22 happening until the JSF program starts to implode and lose political support in Congress (or unless one or more services wake up and realize they need a plan-B).

  28. Mrs. Davis permalink
    March 4, 2010 11:04 am

    The Falklands gives the UK an excellent reason to drop out of the F-35 program. The only reason not to is because they won’t have any aircraft to fly off their beautiful new carriers. Unless they adopt the F-18…

  29. Jed permalink
    March 4, 2010 10:44 am

    It s the international angle that keeps it going. I saw an article comparing it to the “International” Space Station – which would have been de-orbited if it was just NASA’s baby, but now its too big (in profile – not physically). Same for the JSF.

    So, the UK should lead the revolt ! The U.S. already reneged on its promise to provide software source codes – so save the money and spend it on more Typhoons and maybe Rafale for the carriers. I am sure once one major partner pulls out, others would see the light.

    Of course it wont happen, we are not that sensible – in fact I think we just stumped up the cash for a third dev airframe.

  30. Mike Burleson permalink*
    March 4, 2010 10:12 am

    Smitty wrote “Distiller’s point was that LHD/LHAs can’t bring enough Harriers to the fight (unless they offload all helos) to make a difference.”

    But how much is enough, and wouldn’t that depend on the circumstances? Is the Navy/Marine sorties standard still dependent on pre-precision airpower, which the navy still uses for its large decks? But concerning offloading the Harriers, the Marines have done this before, turning the old LHD’s into light carriers. Apparently the LHA-6 class is almost wholly designed with deploying the JSF, more than the troops!

  31. Matthew S. permalink
    March 4, 2010 9:45 am

    Well who knows what will happen. All of those USAF, USN, USMC aircraft have to get replaced by something. Also there are dual purpose carrier/amphibs popping up around the world which are reliant on the F-35B as the primary combat aircraft. It seems it is too big too fail.

  32. B.Smitty permalink
    March 4, 2010 9:32 am

    Mike,

    Distiller’s point was that LHD/LHAs can’t bring enough Harriers to the fight (unless they offload all helos) to make a difference. An MEU ACE might carry 6-8 Harriers that have to split deck time with rotary-wing ops. They won’t generate many daily sorties.

    If the Marines want to keep a fixed-wing component, then, IMHO, they should split the single LHA/D into two ships, one for fixed wing and one for rotary. If the F-35B tanks, then maybe bring back the CVV concept (or something smaller) and fly the full range of CATOBAR carrier aviation.

  33. Mike Burleson permalink*
    March 4, 2010 9:08 am

    “I.E. just continue buying existing aircraft already in production rather than spending billions developing another new aircraft.”

    William, it makes so much sense, especially for a strike fighter.

  34. William permalink
    March 4, 2010 7:54 am

    I wonder if the Billions spent on the F35 program so far would have been better spent on buying more F22’s (development costs paid for already) and then as you suggested continuing production of the F/A 18 for a HI/Lower Mix.

    I.E. just continue buying existing aircraft already in production rather than spending billions developing another new aircraft.

  35. Mike Burleson permalink*
    March 4, 2010 6:51 am

    “nor can they generate enough missions (that goes for the Harrier also) during an amphib assault to make a difference”

    Distiller, I’d say the Harrier has made plenty of difference. It must since so many nations have bought them. V/STOL is understandbly over-complicated, but my question is why can’t we build a decent strike fighter after 100 years in the business?

    “What I wonder is, if the JSF implodes, does it mean go-ahead with F/A-XX?”

    Another 2 decades long manned aircraft program to get us a second-rate weapon for a gold plate price? My opinion is, not going to happen! But will they try? Of course!

  36. Distiller permalink
    March 4, 2010 6:41 am

    The F-35B alone is no justification for the continuation of the programme.

    The USMC LHDs neither carry enough of them, nor can they generate enough missions (that goes for the Harrier also) during an amphib assault to make a difference, and one has to strongly question the operational compatiblity of a STOVL jet with the rest of an LHD’s assault and CS/CSS platforms. And as land-based STOVL strikefighter the Marines would need a STOVL compatible logistics support system – which does not exist.

    Ceterum autem censeo, that the Marines should get out of fast-jet aviation NOW.

    The allies & partners should better look at another mod for the Harrier (fits their average ops profile and forces capbilities better than an F-35B in any case). And the Brits can go for a CTOL option.

    What I wonder is, if the JSF implodes, does it mean go-ahead with F/A-XX? It should! – As the next-generation unified manned tactical aviation system.

Trackbacks

  1. Carrier Alternative Weekly « New Wars
  2. JSF Nieuws.nl » Voorjaarsstorm trekt in USA over JSF programma (1)
  3. Military And Intelligence News Briefs — March 5, 2010 « Read NEWS
  4. Links of Interest 5 March 2010 « ELP Defens(c)e Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: