Thursday, July 22, 2021

It's About Time

CNO Gilday has finally acknowledged what everyone with a double digit IQ saw from the very beginning:

 

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday on Tuesday conceded that the service’s choice to include almost two dozen new technologies on its latest aircraft carrier was a mistake … (1)

 

A mistake?  Really?  Do you think?  How many years has it taken you to figure this out?  The rest of the world has been saying this since day one.  What an idiot.

 

CNO Gilday, I know you’re too stupid to figure out such obvious things on your own so why don’t you just read this blog.  I’ve laid out all the right choices for you.

 

If Gilday had an ounce of integrity, he’d recall to active duty the previous CNOs who were involved with this Ford fiasco, court-martial them for dereliction of duty, and then resign for his own part in all this along with his recommendation that he, himself, be court-martialed.

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

(1)Breaking Defense, “CNO: Too Much New Tech On Ford Was A Mistake ”, Justin Katz, 21-Jul-2021,

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/07/cno-too-much-new-tech-on-ford-was-a-mistake/


65 comments:

  1. Too bad they couldn't have realized this before we committed 40% of our fleet to this design.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brutally Honest...old school stuff right there, but it is true. Can we toss in the LCS and the AGS for good measure? Its always past the point of no return that begin to realize these things. UGH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Brutally Honest"

      Yeah, I'd be relieved of command for that because I'd hurt someone's feelings.

      Delete
    2. Definitely, my kind of CO. Truth hurts, lying is bad. I will take the honest truth every single day.

      Delete
  3. Only generals and admirals could make a $15 BILLION dollar mistake and say:
    "Our bad..." and nothing else happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being an Admiral is evidently like being a weatherman, a profession where you can be wrong most of the time and still keep your job....

      Delete
    2. Disagree. The Admirals were not wrong with what they thought they were doing. They were simply ensuring they had a seat on the board when they retired for the defense companies they pushed this money towards. They werent wrong, they knew exactly what they were doing.

      Delete
    3. They tested EM launch system on dry land and assumed the system would behave the same over tossing seas.

      Delete
  4. Sorry, unrelated news but looks like it's "official": USMC is in the ASW biz! I really don't know what's next for USMC, what's their core mission?

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41644/marine-uh-1y-venom-helicopters-have-been-assisting-in-the-hunt-for-submarines

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but what on earth can Marines possibly contribute to ASW? Are they that desperate for missions?

      Delete
    2. It really looks like USMC is just throwing crap on the wall and seeing if anything sticks....its just busy work to look busy IMO.

      Delete
    3. The ASW utility helo may be the dumbest idea yet, however, in the interest of honesty, the competition for dumbest Marine idea is pretty stiff so …

      A utility helo as ASW has lots of problems:

      1. No on board signal processing
      2. No ASW weapon
      3. No networked ASW control software and network comms
      4. No way to operate from a 'hidden' base without clearly giving the base's location away for free.
      5. In a forward base concept, no land based guiding radar to control buoy placement (those things aren't tossed out at random!).

      A land base operating helos for ASW would at least double in size with the need for additional fuel, signal processing facilities, radar guidance, helo maintenance, thirty some additional people and their food and water needs, etc.

      The Marine's concepts all depend on the Chinese being deaf, dumb, and blind.

      Delete
    4. Marines involved in ASW? They give up their armor and now want to "Hunt for Red October"? That ranks up there with sending a USCG cutter into the Black Sea with nothing more than an oversized BB gun. Good grief.

      Delete
    5. It sounds like it's just using the MEU's embarked helicopters to drop sonobouys, the real ASW work is still being done by Navy Seahawks. Just that instead of the Seahawk having to fly out and drop sonobouys in the search grid and then start searching, they're having the Hueys drop sonobouys for the Seahawk.

      Delete
    6. "It sounds like it's just using the MEU's embarked helicopters to drop sonobouys, the real ASW work is still being done by Navy Seahawks."

      No. ASW is far more than just dropping as many sonobuoys as you can, randomly, over as large an area as possible. For one thing, just spewing buoys out as fast as possible will deplete the finite supply in short order.

      For another, buoy placement is not random. It has to be coordinated in careful patterns and with an eye towards conservation of buoy inventory.

      Yet another concern is that someone, somewhere, has to monitor and analyze the buoys that are dropped so, again, dropping as many as possible is counterproductive because we don't have the analysis capability. That's one reason the S-3 Viking is missed - it had its own on-board analysts.

      I'm unaware that we are currently buoy dispersal-limited so what problem is this solving?

      If it's intended to augment a MEU, the ARG carries plenty of its own dedicated ASW helos so, again, what problem is being solved? If it's intended to operate from those magic hidden bases, those bases don't have the facilities to operate and maintain helos, coordinate ASW ops, analyze buoy signals, conduct comms, radar coordinate buoy placement, and so on.

      What problem is this solving?

      Delete
    7. I read a similar(??) article, and the Marines were literally throwing sonobuoys out the door by hand... It was said that it was filling a deficiency/ helping the Navy. Clearly another attempt to validate a small part of the Commandants daydreams. Honestly at this point, its kind of embarrassing having articles about what the Navy and Marines are doing...!!!

      Delete
    8. I think the Commandant is searching desperately for budget relevance and is looking for new justifications rather than focusing on existing and well justified capabilities. Why he's doing this, I don't know. The Marines don't need to justify themselves, they just need to refocus on their core mission which they lost sight of during the protracted Iraq/Afg land fights.

      Delete
    9. Obvious problem with using helicopters for ASW: Small combat radius and low speeds (compared to fixed wing aircraft) mean the helicopters can only hunt submarines if these subs are relatively close to the helipads.

      Modern cruise missiles allow a submarine to attack the very helipads the ASW helicopters operate from, and then escape before the launch position can be pinpointed to allow retaliation.

      Using a warship as a helipad, works better because a warship has antimissile defenses to reduce the chance she'll be sunk before the submarine is found and then destroyed; and the mobility to pursue the escaping submarine, reducing limitations the helicoper's small combat radius imposes.

      Using a "hidden island base" as a helipad, brings no such advantages.

      Delete
    10. Real worst part is USMC touting this as some new capability....when they tossing sonobuoys by hand from a helicopter....seriously?!? This is the proud USMC?!?

      Delete
    11. "I'm unaware that we are currently buoy dispersal-limited so what problem is this solving?"

      My understanding of the process is that the Seahawk has to first fly the sonobuoy dispersal mission, and then has to switch over to monitoring, it can't do both simultaneously.

      As you've mentioned before, ASW helos have limited uptime, and an ARG won't have the same number of ASW Seahawks available that a CVN+Desron would have. How many escorts are there in an ARG with their own helos? and how many Seahawks is the LHD carrying? I don't think it'll have the same density.

      So, thinking purely conceptually, it sounds like a good idea if you can get the ARG's Hueys to work with the Seahawks and fly the buoy dispersal mission, this allows the Seahawks to dedicate their limited uptime purely on monitoring the sonobuoy results.

      Delete
    12. "What problem is this solving?"

      It's solving the USMC budget problem, or at least that's the plan.

      Delete
    13. "it can't do both simultaneously."

      I've never heard that and can't imagine why it would be since the two processes are completely unrelated. Do you have a reference for that?

      Delete
    14. "I've never heard that and can't imagine why it would be since the two processes are completely unrelated."

      Poor choice of words on my part - I'd been conflating the dipping sonar use with sonobuoy result monitoring.

      Delete
  5. I'll criticize my own idle here. When we aren't continually working engineering designs for new ships we lose the expertise in the gaps. The Reagan buildup had good, affordable ships to build from their predecessors. What class program started during Reagan other than Seawolf? I'm glad that right now they plan to pre the new SSN so it starts getting designed as soon as the SSBNs are done designing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heard there be a "hiatus" between the new SSBN first of class and next ones to give more time for manufacturers to get the problems ironed out before starting production and other good news is they trying to keep the design team together to work on follow up new SSN so to have more experience and expertise....

      Delete
    2. "What class program started during Reagan other than Seawolf?"

      Well, there WAS the Burke class destroyer. The initial design studies were contracted in 1980, but almost all the design work happened during the Reagan administration.

      Delete
  6. Reality could be incompetent of the R&D team, or could be falling of the nation's technology competency.

    From satellite images reported widely, China's under construction type 003 carrier also uses electromagnetic aircraft launch system. This is derived from depth of its trenches on deck. It is conventional powered. Media estimate China will launch 003 late this year. After ~ one and half years further work, it will start testing aircraft launch.

    So, in couple of years, we will know if China's Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System works or not.

    If it works, then, very sad but ... let's discuss then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least the Chinese are making the same mistake with EMALS!

      Delete
    2. "At least the Chinese are making the same mistake with EMALS!"

      Not necessarily. EMALS is just a giant electric motor connected to what amounts to a giant battery. (It's not actually a battery, but it performs that function). The fact that we did a bad job designing it doesn't mean the Chinese will too.

      Delete
    3. The EMALS still suffer from massive electromagnetic signature issue which I think Dead1 was alluding to. I think the Chinese could successfully develop a superior EMALS system if they are doing it now because the technology is mature now. It's not like they are concurrently developing it or drawing up some hypothetical nonexistent technology.

      Delete
    4. "because the technology is mature now"

      Just to expand on that thought a bit … First, the technology is not quite mature yet. The Navy is still struggling to get anywhere near the specified reliability and MBTF. Second, a 'technology' is not something in and of itself. A 'technology' rests on many foundational technologies which, in turn, rest on others. For example, jet engines are what we would consider mature technology and yet the Chinese are struggling big time trying to produce engines because they haven't mastered the underlying metallurgy and other technologies. So, even if the EMALS were mature, that doesn't mean China can just read the blueprints and produce it. They may (or may not) lack the underlying electrical and mechanical technologies to implement it. One small example (quite large, actually!) is the flywheel capacitors required to store the electrical energy for the cats. Those, presumably, require advanced materials of construction and electrical management technologies to implement. China may or may not have those capabilities.

      So, just a little added perspective about 'mature technologies' for your contemplation!

      Delete
    5. My origin point is - let's see if the Chinese EMAL works or not in a couple years.

      The US system did work during land test but later found problems in tossing sea and USS Ford's electricity supply system.

      China's decision to implement EMAL means that they are confident their tests on land could be transferred to ships. So far as I know, China uses different electricity power system to US. US uses high voltage A/C power for USS Ford but China use mid voltage D/C power.

      So, in a couple of years, we will know if the Chinese EMAL works or not. If not, they made same mistake as US; if it works, then, we need to look seriously to the nation's military R&D.

      Delete
    6. "So, in a couple of years, we will know if the Chinese EMAL works or not."

      Your premise is flawed. The Chinese have had the benefit of 'hindsight' in that they've seen what works and doesn't work for the US so that's eliminated a lot of questions and potential problems. Thus, success for the Chinese demonstrates nothing other than that they can copy someone else without making the same mistakes.

      Delete
    7. "So, just a little added perspective about 'mature technologies' for your contemplation!"

      You certainly talk extensively about implementing state of the art but mature equipment on aircraft/ship design and you probably let the experts decide which is mature. But I wonder if you have a specific definition of what is mature and what isn't? Is it land tested and then implement on a ship? Or it has to be deployed on an older model? Does it use existing technologies? What's your view on this?

      Delete
    8. "I wonder if you have a specific definition of what is mature and what isn't?"

      A mature technology is one that has been rigorously tested under realistic operating conditions and the resulting problems fixed and retested. This probably involves a prototype. Do all that successfully and you have a mature technology. That doesn't mean that another problem could never crop up but it means you've demonstrated a fully functional technology under realistic operating conditions. Now, go ahead and put it into production.

      This is pretty straight-forward stuff.

      Delete
  7. "almost two dozen new technologies"

    Trying to come up with a list nearing two dozen, the well known ones are the A1B nuclear reactor. EMALS, AAG, AWE, SPY-3 & 4 radars and the associated special variants of the SM-2s and ESSMs and after that I'm struggling, just wondering if missing something important.

    The only one that appears to work as planned is the A1B nuclear reactor, assume even the Navy knew if they screwed that up the consequences didn't bear thinking about so it would have been thoroughly tested, though never seen any figures for its development and production costs, expect running into $billions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there's also the toilets, although I believe they're shared with the George HW Bush and STILL don't work right.

      Delete
    2. Idk...is the reactor on the list?? I mean, it may be a new model, but it's nothing really new.

      Delete
    3. Would agree, its same with the special variants of SM-2s and ESSMs to work with the X-band SPY-3 (Navy planning to replace the SPY-3s on Zumwalts), but typical CNO Gilday hyperbole as also claiming the near two dozen in number.

      Whether its new technology or new model kit, unless proved out in prior testing the result is concurrency and massive overspend.

      Ford build cost ~$20+ billion in FY2021 dollars and build still not yet finished three and a half years after commissioning (last November reported Newport News Shipbuilding had 200 shipyard workers aboard installing the four outstanding AWEs and Rr Adm Downey executive officer for aircraft carriers said they would be completed by April this year, Gilday now saying further eight months slippage to year’s end).

      PS Congress should require Gilday to list the 23 items to back up his statement.

      Delete
    4. "Congress should require Gilday to list the 23 items to back up his statement."

      I have no reason to think Gilday is obscuring the truth about the number of new technologies. For example, Ford had a new technology Plasma Arc waste disposal system installed. That's not glamorous, well known weapon system technology but it's new technology so there's another one to add to the list. There are more like that that are lesser known that I've read about over the years but that don't get any attention. One can always quibble over the definition of new technology and that might add or subtract a few items from the list but there was a lot of new tech.

      Delete
  8. Looks like the Navy confused the kind of risks that have to be taken in war with the kind of risks that private-sector employees are encouraged to take.

    It's interesting that the latter kind are urged on salesmen, who can be easily disposed of if they loose money for the company, but *not* on the engineers who design and build the company's products. Mistakes creating products do lasting damage, just like building an aircraft carrier that doesn't work properly.

    The Navy needs to learn its shipbuilding program should be run like engineering, not sales.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But sales is what they have to do with Congress, and they are more worried about winning budgetary battles than wars.

      Delete
    2. So you have different people for different roles: managing engineering and selling its promises are *different tasks*. If the Navy wants all its officers to be interchangeable it will face significant drawbacks.

      Delete
    3. I think it would be helpful to have a return of something like the old BuShips, whose people could at least be perceived as experts.

      Delete
  9. "One of the most prolific examples are the weapons elevators, a capability that has been marked by an arduous testing and delivery process dragged out over several years; the service currently stands at seven of 11 elevator deliveries completed."

    They were all delivered years ago, but didn't work. He means repaired/modified. The SecNav promised they'd all be ready before the end of 2020. Here is a question to ask. He says seven have been certified for acceptance. Are they all still working, especially after the recent shock trials?

    The second in the Ford Class, USS John F. Kennedy was originally planned to be completed in 2018, but that has been pushed back several times to 2022. And another two Fords are under construction. These two were funded and began construction after serious problems with the USS Ford were identified that may be unfixable. Note that EMALS isn't broken, its doing the best it can after a decade of tinkering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Here is a question to ask. He says seven have been certified for acceptance. Are they all still working, especially after the recent shock trials?"

      Now that's a great question for which I have no answer but I will keep my eyes open for any information about that. Alignment was supposedly a critical issue for both the EMALS and elevators. I would not be surprised, at all, if the shock tests demonstrated that both were knocked out of alignment. If so, that would imply that even a relatively minor combat damage incident could render the cats and elevators inoperable.

      Great question!

      Delete
    2. Think USN just did the second round of shock testing, don't know when we will get results....my guess is USN will say everything was great and then discreetly take 2 years to repair Ford....but she's fine, just "regular" repairs....

      Delete
    3. You recall that the Navy declared the LCS shock tests a complete success with results better than anticipated. It wasn't until we saw the DOT&E report that we found out that the tests used reduced charges and skipped the final test and that damage was extensive despite much of the ship's equipment being removed from the ship ahead of the test so as to avoid damage … in other words, a complete failure. A little bit different story from the Navy's public relations statements. You're completely correct that the Navy will declare the Ford tests a total success even if the ship sinks!

      Delete
    4. "You're completely correct that the Navy will declare the Ford tests a total success even if the ship sinks!"

      "We expected her to sink faster, so it's actually a great success!"

      Delete
    5. The elevators continue to boggle me. Why on earth would you put somthing so fragile on a warship??? Tech for the sake of tech I suppose. Supposedly theyre faster and higher capacity than the old chain/cable style, but honestly, how hard is it to improve a system thats been common in various forms, like civilian elevators, for about a century??? Frankly, at about the 18mo delay point, itd of been ripped out and the old reliable system would've been installed if I was in charge. I know Ive heard how expensive thatd be, but I call BS on that, nevermind what the "cost" is of an aircraft carrier that cant arm its planes....

      Delete
    6. "The elevators continue to boggle me."

      Forget about the technical problems. The bigger question is what problem was this supposed to solve? The existing type of elevators did the job just fine. Weapons movement from the magazines to the flight deck was NEVER a chokepoint. Thus, there was no problem to be solved.

      This is like spending a gazillion dollars so that your lights turn on faster. They already turn on plenty fast enough so what problem are you solving?

      The old system wound up piling up the weapons on the flight deck (or hangar or wherever they were staged) because there were other chokepoints in the sortie chain so, even if the new elevators worked perfectly they'd just wind up piling up the weapons faster and in bigger piles. What problem was solved?

      Delete
    7. Agree, USN never talks about that, you are bringing up the weapons faster GREAT! BUT did they change the method they are attaching the bombs or missiles to the jets?!? Because if not, you just stacking them up on the deck FASTER then before...and as far as I known, USN hasn't changed it's method of sticking bombs to wings....

      Delete
    8. Consider the sortie chain - the chain of events required to launch an aircraft. It involves, among other things, fueling/refueling, aircraft repair and maintenance, pilot rest, pre-flight checks, mission planning, aircraft deck relocations, arming, etc. Elevator speed is NOT a chokepoint. One or more of the many other factors are.

      Delete
    9. "Forget about the technical problems. The bigger question is what problem was this supposed to solve?"

      What problem(s) was any of it supposed to solve?

      Delete
    10. From reading various GAO, CBS, CRS reports over the last few years, the rationale for electric motor elevators, instead of the previous cable and hydraulic system, was that the elevator cables sometimes broke in service, and the hydraulic fluid is flammable: liquid fires spilling on top of weapons is a pretty bad thing. Also, more speed was desired - the elevator only goes up about 100 feet a minute, which is a problem when you have to send weapons up 5 stories.

      The problem with the elevators isn't really with the motors - that's all based off railway motors, that shit's been in testing and operation for a long time - the problem is with the computer controlled blast door interlocks and the physical installation of doors and guides, with physical tolerances being specified too tightly for realistic operation.

      To point out one of the more specific problems known to have been had. Blast door alignment kept being out of spec, meaning the doors and safely interlocks jam, nothing will move or work. Problem was the hinges and armor doors were all welded together. Which is stronger... but meant a large amount of work was required for every single adjustment attempt. One of the fixes? New hinge attachment design with different weld points allowing the blast doors to be removed more easily to keep doing the adjustments. Great. But somehow it took several years to do that because the US Navy simply didn't take a hands on approach to fixing this problem in the first place, they left it to the contractor for several years, and the contractor just treaded water because they didn't want to be responsible for major design changes.

      Or to put it to a railway analogy: the train works fine, but the track laid was fucked up.

      Delete
    11. "more speed was desired - the elevator only goes up about 100 feet a minute, which is a problem when you have to send weapons up 5 stories."

      Why is that a problem? The maximum total vertical lift is on the order of 60-100 ft, depending on what elevator, so the lift time for the old system was on the order of 36 sec - 60 sec. That was never the limiting factor in generating sorties. I'll repeat, what problem was this solving?

      Delete
    12. How much of a problem that was is debatable; the Navy considered it a problem. Mind, the Navy was also pursuing faster sortie generation at the time...

      The Navy's argument was with faster elevators and less crew, you can now have space for dedicated weapon assembly spaces - the Nimitzes have to convert the crew mess spaces into weapons assembly rooms, you can't feed the crew and do missions at the same time, and you're adding additional delay because you have to be always setting up and breaking down your weapons assembly space. This theoretically means that the Ford would be better able to sustain flight operations over long periods of time. In reality, you're still going to need to have lengthy stand down time in between flight ops, because crew fatigue is a thing, but the idea was that it'd make Ford more flexible, in an era of ever-evolving long range surveillance and autonomous weapons that might strike at any moment...

      I think a stronger case could be made for battle damage resilience with electrical motors versus cables and hydraulics.

      Delete
    13. "I think a stronger case could be made for battle damage resilience with electrical motors versus cables and hydraulics."

      On the other hand, given the demonstrated incredibly tight tolerances that have confounded even the ability to make the elevators work under perfect conditions, the slightest battle damage - meaning vibrations or flexing from explosions - could render all the elevators out of tolerance and inoperable. This seems far more likely than physical damage to cables and hydraulics.

      "weapons assembly space"

      And there's the proof that elevator speed is meaningless and solves no problem. The old system was fast enough that weapons piled up in weapon assembly spaces. A faster elevator is just going to pile up weapons even faster. It won't actually speed up the sortie chain which has so many other limiting factors.

      Delete
    14. "faster sortie generation"

      DOT&E and I have proven that sortie rate was never a valid design criteria (carriers have never been sortie limited) and the Ford program claims of faster sortie generation have been disproved by DOT&E.

      Delete
    15. ""the Navy considered it a problem"

      You're not going to make me list all the things the Navy has considered to be good things that have turned out to be complete wastes and failures, are you?

      Almost by definition, if the Navy considers something to be important, it isn't!

      You should probably never use the Navy's opinion as support for an argument because they're invariably wrong!

      Don't make me list all the examples!

      Delete
    16. I thought it was clear that I was being skeptical about the Navy's intent and judgement...

      "On the other hand, given the demonstrated incredibly tight tolerances that have confounded even the ability to make the elevators work under perfect conditions, the slightest battle damage - meaning vibrations or flexing from explosions - could render all the elevators out of tolerance and inoperable. This seems far more likely than physical damage to cables and hydraulics."

      As I said, the problem isn't with the elevators themselves, but with the doors and guide rails being installed with too-tight tolerances and the Navy being too hands off about fixing problems right until it got too late to do so cheaply. Interlock doors not being sized correctly, going out of alignment and jamming, would be just as much of a problem to conventional cable-and-hydraulic elevators.

      I do find it amusing to see all of the complaints in the blogosphere and the media about the new technology of the electric elevators - these motors are essentially railway electric motors. Electric trains have been running for decades now.

      Delete
    17. "these motors are essentially railway electric motors. Electric trains have been running for decades now."

      I'm not intimately familiar with the motors the Navy is trying to use but the problems with both the EMALS and elevators suggests that there are problems that go beyond the simple function of the motors themselves. What those problems are, we have only sketchy information about.

      While I've seen passing mention of the interlock door alignment issues, you seem to have much more in-depth knowledge about the problems than what I've ever seen. Do you have a reference?

      I've also read that the motor-to-motor alignment and motor handoff timing in the elevators has proven problematic (which sounds very much like some of the major EMALS issues).

      You appear to be laying the entire/bulk of the elevator problems on the door alignment. Again, do you have a reference?

      "I thought it was clear that I was being skeptical about the Navy's intent and judgement... "

      No, I read it as defending them. Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

      Delete
    18. I'd have to go through the last decade of GAO, CBS and CRS reports to find the exact citations; it's a picture that has only emerged with time. The information is out there, but finding and re-consolidating it is the challenge.

      I'm not saying that there is no scope for problems with the elevator motors, but as you mentioned with motor-to-motor alignment and handoff problem, those aren't problems with the electric motors and technology therein, those are problems with installation.

      Delete
    19. "it's a picture that has only emerged with time"

      Okay. Please understand, I get a lot of statements from people that they believe to be true but that turn out to be false or only partially true. They're not lying, it's just that ideas get distorted and confused over time. It's just human memory behavior.

      I question statements and ask for references when someone makes a statement that doesn't match anything I've heard before. I've, of course, read about the blast door alignment issues but your description of the hinges as the source of the problems is new to me so I asked for a reference. It's certainly plausible but I've never heard it and I keep pretty well up on these things. So, I'll conditionally accept it for the time being and if you can find a reference, please let me know. I'd love to read more about it.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.