USSR vs Russia
The area of 22 402 200 square kilometres / 17 075 400 sq km
Population 293 047 571 people / 144 526 278 people

The territory of Russia is 76.2 % of the USSR, the population is 49.3%.
76.% * 49.3 % = 37.5 % – we get the “potential” of Russia relative to the USSR.

By that logic, if we add another factor we would reduce even further the calculated potential. In this case an average of the factors would be a more correct calculation method. Going that way, GDP should be a factor too, but if there is no capable shipyard then the potential to build carriers is automatically zero. Since Russia has most of the scientific institutions of USSR, biggest GPD by far and best military industry it is just a matter of time until the capacities are developed in the level they are needed, be it for vessels of 40 kT or 60 kT, that is not the core of the issue IMO.

[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER]

I could agree in most of what you said, with minor comments. SSBN fleet and construction is reasonably well, at least Boreis are being produced at decent paces. But large surface combatants are of course a big challenge. I see signs of improvement in several areas and a clear determination on the leadership that the navy and associated industry are a must, so they are developing them according to long term plans. Apparently 22350s can be produced now on reasonable paces and if all goes to plan, 6 will be in service by 2025, Poliment / Redut as the base of AD for all new classes is operational and domestic gas turbines start to be available again. So a good number of roadblocks have been removed, the work must continue until shipyards and supply chain are efficient and capable of handling bigger vessels. Recent orders and announcements about bigger surface ships just point out the progress made and increasing confidence of the navy to move forward. Will take time and effort in huge amounts, but there is no other real option for a country like Russia.

Why not ? VKS does not have funded LMFS so other than the VTOL there is no other type we know off under work.

Just wanted to check whether I had mist any relevant development here…

Unless VKS plans to completely replace the Mig-29 and Su-25 with a UCAV then this VTOL/STOL will have prospects to replacement for VKS and Navy in Medium weight category in Mig-29 MTOW category

Let’s go step by step:

– MiG-29: does Russia need a new medium fighter in the long term? Short term it can be replaced with MiG-35. Some official said this and Su-57 are the future of the air force. VKS needs to buy and establish operational conditions for the plane before foreign countries can buy with peace of mind
– Su-25 is the plane with least need of replacement IMO. And if it is, an UCAV would be the best option in order to perform CAS with acceptable tolerance to attrition.
– Is there a real need to produce a light fighter for the VKS? I don’t see it quite clear to be honest! The gap until 6G can be covered with current units + Su-57. Then a A2A oriented UCAV would make more sense, to boost the Su-57 with numbers and expandability. Okhotnik would take care of A2G roles. A light fighter could be a good export product in any case.
– A newer plane using available engines would need to be either big (2x Izd. 30/Izd. 117) or light size (1 engine). Otherwise, either a new R-79 or RD-33 would need to be developed. This may be decided out of industrial base considerations, but economically doesn’t seem to make sense.

It does but it is a heavy aircraft as heavy as you can get and they would need a medium fighter in Mig-29K class in size weight

Why? New hull designs allow bigger air wing. A plane like Su-57 on board would be the most powerful naval fighter for some years to come and allow Russia to partially compensate for far lower numbers both in vessels and naval aircraft.

For me the problem of the Russian naval aviation for the future has two main aspects:
> CV, which needs protection against high end threats
> LHDs, where some AD and strike capability from fighters is welcome and which IMHO would not operate alone in high threat areas.

The Tu-204SM was a significant program for them as it was the first narrow body where they replaced 3 Crew in cockpit with 2 and introduced better engine i.e PS-90A2 and they simply went over to MS-21 program …..I think Tu-204SM has good potential if they replace the PS-90A2 with PD-14 engine may be PD-14M and considering its 100 % Russian components they can sell it to Cuba or Iran which is once again under sanctions to even buy civil types

True, such countries would be prime customers too

If I understand the situation correctly, Russia can build up to four aircraft-carrying cruisers with a displacement of 40,000 tons. Each of them will require at least 24 short take-off and vertical landing fighters.

Would be great to know where this understanding comes from, I am following the issue and have not found evidence to think this is the clear path forward, even being clearly possible. RuN has said they want 70 kT vessels. New Krylov developments would allow for such a capability with lower displacement but even then 40 kT seems right at the very lowest end of what allows to increase capabilities compared to Kuznetsov.

STOVL or STOL: as said it does not seem totally clear it is STOVL and not STOL. In any case, I would see the development of a STOVL fighter if only it would make some economical sense. It will cost a lot of money and many years, for a very small number of planes. In order to make it feasible:

– Co-develop with China and maybe other countries (now even Turkey may join) that have expressed intentions to use STOVL planes for their LHDs. That would spread the development costs at least.
– Create a plane that can reasonably be used also in CTOL version by VKS and foreign countries. This is not trivial, see JSF for an example of negative effects.

Probably it will be single-engine multi-purpose aircraft. Options two:
– Light Multi-Functional Fighter (LMFS) with one engine “izd 30” 17500 kgf / 11000 kgf
– Medium Multi Functional Fighter (SMFI) with one engine 25000 kgf / 16000 kgf

I am sceptic about such thrust values for izd. 30, two tones more thrust than F119 looks exaggerated to me given they have the same size. The plane with this engine should be quite light (below 10 tones empty) and hence limited for the role of defending the fleet against high end threats.
The medium plane would need a new engine, which means even more money for an already doubtful project. For carriers you want top performance, for LHDs you need small footprint. A medium fighter fulfils none of the two requirements as far as I can see.

Why not Su-57 as naval fighter? It seems the obvious, short term, cheap solution that provides the best performance and helps in getting bigger production for Su-57. I fail to see what is the big problem honestly!

IMHO the ideal solution would be two-pronged:

1. Su-57 as main naval fighter for new RuN carriers, 2-3 squadrons per ship.
2. A new light plane that could have the following versions:
> STOVL UCAV: removing the cockpit would provide the space for a lifting fan and keep the main engine placed as far back as in conventional planes. This is the best propulsive solution IMO and would avoid aerodynamic and layout side effects with weapons bays and fuel tanks. It would be used in lower threat scenarios from LHDs helping with strike and AD roles with remote command and be turned later in fully autonomous, when this can be realistically done.
> CTOL/STOL UCAV for VKS as complement for Su-57
> CTOL, manned version for export and eventual RuAF needs.

To play around with the manned / unmanned factor would allow to get an airframe that is capable both of CTOL and STOVL operation without the downsides we see in JSF.

Anything goes if it is about disarming Russia I see, now the reason is a cursed carrier. That is just funny.

BTW newly patented hull by Krylov allegedly allows 25-30% reduction of resistance and tremendous increase of internal weapons load. Together with updates of naval aviation, order of new hulls / expanded vessel classes and availability of domestic gas turbines as exposed by others here shows a clear commitment towards the development of a blue water navy. Russia today is not hostage to ideology and rather a pragmatic power, they will fight for their right to have a say in the world’s issues by developing their navy just as anybody else.

To be precise, that is not a requirement from US military, but instead came from a document by Canadian government.
On top of that, the accurate wording is: “In an UNCLASSIFIED ILLUSTRATION of a stealth analysis, the F-35 had an approximately 95% percent improvement over first to fourth generations fighters-meaning a much smaller signature”

Thanks for the clarification.

F-22, F-35 RCS is smaller than 0.1 m2 by several order of magnitude,
F-117 without radar absorbing material can obtain approximately 0.01 m2 at 0.5Ghz.

Sure, tell the inventors of PTD they don’t know a thing about radar scattering. I don’t have other chance than taking claims from both sides together with hard facts and actual events and try to make sense out of them to form my own opinion. Do you know better?

Anyway I don’t want to open this discussion again please, it is pointless and tiresome. I was just providing some data that are not normally discussed.

[USER=”58228″]mig-31bm[/USER]

If you don’t mind I am going to focus a bit more on Su-57 issues ok?

That what they said, but you know the cost will always creep up, i have yet to see a modern fighter program where the cost is less than expected.
and since Su-57 isn’t in full scale production, any cost figure at this point in time is a guesstimate

This is no private contractor bargaining with DoD. UAC belongs to Rostec so it is quite different situation regarding fees, cost creep and conditions for serial production. It simply does not work like in the West.
A Russian official does not operate on “guesstimates”. They have the best information from program management, and you can be sure they are not going to sign a blank check for the production of the plane. These statements came from summer 2018 IIRC, just previously to signing of the contract for the first two serial units so with pretty concrete knowledge of the production costs. In any case the important thing is to know the rough price of the plane in rubles. Even considering a very high 4billion ruble per plane (double of the Su-35 price), producing 100 units over 10 years would mean 400 billion or roughly 1.5% of MoD budget over that period. That is not going to make Russia insolvent.

The issue with this discussion: we don’t know the exact number for anything: the detection distance of the SAM?, the velocity of the SAM? , the range you can find the SAM? the range the SAM site can detect your aircraft ? it is very hard to make a conclusion
for example: if the range which you can detect the SAM site is less than the max range of your weapons then supercruise doesn’t really help (which is the case for JSM, JSOW-ER, LRASM, MALD-V, AGM-X, KH-59MK2)
You can also easily make up numbers to make the case for supercruising, but the bottom line is we know too little, if it was so simple and clear cut, SR-71 and Avo Arrow will be far more popular.

Supercruising was identified both by US and USSR as a key capability of the 5G fighters, both for survivability against SAMs and to dominate aerial engagements. It does not mean it is easy to achieve from a practical point of view, low BPR engines needed are going to drag the operational costs and range of the planes using them, so air forces are going to prefer higher BPR engines and a set of characteristics that are cheaper and more practical for everything but high-end combat. So it is better and everybody knows it, it does not mean everyone can allow to enjoy it. If VCEs start appearing, we will see supercruising being implemented in earnest and without the downsides low BPR engines come with.

That depends on your altitude and velocity. Higher altitude, the air is cooler and you stand out more from the background.
In my opinion, IR sensor can’t detect fighter from 300 km in most case, however, it won’t have to, because you should also consider the distance that your stealth aircraft can detect a silent SAM site.

How will the plane detect a silent SAM? Today they are mobile and can be hidden in the terrain or forests, you have no chance of finding them AFAIK.

IR detection, head on, is like 50 km from what we know. In all certainty it is easier to detect a fast flying target than a subsonic one, but the advantage of the former is to attack while remaining outside of the reach of the adversary. That is how lopsided exchange ratios can be achieved, otherwise the result of a battle it is much more balanced.

1- Sukhoi has not talk about this configuration let alone testing it, up till now
2- R-77 with folding wing is not exist yet or if they currently have the plan to make one
In short, that configuration is purely the product of forum member drawing missiles inside the cutaway drawing of Su-57 without taking into account various important factors such as weapon separation when launched or tunes inside the bays. You can’t use that to support the statement ” Su-57 will carry double the load out of F-35″

OF COURSE
I started from current situation with A2G ordnance, you replied with future weapons and possibilities and air to air missiles. I just said there is a potential to improve volume use in such big WBs. I submit if this was a critical issue, RuAF would engage in the effort of getting substantially higher MRAAM loads in them. But given how opaque the Su-57 development roadmap is, we could maybe not know of these layouts even if they were operative. Not trying to prove anything beyond the obvious existence of space that would be used. Regarding the clearances, I sent also samples of real world weapons packed really tight, not unlike my drawing.

1. You could say it is over optimistic claims but on the otherhand, why limit it to F-35? how can you know Sukhoi claims about Su-57 isn’t overly optimistic as well?

What claims?

2. F-35 can be equipped with ramjet air to air missiles, Russian don’t have ramjet air to air missiles in production or in development at the moment, it could be possible that in 25-30 years, Russian can have scramjet air to air missiles but not now or in the near future, you can’t just ignore that. They have not talk about scramjet air to air missiles yet. So to included scramjet or ramjet missiles along with 8 MRAAMs configuration in Su-57 to compare with current or 2025 F-35 is not accurate or reasonable.

R-77PD was to be ramjet. We stopped hearing anything about it, or at least I find nothing. With Russian programs this means nothing, it could be already in testing, or having been cancelled altogether. In any case they are aware of this development and have had ramjets for decades, so it is not reasonable to think it is beyond their capabilities to develop an equivalent to Meteor.
In any case I think a scramjet LRAAM would be a thing. Say 9 M, R-37 equivalent with similar or even increased range, or a super long range missile to threaten AWACS even before they can lead other fighters against you. The advantage is for Russia in this particular aspect, don’t know if they will develop it or not but the technical capacity seems to be there.

Secondly, in a fight between stealth aircraft: If your radar is far less effective due to stealth, and your IR sensor only managed to detect your opponents from 35-45 km, and the NEZ of your ramjet missiles is 100-150 km then supercruise or not probably doesn’t matter

.
True, air combat normally happens at such distances rather than hundreds of km. It depends a lot on the particular situation.

3. I think power generator also depends on the exact configuration of the airplane, F-35B can use its engine drive shaft to power the generator for the laser system. Doing a similar thing on Su-57 could be impossible

It would loose a lot of space for fuel and still have issues to cool the electronics, but the existence of the model with shaft and a space where it can be placed is interesting indeed. A little too soon to say Su-57 cannot be modified though. And also to say this is a given in F-35, still far away in the future.

I don’t think skywave OTH radar can provide targeting solution.

UHF was also claimed too imprecise but E-2D is apparently capable of providing targeting data for AAM launch. We don’t know what is really the limit now. And besides R-37 and many other missiles have ARH so they don’t need to be guided during end game.

E-2 is always UHF.

True stealthflanker, don’t know where I read L band. Funny how it is marketed as an anti-stealth solution without any issue due to lack of precision of lower band etc.

No deff not four missiles, but how about three?
Guess its a matter of the missile size

It is definitely tight and it is just a very crude estimation to show the space is roughly there. What are exactly the minimum clearances that need to be respected? I guess you understand we talk about a matter of few centimeters, I cannot know if 7 cm is ok and 5 not. This depends on many factors.

It has been clear for some time that each side of the weapons bay on the Su-57 will carry one R-77 class missile for a total of four. This was confirmed if I’m not mistaken by some of the information that came out (unfortunately so much information was lost with the deletion of previous Pak-Fa threads). No offense to paralay, but his drawings are just that, drawings. Even those make clear there is zero chance of some four missiles per bay. Weapon separation and space for launchers is “real world”, drawing schematics based on guesstimates of bay dimensions, and internal layout while packing missiles in like sausages is not.

Happy to be able to ask someone who apparently has exact info on what are minimum clearances for weapon release, in this case considering the missile would be guided outside of the bay by the ejecting pylon. How much is it ok and how much is not? What is the exact measure of the internal space in the Su-57 bays?

Below some “real world” clearances for you, showing what can be done when ordnance needs to fit really tight. Tell me how many centimeters those SDBs are apart from each other.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tGBU-39-F-22A-S.jpg Views:t0 Size:t53.5 KB ID:t3858743″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858743″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”GBU-39-F-22A-S.jpg”}[/ATTACH]

Of course it is easier when clearances are half a meter each side, but that is not a luxury stealth planes have. As the technology improves and experience is built up, the only way is to optimize the spaces, exactly as US is doing. Kh-59MK2 in the Su-57 bays have no big clearances either.

Barring any any actual news or technical details, this thread has turned into the equivalent of “alternate history” topics on military forums. “Wouldn’t it be cool if”, is a poor substitute for hard intel. Same goes for VCE technology on the iizd. 30, when you have to selectively interpret an interview, you are departing from available information in search of confirmation bias based on what you want to be true.

No, it remains the same place it has always been, where people which actually try to talk about the plane (whatever small bits and pieces of info are released) are continually disrupted by US naysayers with no interest of debating anything but in keeping the program permanently under a negative light. It is decidedly tiresome.

You know the information available about the Su-57 is extremely restricted. So it takes a lot of effort and frankly even imagination to figure out what stands behind the hints we receive. It would be much nicer to have full info about the plane with current capabilities and roadmaps, but MoD has not the slightest interest in this happening, which is BTW the right approach about issues critical for national security. It is easy and cheap to complain because people try to make sense of the available info, but your accusation that we are just searching for what we want to see instead of the truth is completely gratuitous and I find almost offended by it. If you don’t like it don’t participate, there is no more juicy info to talk about, period.

For instance Izd. 30, now that you raise the topic: what part of SFC of high BPR engine + highest specific thrust of any equivalent does not imply VCE in your opinion? Discuss it with facts if you think I am wrong, I am more than ready to be corrected, but mocking the topic without nothing concrete to say is contributing nothing useful to the discussion and rather taking the thread even more in the wrong direction.

Sad and so much irreplaceable information was lost on all those deleted Pak-Fa threads. This is what I mean by bay layout, physical dimensions without layout is pretty useless:

Given the sizes of Russian weapons destined for the Su-57 it is not very difficult to infer that the bays have two launchers each and allow free space at least 40 cm + pylon + clearances in depth. We cannot be sure but this looks the most likely possibility.

Isn’t R-74 and R-73 and RVV-MD all have very big tail

Paralay answered this already. In any case I don’t know if I have seen R-74M2 already, the missile programs to go with Su-57 deliver quite little info about their progress.

I don’t think you need a cruise missiles that can fly 550 km to defeat medium range, mobiles SAM such as Buk or Tor-M1.
SPEAR with max range of 140 km is more than adequate to that task, even F-35B can carry 8 internally, it also got an jet engine for low altitude launch.

Please allow me to be sceptic with these new wonder weapons that are going to be four or eight times smaller than current ones while doubling their range and being ultra lethal. Will they even have a warhead? There are a number of ways of degrading the guidance of smart weapons you know, if the warhead is 5 kg HE (just to say something) it needs to impact right at the target to have any effects at all. You cannot go around physics just because somebody in JSF program wants to sell more weapons under too optimistic premises, as it always happens BTW in order to get a development program started.

In any case what I meant is that these kind of air defences are always going to be difficult to find and have ranges enough to attack planes at substantial distances, in case you carry external weapons. See Serbia again, they didn’t have the radars on all the time or were static, waiting for someone to eliminate them.

In any case, these weapons and tactics would be more or less ok against low level militaries. I don’t see this working against powerful IADS, simply not. And it makes sense, since they are used always against weaker countries, not against China or Russia.

it is too early to predict Su-57 cost

Gutenev is quoted as saying it would cost 2.5 times less than F-22 and F-35. That would be very roughly between 36 and 57 million, at the time this was said (2018). I guess they know how much it ill cost.

Secondly, i don’t think you can design weapons bay for F-35 so that it can carry four JSM internally

I guess you can’t, that is the point.

fighter are more than capable of carrying missiles which can out range SAM, but i don’t think any of them can out accelerate or out climb medium/long range SAM

It depends. In any case you know the engagement geometry and kinetic capabilities of each involved element is relevant. A fast supercruiser will be able to come much closer to a SAM than the equivalent subsonic strike plane. An anti radiation missile launched from it will reach the target much faster, its missiles will have much more range etc. Engagement windows depend very strongly on the target, no point IMO in discussing this.

Flying faster will increase IR signature which will increase time of exposure

What AD system can detect a plane at say 300 km via IR?

Once you carry ordnance which can fly 550 km or even 900 km (MALD-V) , it isn’t very necessary to carry them internally

Again, depends how deep in the enemy territory the targets are, and what air force is countering you.

If i recall correctly, the current load is 4 MRAAM with potential space for 6 MRAAM, which is quite similar to F-35, J-20
Nevertheless, it is surely not double the load.

The bays from what we know would have space for 4 R-77 sized missiles side to side if they had folding wings. They would need two double pylons, currently all indicates there are only two single ones per bay so this third missile you mention would not have any point to attach it to.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4 MRAAM 002.jpg Views:t0 Size:t344.8 KB ID:t3858719″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858719″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”4 MRAAM 002.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4 MRAAM 005.png Views:t0 Size:t22.9 KB ID:t3858720″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858720″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”4 MRAAM 005.png”}[/ATTACH]

In an extreme case, maybe additional missiles could be hung on the doors of the WB like in F-35, going to 6 or even 8 missiles per bay. Have not really checked but I guess is doable since the bay is very deep. This would make sense for instance to do patrol with 2 x SRAAM, 6 x MRAAM and the second bay carrying additional fuel, maybe around 1500 kg more that would we like 15% extra fuel for range close to 4000 km, considering current range and fuel capacity estimations are reasonable. That would be many hours on station and very long reach indeed.

The air frame will remain but there are various enhancement that make it less of an issue:
1-ACE engine with 20% more thrust
2- Ramjet air to air missiles
3- DEW
4- Miniature weapons with extreme range: AGM-X, GBU-X, SiAW

They will not be the only ones improving technology and will start the race with a burden other planes do not have. To the concrete points:
1. 20% thrust increase in what flying regime? Again over optimistic claims from manufacturers eager to sell. If it is VCE it will help increase dry thrust. But it will not necessarily improve subsonic fuel economy just by being VCE. A plane like F-35 will welcome more thrust at that regime but will it turn into a supercruiser like the F-22? Most probably not, because of the high drag inherent to the design.
2. Ramjet AAM: not the only ones working on this. In fact Russia with Zircon is close to deploy scramjet missiles, do you want to bet how long until this tech goes to a very long range AAM?
3. True. Twin engine planes have an advantage in terms of power generation and big airframes can evacuate more heat. Russia works on this actively too.
4. See above. Physics rule, a small missile will always have smaller range and warhead than a bigger one despite all Powerpoints in this world.

Mach 10 is the top velocity when missile travel out of atmosphere (same as all ballistic missile), at that point it can be intercept by SM-3

It never leaves atmosphere. SM-3 is of no use.

Once reentry Kinzhal will be slower, furthermore, i would imagine it need to hit its target still, so the direction of travel will eventually come back to the original flight path, and the interceptor missiles will intercept in a head on collision rather than tail chase so i guess that account for something

But the missiles manouver, very hard. You don’t know when it is going to move in what direction so you end up eventually chasing it.

Bottom line, the maneuvering, hyper sonic target drone like GQM-163, AQM-37, Silver Sparrow could be intercepted, so SM-6 clearly don’t have trouble with target faster than Mach 2.2

It is not that simple and I don’t take these assurances demonstrate the ability to intercept real enemy hypersonic missiles in combat conditions, at all. If you have any good link it would be interesting to look at it. After decades of ABM scams I am not very confident in these statements, specially when physics point it would be very difficult or impossible.

What i trying to convey: Kinzhal is class as an air launched ballistic missiles rather than a Scramjet or tactical boost glider, the kind of hypersonic weapon that will give US armed force an issue is boost glider and scram jet missiles
This is probably very confusing but the ability to fly at hypersonic speed but doesn’t give a weapon the same capability as the so called supersonic weapon being developed now.
Most ballistic missiles can fly at hypersonic speed but they can’t do so at the same altitude or flight path as current developing hypersonic weapon.
The maneuvering capability of Kinzhal is likely similar to Pershing II and Blue/ Silver Sparrow aka terminal maneuvering in re entry.

I understand what you mean but don’t completely agree. Air breathing CMs or gliders have their own advantages against BMs. But creating a SAM system capable of intercepting a manoeuvring hypersonic missile of any type is far from being an issue already mastered.

Ramjet missiles like Meteor can maintain Mach 4 velocity out to about 230 km and Mach 3 out to 270 km when launched from 50kft, M1.3 while Mig-31 launched R-37 can out range that, i think it is a big stretch to assume Mig-31 can engage stealth fighter from such distance.

They don’t need to see the stealth fighters at all, they would have OTH to do that for them. And how would the stealth planes remain stealth while they locate targets and guide missiles towards them? Long story short, it is far from an obvious thing. BTW, what is the engagement window of a 3 M missile against a 2.8 M plane?

The top speed goal of Su-57 was originally Mach 2.35, but this was reduced to Mach 2.1 and then to Mach 2

This is more or less what I head too. Apparently higher speed would have required to increase weight to make the keels more robust but have no further details.

as i heard the main reason for the difference is that the T-50 uses more composite materials in its primary structure than the Su-35S, which makes heavy use of titanium.

Different parts of the plane use different materials. Structure is alu, surface is mostly composite, areas around the engines are titanium. No big changes in 5G from 4G apart from having big a complex surfaces created in composites

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:toAglXSPMCSw.jpg Views:t0 Size:t194.9 KB ID:t3858721″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858721″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”oAglXSPMCSw.jpg”}[/ATTACH]