Jackonicko“Ain’t the whole forum about discussing and comparing things we have no clue about?”
All too often, it is. But not for me. I contribute only when I feel I have some useful and reliable information. That’s not because I have any great personal experience or in-depth practical expertise, but it’s because of my position I do get to talk to people who really do know their stuff, but who wouldn’t post here in a month of sundays.
You’re half right, in that I know only what people tell me.
But I do have extraordinarily good access to senior people in industry, air forces, and procurement in the UK, the USA, France, Germany, and Russia.
I’ll lay good odds that I have better access to Rafale than you do, and that I’ve spoken to more Rafale pilots, more often.
Yes, what I say is largely anecdotal – but it’s anecdotal opinion of Typhoon from Typhoon, Super Hornet, F-16MLU, Gripen and Rafale pilots and test pilots, and from talking to the evaluation pilots who have actually flown Rafale and Typhoon back to back.
You ask “How much does he know about ss performance or MMI of Rafale”. Well, I’ve only watched as a French pilot flew the Rafale cockpit demonstrator, and haven’t flown or flown in the jet myself. I wouldn’t feel qualified to judge MMI, since I don’t routinely fly aircraft with MFDs, let alone HUDs and HOTAS, and I’m more familiar with the clockwork Hawk T1 and Jaguar T2 than I am with modern glass-cockpited FJs.
But I have spoken to people who have flown both Rafale and Typhoon, and senior TPs who’ve flown one, and who’ve flown the active cockpit of the other (both ways). They are people who do know, intuitively, what makes a good fighter MMI. I’ve spoken to people who’ve flown Rafale supersonically, and who have been read into the manoeuvring limits at high Mach numbers. I’ve spoken to pilots who tried to supercruise without using reheat to get ‘over the step’ (albeit in tropical conditions), and I’ve spoken to people who have done the same in Typhoon. You might care to guess which aircraft can do it easily, and which one struggles.
People like that know better than anyone on this board, and their opinion is worth more than the kind of loose, unclassified parametrics you’ll find on the net.
If I gave you numbers based on a NASA TLX evaluation of the MMI of a particular type, you wouldn’t understand them any more than I do.
How useful are figures, anyway? Do you believe you’ll ever find an accurate radar range figure on an open internet site? Even if you did, do you have the expertise to ask the right questions and then be able to interpret that figure?
I don’t, and I’m damned sure that you don’t, either.
Whereas expert opinion is understandable, and is often pretty clearcut. (As it is when it comes to Typhoon MMI).
You either believe that I’ve spoken to the kind of people that I claim to have spoken to, or you don’t.
Frankly, I don’t care. I’ve put good, reliable, robust information in front of you, and if petty Rafale fanboyism blinds you to that, who suffers?
It ain’t me, bro.
JackonickoOtaku,
There have been no “enormous bribes used to secure sales” of Typhoon. The unsubstantiated allegations of bribery relate to Tornado, decades ago, not Typhoon today. “Only an idiot” would fail to spot the difference.
Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of your tired and silly prejudice, old chap.
Flex,
“Typhoon is a serious competitor.. and a good aircraft.”
Well spotted.
“But hardly enjoying any decisive superiority over other competitors.”
WRONG! Typhoon enjoys a decisive edge in instability/supersonic agility, in supercruise performance, in A-A radar range, and above all in MMI. Even Rafale enjoys a worthwhile edge over most of its competitors in these areas – but Typhoon is a further step ahead of Rafale in THESE areas.
Venky,
“MMI, SA, Supercruise Agility are nothing but fancy words…..”
Only to the ignorant or to the irredeemably biased.
I would agree that Typhoon has a long way to go before it becomes a True Multirole platform, but as an A-A platform it does have an edge over any other fighter out there (save the F-22) because its MMI is in a different league. That’s the judgement of the real experts in the field, I’m afraid, however much it upsets French and Russian spotters and fanboys.
Scorpion,
Typhoon pilots who are fresh from exchange tours on the F-16MLU, and who have experienced Gripen’s datalink or the Rafale’s MMI, and TPs who know F-22, JSF and Rafale would disagree with the idea that the differences between Typhoon’s MMI and the rest “aren’t that great any more.” This remains the area where Typhoon is furthest ahead of the competition.
Jackonicko“Jacko, could these features be available in the Typhoon to be used in the Swiss evaluations next month?”
Both are flying already, just not in frontline squadron use. PIRATE is in use, but not yet fully cleared, HEA is flying on the ISPAs.
So yes, the Swiss will certainly see these features.
But at Farnborough, Rauen told me that the aircraft used for the Swiss evaluation would be able to demonstrate capabilities beyond those that are now flying with the partner nations, so I’d expect expanded radar modes, and possibly a different FCS software iteration, with different limits. The engines may be tuned to simulate the performance of a more powerful engine, too.
JackonickoWhat a load of utter nonsense.
The German MiG-29s lacked little compared to frontline Russian MiG-29s, though they had a downgraded jammer and some differences in the IFF system.
They drew their AA-10s and AA-11s from 16th Air Army stocks.
They were highly regarded when they were still East German (giving the Polish-based Su-27s a hard time on exercise) and when they moved over under Luftwaffe command.
The German MiG-29 was a pretty capable aircraft – good aerodynamically, very good at low speeds/post stall manoeuvring, and with a good helmet mounted sight. Play them at their own game, and they’d win against an F-15, F-16 or F/A-18, exploit their weaknesses, and they’d do badly against any of the US trio, and even occasionally against an F.Mk 3.
JackonickoNICE! GR3A standard, by the look of it, too. I wonder how long Oman will keep them?
Jackonickoit only offers anything in the A-A role, RIGHT NOW. What it offers is MMI, radar performance (range and range at azimuth) in A-A modes, supersonic acceleration and agility. And a great DASS.
Within weeks you can add PIRATE and HEA to the mix.
JackonickoFlex,
It does get tiresome endlessly having to correct uninformed drivel.
The bribery allegation against BAE (which remains unproven, and for which there was insufficient evidence to warrant further action, according to Britain’s Attorney General) related to Al Yamamah (the Tornado/Hawk deal) and not to Salaam, and therefore is irrelevant to the Typhoon deal.
I only wish that you were well informed about anything. :rolleyes:
Arthuro,
I can only judge you by your posts, which (despite your protestations) are always uncritically pro Rafale. I’m amused that you don’t like it that I grant “good and bad points to everyone.” That’s because I’m not an uncritical fanboy, and can see good and bad in most aircraft and programmes.
You may insist that on the MMI issue, my work is “unprofessional and unacurrate” – but you are utterly wrong. Though MMI is to some extent subjective, I don’t rely on testimony alone – and the testimony that I do rely on is from people who really no there stuff, and not to a random pilot I manage to chat to across the barrier at an airshow, or who I meet in passing.
It’s hardly appropriate on an enthusiast/spotter fansite like this to go on about the NASA TLX, Bedford, or Modified Cooper Harper scales (objective measurements of MMI, which those I speak to base their conclusions on).
And while you’ve spoken to Dassault and Thales about evaluations, I’ve spoken to them (and to people from both companies at all levels, including some who don’t parrot the party line), but also from the other contenders, Boeing, GE, Raytheon, EF GmbH, Selex, etc. But more usefully, I’ve spoken to Singapore air force pilots who flew both jets. (And I’ve spoken to Korean and Japanese evaluators, too). You believe what the French side tells you about how a French jet performed – I take what all sides tell me, and measure it against what the customers thought. You can disagree as much as you like on the basis of your one-sided information, but you haven’t had the full picture. That’s not rhetoric, it’s fact, and anyone with an atom of common sense will see that. If French Rafale fan boys can’t or won’t face up to the truth, then do you really think I care?
Venky,
I did not notice any of the major UK media outlets step back from their coverage of bribery allegations when the deal was signed, though as more and more evidence has emerged of the Guardian’s shabby tactics, coverage has gradually tailed off. A campaign by two left wing journos, operating in concert with the CAAT was never going to stay the course.
JackonickoArthuro,
I may have no credibility among some Rafale fanboys, who can’t bear the fact that I don’t rate their aircraft as highly as I rate Typhoon – overall. I could not care less.
I may not please the teenage spotters, who’d prefer bad information that they can see on the net, with a link, to genuine insight, gleaned by talking in depth to programme people and pilots.
Again, not an audience I really care about.
There are plenty of intelligent, open-minded people who recognise ‘pukka gen’ when they read it, and that’s who I aim my posts at.
Thus far, we’d been talking about how Rafale and Typhoon matched up against a developed ‘Flanker’ threat, and had not been comparing Rafale and Typhoon directly. However, since you insist on doing so…..
MMI
Rafale’s MMI is pretty good, by comparison with most of the teen series. Comparable with Gripen’s (better in some ways, worse in others). But Typhoon’s is superior, and was rated as superior by the Koreans (who rejected Typhoon for its immaturity), and by the Singaporeans (whose air force evaluators preferred Typhoon, but who’s MinDef didn’t). I’ve also spoken to TPs who’ve flown real Typhoon and the Rafale rig, and to one Rafale pilot who flew the Typhoon active cockpit. It may sound like chauvinism, but it’s simple fact. Typhoon has a better MMI, as you’d expect when you look at the extraordinary effort poured into it. There are plenty of areas where Rafale enjoys similar advantage, though few are as vitally important.
Radar
“The captor and the RBE2 are two radars with different philosophy to answer different type of priorities… There is no radar better than the other It all depend the operator requirements.”
Exactly. For air-to-ground use, I’d rate RBE2 over Captor M every time. For swing role capability, the French radar pips it. But for BVR, the azimuth coverage and range advantages of Captor are compelling.
Bias,
I am enthusiastic about Rafale. I’d rate it above Super Hornet, and it’s clear that it’s much better than any ‘developed Flanker’. For carrier use, or for air-to-ground, I’d buy Rafale rather than Typhoon (cost, industrial and political considerations aside). But for air to air (especially BVR) I’d want an aircraft that promised a better exchange rate.
You could pastiche what I say about Typhoon, but you’d be missing the point. Rafale doesn’t have better MMI than Typhoon, and any Rafale or Typhoon fanboy who went on too much about sensor fusion in 2008 would be being a bit ‘previous’, since neither aircraft has all of its planned sensor suite, and thus does not yet have much to fuse.
You could argue Rafale superiority “in the here and now” by emphasising its operationally demonstrated air to ground capability, purchase price, Omni-role capability, and its ‘ready right now’ long range stand off weapons. It’s taking a very long time for Typhoon to prove its air-to-ground capabilities after all. (And for all the hoo ha surrounding the US deployment, I don’t see any evidence that the Austere capability is operationally available yet).
But pick MMI and A-A capability, and you’re picking Typhoon’s strengths and Rafale’s relative weaknesses.
Evaluations,
Rafale has enjoyed a huge advantage in timescale, and maturity, for many years. It’s only with the effective cancellation of further development on OSF and the Gerfaut helmet that Rafale’s credibility in this area has even been dented. But even today, even the most ardent Typhoon supporter would have to acknowledge that Rafale is probably three years ahead of Typhoon in terms of delivering capabilities into service.
Typhoon lost in Korea. It was eliminated very early on, since it did not stand the faintest chance of delivering capability in the timescale required by the RoKAF. The Rafale promised to be able to do so.
Just look at real world history. As Korea’s F-15Ks were becoming operational, Rafale was dropping live bombs in Afghanistan and aircraft were operational with a genuine stand off air-to-ground weapon. And where was Typhoon? Struggling to become operational on limited QRA. To say that slow development progress was “a strong drawback for the rafale programme” at the time of the Korean evaluation is silly. Slow development progress is an issue now, but Rafale seemed very much ‘full steam ahead’ back then.
The Netherlands ‘evaluation’ was entirely financial and industrial, and was not based on aircraft capabilities. At that time, in particular (before the delays to F3 orders, and the dropping of items from the Rafale development roadmap) the Rafale programme was far more advanced than Typhoon’s (where German procrastination was raising real doubts, and where the Brits were about to throw multiple spanners into the works), and the disparity in export orders that we know today did not exist then. In programme terms, Typhoon looked shabby.
Singapore rejected Typhoon. But the RSAF evaluation team rated Typhoon above the competing aircraft and urged its selection, because they were prepared to accept the longer wait for particular capabilities. They were overruled by the MinDef, who saw too much risk. (And with the Tranche 2 production contract still not signed when they made their decision, who can really blame them?).
Venky,
Re Joust
Rafale was compromised by being designed to meet particular weight and size limits, and by having to be carrier capable. The difference in design philosophy comes down to Rafale’s need to be exportable and carrier capable, and for a particular price, and with a different emphasis on A-G. Typhoon had other compromises. Rafale wasn’t designed to be inferior to anything.
Re the Rand analysis of A-A ops in the Pac Rim, the threat of ‘Flankers’ in multi-Regiment strength would overwhelm any significantly smaller force. The Typhoon would have done worse than F-22.
When it comes to the ‘double inferior’ slide (the one that resulted in the F-35 clubbing comment) Typhoon rates better than F-35. Go and look at the slide.
“Why do the BAE parrot this [JOUST] to any gullible soul who would listen?”
1) When JOUST demonstrated that Typhoon would beat its rivals by an impressive margin, Eurofighter naturally leapt on it as a marketing tool.
2) Nor was the EF GmbH JOUST presentation aimed at the gullible. They aimed their JOUST-based presentations at industry and air force professionals who had the wit, experience and knowledge to understand what JOUST was, what its limitations were, and why (and in what ways) it was significant. That’s your ‘gullible souls’…. The presentations were not aimed at ignorant spotters who could not understand the results, and who were blinded by ignorance and hurt feelings that their ‘pet’ aircraft had come off badly. It strikes me that those who argue against JOUST, SILVE, Gambit and other similar rigorous simulations haven’t managed to see that JOUST was intended as capability evaluation (and was only subsequently used for marketing) and was not mounted as a ‘sales exercise’. JOUST critics usually manage only to demonstrate their own ignorance and inexperience. I’ve never met a spotter who understood JOUST, and I’ve never met a pilot who didn’t.
The aircraft included in JOUST were not included because they were rivals to Typhoon – but because they were viewed as potential alternatives by the UK MoD. Rafale was included not to prove that it was inadequate, but to probe how well it would stack up as an alternative to Typhoon. That’s also why Hornet 2000 (remember that?) was included.
JOUST evaluated Typhoon’s planned initial in-service capabilities (the aircraft wasn’t in service) against the worst-case threat that it would be expected to meet. The ‘Developed Flanker’ threat aircraft modelled in JOUST assumed years of constant development, when we all know that following the dissolution of the USSR, development activities stalled, or slowed to a crawl. The best of today’s ‘Flankers’ falls far short of what we expected – ‘worst case’. The Russian aerospace industry was starved of domestic orders, starved of cash, and failed to make the progress that most of us expected in a number of technologies.
Aircraft that were expected to be in service by the mid- to late-90s are still only flying in prototype form, or in handfuls with evaluation units. The regiments of Mig-29Ms, Su-27IBs, Su-27PUs, and Su-27Ms didn’t happen.
Re Korea and Singapore, see above.
Re MMRCA, let’s wait and read the post contract post mortems.
Re Austria, Gripen screwed the pooch on price, and failed to see that Austria wanted closer links with Germany, and wanted to make a break with the neutralist past. They failed to account for the training and operational advantages that Germany’s Typhoon fleet would offer to Austria.
Re Saudi Arabia. There was no bribery. The unproven bribery allegation dates back to Al Yamamah. There was no blackmail of the Saudis by Britain. That’s a risible idea.
JackonickoFlex,
You know as well as I do how long ago the Eurofighter JOUST studies were. The best contemporary sources are paper, not online. I was there, I remember what was said, and by whom. But if the limit of your research resources are Google and Jeeves, I doubt that you could even confirm that the BAE chap who used the JOUST material for marketing was named Ned Frith. Perhaps I’m fibbing about that, too.
You say: “But now, not even British officials came with the story about uberflankers simulated at JOUST. There was no official press release, nothing, just an internet poster, claiming to have seen some presentations and spoken to some people. That is even less than what star49 usually provides.”
There were releases at the time. I was there, and I’m reporting what the threat aircraft was accurately. Go and ask any of the journos who were active at the time. Go and look at contemporary magazines. But don’t accuse me of lying, or of ‘providing less than Star49’, which is exactly what you are doing.
PFCEM seems to have little grasp of ‘time’ (witness the way in which he stresses documents about QinetiQ in this new millennium when we’re talking about DERA in the late 80s and early 90s. I’d have expected better from you.
With regard to Typhoon’s superiority over 4th gen fighters, it lies in the aircraft’s superior MMI, superior supersonic agility and acceleration, and its radar PERFORMANCE, not its antenna type. As so often, the ultimate example of an older technology (in this case the ultimate M-scan radar) may have advantages over early examples of a new technology. Typhoon’s radar performance has been demonstrated on a number of occasions – and attracted great praise in Singapore. There will come a time when any M-scan radar will be archaic, but when the M-scan has greater range, greater range at azimuth, and other features that make it better for BVR air combat (while being inferior in other scenarios) that’s not a sensible judgement.
I don’t know why Brazil kicked Typhoon out of FX. I never had much faith in the campaign there, and never thought that Brazil would want to spend that much money. We know exactly why Korea rejected Typhoon (maturity) and exactly what happened in Singapore (BAE mismanagement of the bid process, lack of confidence that the A-G capabilities required would be available when they were needed, etc.). We also know that Typhoon won in Austria (which was Saab’s to lose) and Saudi Arabia, and that the RSAF evaluation team rated Typhoon highest in Singapore, but were overruled by Mindef.
PFCEM
I’m sorry that you have to rely on public, online sources. I was there, I know what was said, and I’m afraid that you are wrong in this case.
If you have any interest in the truth, look it up in a decent library, or write to BAE.
JackonickoPfcem,
You’re wrong.
I’ve been working in this business for more than 20 years, and I was exposed to Ned Frith’s briefs dozens of times, with his JOUST results and S-curves.
Your second hand internet sources may be ‘public’, but they aren’t reliable and probably wouldn’t even tell you Ned’s name and rank and position.
Go and read any of the magazines dating from the time. Drop BAE Systems a line.
I don’t doubt that some of the internet sources on which you rely say that JOUST simulated Su-27M, it’s a convenient but inaccurate shorthand. But I can assure you that my description of the threat aircraft is absolutely accurate.
JackonickoWidespread contracts don’t make QinetiQ any less independent. (And as DERA, when the JOUST simulations under discussion were being undertaken, there were very few such contracts).
No alleigance with industry now, and certainly not then.
DERA was NOT divided “to be credible and industry-independant.” It was divided “to house those capabilities which the MOD believed should not be transferred to the private sector, including but not limited to work which is politically sensitive and directly supports certain sensitive military operations.”
When the JOUST simulations we are talking about were underway, DERA was a UK Government agency, and the USA had no concerns about potential links with industry. These arose only after privatisation. Even then, no-one doubted QinetiQ’s credibility – the concerns were as to the potential for conflicts of interest with wider contracting under the privatised structure.
Your quote from Av Week is irrelevant, as it dates from long after the JOUST trials under discussion.
Again, I view Rand as being a far more credible source than an anonymous spotter on the Key website.
JackonickoPfcem,
Again. You are wrong. The threat aircraft was NOT an Su-27M or an Su-35.
I sat through countless powerpoints on JOUST, and remember quite well. I have the press packs somewhere. If you doubt my account, drop BAE a line, and I’m sure they can supply one of Ned’s presentations.
Again: The threat was not an existing or planned Su-27 version. It was a developed Su-27 with the same radar performance and equal missile performance assumed, with acceleration, performance, and RCS all improved to assume 15 years of constant development and improvement.
Rom_un,
Nothing to answer. DERA received UK government contracts. So what? It also received contracts from UK, European and US companies and governments. Rand rated JOUST as being rigorous and independent, and with respect, I rate their findings as being far more reliable than your uninformed prejudice.
And when JOUST was used by Eurofighter, it was run by DERA, not QinetiQ.
(The reason for the split between DERA and DSTL is, of course, nothing to do with keeping DSTL for ‘independent evaluations’ – those fit QinetiQ’s job description. Instead, “Dstl was created to house those capabilities which the MOD believed should not be transferred to the private sector, including but not limited to work which is politically sensitive and directly supports certain sensitive military operations.”)
JackonickoThe only way in which the Su-34 could ever be immune to A-A missiles is when the aircraft is grounded in its hangars.
And with Russia’s funding difficulties and the dire serviceability of the ‘Flanker’ family, one has to accept that’s going to be the case for a lot of the time.
But in the air? It’s a massive target, with a stonking great radar cross section from all aspects, and with two damned great IR sources. Nor is it an unusually strong airframe.
Hit it with an ASRAAM, and IRIS-T or even an inert ‘Winder, and the chances are you’ll knock it down with a single hit. (As would be the case with a Typhoon, a Rafale, an F-22 or any other fighter type).
If you believe the infantile “immune to missiles” propaganda then you’re deluded.
JackonickoPFCEM,
You are simply wrong.
The enemy aircraft simulated in Joust was not an Su-27M, it was a derived ‘Flanker’, as I said, and it was assumed that this derived Flanker would have parity in radar and Missile performance. The whole point was to run man in loop simulations against the worst case future threat – not against an aircraft we were already seeing at Farnborough!
And none of the new real world Flanker versions has come close to achieving the performance and pK of the ‘Super Flanker’ that was simulated in Joust.
I attended dozens of briefings on JOUST at the time, and sat through countless powerpoint briefings.
What I say about JOUST is not “BS”, however much it hurts that it revealed your favourite aircraft’s shortcomings, and nor am I an “ignorant Typhoon supporter”.
Flex,
DERA was being paid to be sceptical and rigorous about Typhoon. It’s interests were in doing the bidding of the MoD, and it had no alleigance with industry, either BAE or the multinational consortium building Typhoon. The point of JOUST was to look at the cost effectiveness of alternatives to Typhoon.
The links between Gromov and the (state owned, state controlled) Sukhoi OKB are different.
It’s not even comparable with Dassault and the CEV (and I would not doubt CEV’s ability to audit Rafale, if tasked to do so), in that DERA is UK, Government owned (then) while Eurofighter was only part Brit, and the part that was Brit wasn’t Goverment owned.
JackonickoVenky,
Are you referring to fan base of certain neighbourly aircraft here??
Among others, including Su-27 fans, whose favourite received a drubbing from all of the other aircraft, albeit giving Rafale a more expensive victory by causing some losses. Actually, if you look at what Rafale was designed to do, I think it came out quite well out of JOUST.
“RAND also validated “clubbed like baby seals” F-35. Now do you believe that??”
The “clubbed” remark was made by an Aussie politician and did not appear in the report, whose classification is such that I haven’t read it in its full version. I can imagine a host of scenarios in which JSF would come off worst – just as the F-22 did in the recent Taiwan scenario.
It’s easy to foresee circumstances in which a limited number of F-22/F-35 could simply be overwhelmed by numbers of enemy aircraft. In the case of F-35 you also have an aircraft which either has a very limited BVR loadout, or no stealth, which can’t supercruise, and that has little supersonic agility or acceleration.
The report says that F-35 is “double inferior” to modern Russian/Chinese fighters in visual range combat, in that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, and can’t run”.
Which is why the F-35 pilot stands back, using the cover afforded by his exceptionally low RCS, and using his unequalled SA, and smacks the enemy in the teeth from maximum range. He will avoid WVR combat with ‘Flankers’ like the plague.
“Joust’s point was to demonstrate what the UK wanted to project of Typhoon.”
No, it wasn’t. When JOUST was undertaken, no-one expected its results to be released. The purpose was to look very, very hard at whether some other cheaper alternative could do the job. Nor was DERA at the beck and call of EF GmbH in the way in which you imply – quite the reverse.
“Can you blame him, when Rafale is shown so much inferior to Typhoon. When infact it is the most holistically developed aircraft, unlike compromised design arrived through push pull of each partner in Typhoon.”
I don’t blame Ned (a very distinguished fighter pilot) for using the ammunition provided by JOUST, especially for bashing the insane idea that teen series fighters were still adequate, or that the Hornet 2000 was a sensible proposition. It wasn’t.
It wasn’t really used to bash Rafale, whose relevance to Typhoon has been illustrated by its export success thus far.
Nor is Rafale “the most holistically developed aircraft” – quite the reverse. The Rafale was absolutely compromised by the French insistence on maintaining a lighter MTOW (to make the aircraft appeal to export customers) and on dimensional and other constraints that would allow it to operate from a carrier.
Flex,
You understand correctly. I am saying that the ‘Flanker’ in service today (and for a decade to come) will remain inferior to the ‘derived Flanker’ used as a threat aircraft in JOUST. I don’t think any Russians were ‘read into’ JOUST, so I haven’t spoken to any Russian professional who validates it. I have spoken to French Rafale programme insiders who do validate it, and who pushed to use JOUST themselves.
Loke,
I’d have to double check, but I do believe that GI have used JOUST and/or SILVE.
Sign In
