The 2022-23 Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) Annual Report by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) presents an analysis of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) ongoing Meteor programme.

As part of the report, projects are scrutinised based on a Red-Amber-Green scale, with the Meteor project receiving an ‘Amber’ rating, signalling the necessity of consistent management attention.

Initiated as a part of the MOD’s commitment to maintaining a cutting-edge beyond visual range air-to-air missile capability, the Meteor programme engages in a collaboration with partners in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Sweden. The joint venture aims not only to share costs but also to capitalise on the potential of the global beyond visual range air-to-air missile export market.

The unchanged ‘Amber’ Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating from the previous financial year underscores the ongoing challenges of the project. Despite these difficulties, the first successful acceptance and test of the Meteor Spiral development SP1.1 have led to substantial boosts in operational capability, according to the data.

Furthermore, the report points out that Spiral 2 is well underway, with expected delivery slated for late 2023. Following the extension of the Meteor In-Service Support contract, extra measures have been implemented to facilitate frontline delivery and develop a missile serviceability triage system.

The end date of the project remains set for 2048-12-31, with no reported deviations from the planned schedule. However, information concerning baseline and forecasted costs, budget variance, and the total budgeted whole life costs were exempted under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, owing to commercial interests.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

102 COMMENTS

  1. Integrate them on the F-16 and send some to Ukraine, without mentioning it, until airbourne Russian planes start exploding well behind their own lines.

    • That would be an absolute game changer. Meteor is undoubtedly the most effective AAM on the face of the earth today. If the UK managed to enable Storm Shadow on Ukrainian Su-24s, then maybe also Meteor could be integrated on Ukrainian Su-27s? This would give the old Flankers an effective weapon against Russian long range aviation and maybe prevent some of the awful missile attacks against citizens in Ukraine.

      • That’s under the assumption the UKR aircraft have an effective enough radar to make use of the Meteors range.

      • Different tactics Frost, after information on potential platform integration perhaps, well …..
        “Stop, don’t tell him your name Pike”

      • Storm Shadow probably has its target information loaded on the ground.

        I suspect that the UK helps to create the target files.

        The aircraft then go to the release location and fire the missile.

        The Storm Shadow missile does the rest.

        Meteor is totally different in that it has ongoing comms with a range of data sources that can course and target correct it.

        Other beyond visual range data sources are required to be fully integrated with the weapons and navigation systems.

        • I assume it only becomes self sufficient at a given range from target. Wonder if there is any possible solution, not optimistic. Anyway while Storm Shadow though good is no longer state of the art, Meteor is, so even if it were possible just no way will they risk that falling into Russian hands surely.

          • Storm Shadow that is gifted to Ukraine is probably the early version.

            The current version is more sophisticated and can take mid course corrections – but that takes a lot of platform integration.

            I don’t know why you said it isn’t state of the art? It is pretty stealthy and terrain hugging? So it us quite hard to track. Yes, it is subsonic.

            It would be fascinating to know what % have really been shot down and what % have hit targets. I would guess over 80% success rate. So I’m not sure it is in the useless/dated category?

      • Yes and maybe then the Russian “scared force” may increase their annual flying hours from 40 hours to 50 per annum, to include banking left, then right, GPS training (once go outdoors delivery turns up) and landing again (as that part of their very basic flight training has been missing recently, as we have see with the ones who decide to crash, due to not having been taught to land) and then maybe they can spend some time on combat training!

        Ah the fear the West had throughout the 70/80/s of the Russian “bear”, turned out the bear is a bedraggled piss stained, shitty tag nutted scrawny alley cat, which has been knocked over by cars multiple times and limps around the neighbourhood trying it on with weaker versions of itself !

          • Ah spook, you popped out of the woodwork to support your fellow trolls, nice! Never done air soft, you? I’ve heard however you’re soft very often hence your man like trolling! Good lad keep up the efforts at manhood.

          • Of course. Going in the opposite direction, few missiles get shot down, where Russia loses a large % to hit some thing.

            And Russian LRA launching from way back, sometimes closer to the Caspian.

            You know full well A refers to their fighters and tactical aviation.

          • You mean missiles fired mostly by ground forces, and drones, with a massive reduction of those fired by the Russian “trying to be an air force” due to fears of being either shot down or controlled flight into solid objects such as earth? Those ones you mean?

          • No, no, that’s Kremlin propaganda. All Russian missiles are intercepted. Except the ones targeted at orphanages, kitten sanctuaries and pizza restaurants full of NATO advisors.

          • How come missiles targeting orphanages can’t be intercepted, that is awful if Ukraine don’t protect them.

          • Funny old spooky Lukey pops up out of nowhere backing up another nonsense troll! At least you confirm orphans and kitten sanctuaries are targeted!

          • Looks like Wagner’s troll farms are back on air after their ‘holiday’ break now able to do coordinated attacks it seems. 👀

          • Spooky Lukey pops up when the other trolls are taking a beating and looking fucking stupid 😂👍

      • Meteor is much too sensitive to risk falling into Russian hands – at least until progress on the replacement or a significant upgrade is well underway. Unfortunately, giving it to Ukraine does mean the Russians would get their hands on one within a couple of months, either when an aircraft carrying them is downed or one fails to function over russian lines.

    • I wonder if they can be fired blind, lofted by old Soviet Jets, and cued onto target by something like a Patriot control unit using the data link? The Ukrainian’s have a serious problem with Russian jets standing off and lobbing long range missiles and bombs, Meteor would certainly give them something to think about.

    • There is a slight problem with F-16…and its one that Gripen suffers from…

      The missile massively outranges the radar….you cannot use it anywhere close to its full potential.

      • That is a problem. Also I don’t believe Ukraine has any kind of AWAC asset that can guide Meteor via datalink. It really would be just handing the system to the Russians as it will fly off until it loses battery power and crash behind the lines.

        • Ah is that your military assessment then spooky Lukey? Don’t let it worry you, NATO will provide the means of overcoming this teeny weeny problem. Then I’m sure you will join us all in the cheer that more Russian invaders are being removed from taking part in the illegal invasion, and their families proudly receive a Lada or some other crap. Yes?

          • Is your main objection that the invasion is illegal? Would you be happier if it was a legal invasion? NATO enjoy a good old illegal invasion here and there and everyone here seems fine with it.

          • Weak effort at justifying an illegal invasion of a sovereign country! More effort required, just a 2 out of 10 for that one. Is your main objective supporting Putins version of copying Hitler? I presume that’s a yes. And if you bother to read many many posts from many many contributors you will find massive disagreements with many NATO interventions. Oh dear, maybe should make an effort at reading first prior to posting 😂😂😂👜

          • Wow you found a picture on the internet! Hold on I will dig out one of the muppet show for you. Equally weak response, damn trolls nowadays just don’t cut the mustard, gonna be an 1 out of 10 me old China. Oh dear doesn’t the Like troll like being challenged? 😂😂😂👜

          • Interesting that like all trolls you never answer the question posed to you! Sad little troll.

          • Don’t get overexcited airsoft, you’ll get your bennies reassessed if you get too agitated. You keep saying I’m trolling while you sit there with your Wotsit stained fingers bashing out support for the disgusting regime of Ukraine. You were so up for “smashing the fash” but never made it out there. Did mum hide your passport? Or are you a true NATO hero, only able to fight with total air superiority over goat herders with 19th century rifles? The mere whiff of a near peer conflict sends you scurrying to a doctors for a PTSD chit. Lol

          • Oh dear Lukey troll, your getting frustrated and angry, starting to chomp and froth, you do need to calm down, bite a cloth and take some deep breaths….there, feel better yet? Your true agenda comes out when you lose control.

        • Indeed Ukraine isn’t going to get Meteor I’m afraid. Let’s hope therefore there are more occasions when Patriot takes out 5 aircraft in one pop eh. Not bad for what Putin calls a less than modern system.

      • I’m not sure that is the case for apg-83 equipped f-16. A lot of the performance figures for the apg83 and the meteor are classified but based of what is publicly available, the apg83 range almost doubles that of the meteor. Of course it’s highly unlikely this radar would be on any f16 that would be sent to Ukr.

      • Second problem is R37. This missile outranges meteor. And the mig 31 gives it a tremendous amount of energy. On the SU 27, I don’t know how good is the radar warning receiver. On a Viper it is serious even though not cutting edge, but on older F16… The plane could be in big trouble. Meteor does well with Eurofighter or Rafale. Could may be work on F35, even though energy at launch would be way below what is needed, demanding to be suicidaly close to foes.

      • Public data is that the Mk 3 version of Gripens radar could detect a fighter at 120 km the year 2005. The recent Mk 4 upgrade has 150% longer range. It was made to be able to utilize the performance of Meteor. So it is no longer a problem. Now talking about Gripen C ofcourse.

    • Mind you RuAF has an 300km AA missiles in their inventory so your 200km range Meteor missile are not enough to scare them

      • We all know the Russians tend to exaggerate. Missiles can glide a very long way but that doesn’t mean they will be able to engage and hit a maneuvering target at that distance.

        What matters is terminal phase energy, on which a simple two stage rocket doesn’t even come close to a throttleable ramjet. So Meteor has by far the biggest NEZ of any AAM, R37 included.

        That’s why the Indians want to replace the latter with the former. I’m sure they wouldn’t be doing so if R37 was better.

  2. Whilst the UK has demanded that supplied weapons are not used in Russia, ukraine could lawfully purchase several dozen paid for by grain exports via Polish rail and sea ports which we could use as part of foreign aid programme.

    • This is not true. The UK, Germany and the Baltic States have stated that they have no objections to Ukraine using their ordnance to attack targets in Russia.

      A group of other NATO countries, led by Macron and Biden, have insisted that their equipment not be used to attack Russian troop concentrations over the border, nor ammuntion dumps, command and control bunkers or airfields etc. In case this is “escalatory” and provokes the war criminal Putin into firing off a “tactical” nuclear weapon.

      For the avoidance of doubt, there is no chance whatsoever that the Russians would use tactical nuclear weapons – because this would invite certain retaliation in kind and the end of our civilisation

      • David I have read the defence secretary statement and in it he specifically mentions that the weapon supplied would be used to help target Russian forces within Ukraine including Crimea area quote ” the Principle of Distinction, codified in Articles 48, 51, and 52 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention, would force me to consider donating more capable weapons to Ukraine, so they may better defend themselves within their own territory.”
        In any case the lawful purchase of equipment means that Ukraine could use it as it pleases.

        • Indeed yes. It’s because of weak leadership from Biden and posturing by the French. Macron has provided Ukraine with very little in the way of military equipment, probaby because he knows their kit is crap and they don’t want it under the spotlight

          • The 30+ french CESEAR guns have a good rep from Ukraine. Along with the €2+ billion given including €200m fund that allows Ukraine to buy what it wants from french suppliers. On top of that France has put €1.5 billion in favourable loans and contributed quite a bit to the EU funds that are running.
            I’m not sure what u mean by weak leadership from Biden. What could he do that would be much better? No leader will be perfect. Would a 2nd term trump have done it better?

          • France has given so little kit to Ukraine that it doesn’t even feature in this table published a couple of months ago by the BBC, even Denmark has donated more

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62002218

            Trump is a pro-Putin grifter on the make so no, I don’t think he would have done any better

            Biden is a pacifist at heart. When he realised that Russia was about to invade Ukraine from Belarus, he should have rapidly re-inforced eastern Europe as a deterent, but failed to do so in case it upset Putin. His threat of sanctions failed to stop the invasion and caused a huge spike in the price of gas last winter as the fossil fuel industry cashed in, causing real hardship for pensioners etc here in the UK

            Biden is always behind the curve, everything he has provided has been too late – AFV, tanks, F16 jets, cluster bombs etc. Clearly, he is afraid of Putin and particularly Medvedev’s repeated assurances that “tactical” nuclear weapons will be used. The Russian FSB have analysed Biden and know exactly what he is afraid of.

            Biden is going to fight this war to the last Ukrainian soldier, but my view is (right or wrong) that ultimately NATO boots on the ground will be needed next year.

          • The Kiel institute has loads more figures from the bbc article pulled the numbers.
            Total bilateral aid up to may 2023: france $6 billion
            Uk:$10.74 billion.
            I’m not great at numbers and can’t face trying to understand it all the different tables just now:
            So some places france looks good, others it looks bad🙈 totally confusing.
            https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
            With regards to the USA I do wonder if continents were reversed would Europe of done so much as the USA if it was say Brazil invading Columbia.
            The USA has done the most, every country
            Could do more to try and end this. If it’s a straight attrition of manpower war unfortunately Ukraine may run out of people first.

  3. Amazing to think I first saw mention of this program in 1994, in the “Front Line First” review ( cuts ) when precision stand off weaponry was coming in, and used as an excuse then to cut numbers.
    There was Apache with Hellfire, Tornado with Storm Shadow, the future Typhoon with Meteor, and our SSNs with TLAM, so all 3 services got a mention.

    Almost 30 years later, Meteor is still ongoing and said to be Amber.

    • Morning Daniele, the “Front Line First” cuts, the first great privatisation of support services….

      After Option for change, it should have actually been called “second swing of the axe” …. Boils my piss dry with anger…..

      Anyway… I think regarding Meteor, it’s got more to do with the rapid obsolescence of modern electronics and the required constant spiral development of replacement systems to keep them viable.

      Part of the huge cost of all modern systems is the fact that 10 years from delivery, it becomes difficult to support, Aircraft systems/ missiles/ warship systems etc, all effected and the cost of spiral upgrading everything all the time will only get more and more expensive…..

      Thank god we didn’t end up with Nimrod MR4A, if we did, we would now be faced with counter obsolescence upgrade for a fleet of 9 bespoke aircraft and the UK taxpayers paying for the lot ..

      It would have cost billions again…

      • Morning mate! Yes, I appreciate that, the costs of having top notch kit are eye watering, we need to at least remember the positives at having such capabilities when balanced by the reductions which hurt us all.

        • Very true mate…. Some of our upcoming weapons like Spear3 and 4, plus Tempest will be capable of seriously dropping the hammer and blowing the figurative doors off, we can take some comfort by that, perhaps let the excellent Polish Armed forces follow on in behind with the mass regarding European land warfare etc

      • Agree with you on on the chop option for change just a lot off bull .But with Nimrod MR4 think we may of been on to a winner as it had better range than the P8 and weapon load ,yes cost over runs but what defence platform doesn’t I mean take a look at Ajax 🙄

        • The main point being that the ongoing support and counter obsolesce of that tiny fleet of 9 MR4A’s would have been absolutely crippling.

          I would confidently say the cost of an update would be at least 50% of the original purchase price again.

          The avionics for MR4A were set in stone in the early 2000’s, by now those systems would be 20 years old and seriously showing their age, a full tech refresh would already be in the planning and costing stage…

          Just look at the ‘huge’ sum of money it cost us to upgrade Merlin from HM1 to 2 standard after just 10 years of service, a counter obsolesce upgrade dressed as an ‘amazing’ update…

          Because it was a bespoke upgrade on just 30 bloody helicopters!

          There is a very good reason we seem to have a comparatively (debatable point) healthy defence budget, but so very little to show for it.

          For this very same reason, expect Ajax to be the gift that keeps on giving, by 2035, they will be discussing the multi billion £££££ upgrade to Ajax, as most of its current cutting edge electronics will be out of date and increasingly difficult to support…

        • Spiral development methodologies promote continual improvement. It’s not the spiral methodology at fault but rather it’s likely the way it is being handled by the project managers (and most importantly the budget holders/providers – the politicians )

          • Press Commentators on Government Major Project Portfolio items (GMPP) really need to speak to someone who has managed one of the programmes to actually understand the RAG rating. If you just use that you get a very inaccurate view of a programme.

            My last GMPP programme, that ended recently, was rated RED, which in IPA language means undeliverable, for most of its life. It then went AMBER for a year or 2 until it went live, whereupon it switched to GREEN. That same Programme managed to deliver early, under budget and delivered benefits that were twice as large (and verifiable in cash terms) as the business case suggested…

            The reason why we kept it at RED was to ensure it retained focus from senior leaders and that ensured reliable and prompt funding…particularly for specialist resource. We were told by the Major Projects Review Board that it was the best run and delivered programme they had seen in years and was an exemplar in best practice…

            But remember it was RED for most of its life…

            It just doesn’t tell the whole story, its a snapshot in time and there can be many reasons why a programme is rated at that, including at the programmes own choice…

          • Interesting, thanks for that insight. Clearly, MoD need to communicate better, as these colour codes are seized upon by media and the uninformed.

          • They’re mainly for internal consumption is the truth. For a snapshot. There is the Transparency Return that is completed for public release every year, but you can’t go in to great detail in it.

            I’m more concerned about Parliamentary Committees not having a full understanding. All it would take is an afternoon with the IPA and some programmes and they’d get a better idea….they’d also know how to read between the lines then as well….I’m sure the IPA would be happy to accommodate as well…

            What we could do with is a full GAO style arrangement…

          • Good example, mate. Many MOD projects are delivered on time and on budget. But we only hear about the ones that don’t. But as usual, we seem to enjoy putting ourselves down and like to think everyone else does it better.

        • Air to air missiles are also the most complex to integrate due to having to work seamlessly with the radar. Mid course guidance is also key. AMRAAM was never quite as’ fire and forget’ as it was made out to be.

  4. Seeing as how so many “”newish”” land based Air defence sysytems use air to air missiles, I do wonder how good a system using the Meteor would be, seeing as how well NASAMS and IRIS-T SL have done in the Ukraine.

    • Because the front end is software controlled it isn’t that hard to modify the software for ground launch and
      to put an initial booster onto the missile to send it on its way without compromising range too much? After the booster is gone it essentially uses the software modules for the air launch version.

      That was why old AAW missiles, like Bloodhound, with any range were so massive.

      The warhead/comms/seeker etc is already there – why reinvent the wheel?

      A booster stage costs £20-30k….

      Commonality also cuts R&D + sustainment costs massively.

    • It would be an absolute monster, and to be frank its amazing that we haven’t funded it as part of Land Ceptor. A booster to get the missiles to 10,000ft+ and m2.5, or more, would get you a 200km range SAM…

      • Have read it has been considered, sorry I’m a little ignorant on the matter but what would be the major differences in its characteristics compared to long range CAMM ER. Could they work in unison, would there be substantial benefits or is CAMM effectively a poor man’s cheaper alternative in essence.

  5. Doing what the Meteor does/is intended to do is difficult. Doing difficult things is (shock and horror) difficult. So given that, it seems to me that this difficult project is progressing and they are reacting to the things they did not know that they did not know as soon as they know about them. Well done. Keep it up.

  6. I find it ridiculous that Meteor is not integrated in the F35s. Italy‘s and UK‘s F35B with Meteors would be „bombs“. Why is that?

    • Because both nations are buying a trivial amount of aircraft and neither is willing to pay the integration costs themselves.

      • Yeah I dont quite understand how that is constrained tbh.
        I believe are waiting for Block IV to be released to facilitate the integration of SPEAR (I think) onto ‘our’ F35B’s So at that point will ‘we’ be doing the intergration or will LM and is Block IV just the factiltator for LM to do the work.
        Either way wil that integration only be on ‘our’ F35B’s or will it be part of the code in which case can all F35’s then use SPEAR’ out of the box so to speak?
        Just confused as to who does what and what that then enables and for whom.

        I still think the modularity of the weapons code shoud be such that countries could interface into a commom API for development of their own missles/weapons as approriate- but that would take work away from LM I suppose.

        • Had those thoughts myself especially when you see how they get around things in Ukraine so well with Storm Shadow and ALARM, and including the recent Brimstone SuperCat mashup that was initially achieved using an off the shelf laptop and a B&Q Generator and now the platform is being offered the for export.

          I do know that on the F35 aided and abetted by its complexity, software updates for weapons are intrinsically linked to the aircraft’s flight systems so re-testing is accordingly much more complex. Splitting these functions is one of the core aims of next gen projects theoretically making weapon integration far easier. We shall see.

    • All F35’s are cleared to carry the same weapons, it just depends on what each country has purchased. In our case that is currently ASRAAM, AMRAAM and Pave WayMk4. The US uses a different bomb.
      When BLK 4 is finally delivered, it will open up integration gor more weapons. We will have Meteor and S3 added, whilst the US will have different weapons integrated. If we wanted to have the same as the US, all we would need to do is buy them, which, I don’t believe we are.
      AUS and NOR I think are paying for JSM to be integrated, all we would need to do to use them is to buy them. That’s the theory behind it anyway.

    • Air to air weapons integration is complex. The weapon has to work seamlessly with the radar, mid course guidance, missile management system. The weapon works with the defensive aids system ect Separation trials, the lot. So it isn’t ridiculous, far from it. Block 4 will see 17 weapons integrated across the F35 fleet. Nations th3n simply purchase what weapons fit their requirements. And F35B with the current in service AMRAAM/ASRAAM is pretty dam handy.

    • Remember that so far there are only 3 powered weapons integrated on F-35….AIM-9X, Asraam and Amraam. All 3 were available at the start of the programme (Meteor wasn’t). Even the US has the same limitations that we have…

  7. Would like to see Ukraine join UK and Poland in the CAMM missile programme , this would substantially increase the number of launchers, missiles and radars required making it cheaper all round. The UK should seek to provide Ukraine with the tranche 1 Eurofighters we are retiring in the near future.

  8. I just want the news that it’s close to being ready for deployment on the F-35. What an absolute monster that Jet will be with the capabilities of the stealth and the Meteor missile.

  9. As others have pointed out this would be a good option to arm Ukraine’s Air Force. There are a few hurdles to overcome. Firstly if we consider their Su-27s. These are really old avionics wise. To integrate it with Meteor will be a major project, but it can be done. Firstly there will need to be a MIL-STD-1553/1760 interface. So that the Russian weapon’s bus can talk to the NATO one. It will then need a significantly better weapons aiming computer. Unless you are happy with only attacking one target after another in sequence. Typhoon for instance can engage multiple targets simultaneously. Included in this would be an upgrade to the Nav package, as the missile will need a much more in-depth location and track references. Finally it will need a significantly better radar. As the current radar has about a third of the detection capability of Typhoon’s Captor-M. Sadly this won’t be a quick or cheap upgrade. If Ukraine had the newer Su-30 etc, it would be a lot easier to integrate the Meteor. As the Su-30 has much newer avionics and a better radar.

    The F16 could use Meteor, but only the later block versions of the C/D variant, that can operate the AMRAAM C7/8 etc. Earlier versions would need a significant avionics upgrade to bring them up to the latest F16 block configuration.

    There is a question over whether an upgraded F16 could make the most out of Meteor. Sadly it cannot, even with the AESA radar fitted! The main issue is the size of the F16’s nose. It is physically smaller than a Typhoons, and in some respects a Gripen. This limits the cross sectional area (CSA) of the radar’s antenna. Which has a direct relationship to the radar’s output power and its detection sensitivity.

    However, Meteor will still be significantly more effective than the AMRAAM. This is because even in a relatively close beyond visual range engagement. Meteor is a lot faster than AMRAAM due to the internal solid booster and ramjet. It simply carries more fuel so even at the max burn rate. It will reach a higher terminal velocity. Therefore it will reach the target a lot quicker. Allowing the launch aircraft more opportunity to escape a return shot.

    • Great insight thank you. I suspect Ukraine would be happy with F-16 and AMRAAM as things are, offering far more than they currently possess no doubt let alone greater potential numbers.

  11. What is going on with the UK/Japanese Meteor development? We were going to provide Meteor and the Japanese were going to stick a state-of-the-art AESA radar on the front.

    • There was discussion on the Germany AMRAAM story in late July. I said there, I think JNAAM is still a go. PofC phase wrapping up with testing. Then hopefully a few prototype models, likely fired from F-2s. AESA guided missiles are rapidly becoming a must so the fact that MBDA UK & Mitsubishi started early must remain a plus funding wise going forward :/

        • Tiffy & F-35 yes 🙂 It may even be done in such a way that the interface between aircraft and missile (both on pylon and while in flight/datalink etc.) may not have to change or change only slightly. We must remember that on a Meteor’s/AMRAAM’s journey, it is being told where to fly most of the time, only the last few KMs does it it use its own seeker.

  12. F35 realdonaldtrump, realdonaldmap, F35C, F35demoteam, f35 lightning II, president of the united states, Seal of the, vice president of the united states, united states of America, 46 th u.s president JoeBiden, f16 block 70/72 , F16V, F16C, f16viper, f16 fighting falcon,

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here