USAF News and Discussion

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member

Terran

Well-Known Member
Plans to acquire E-7 Wedgetails axed, E-2D Hawkeyes will be leveraged as E-3 Sentry becomes unsupportable and reliance on future spaced based AEWC becomes the path forward

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Hegseth questions Air Force plan to buy E-7, touts space-based recon
I hope this proposal is poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. Although space based is an interesting concept to do so would require a huge investment in space launches and hundreds of satellites in LEO. long term okay maybe but near- Mid term it’s not like the latest Hollywood blockbuster. The E2 is not as capable as the E7 and even if they did it still would cause issues as there is just as long a lead time between placing an order for them and getting them as E7 for a platform that is significantly lower endurance with lower altitude and a major disadvantage in manpower.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given the recent IOTUS-Musk feud, it is surprising the E7 is being $hitcanned for a space based alternative using SpaceX rockets. Furthermore, this will take longer to deploy. Yes, aircraft vulnerability could be an issue but the E2 is perhaps more vulnerable than an E7 albeit more E2s can be acquired. Personally I believe the first consequence of a peer-to-peer conflict will the destruction of satellites by both nuclear EMP and kinetic hits thus ruining the future use of space near earth due to massive amounts of debris.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Given the recent IOTUS-Musk feud, it is surprising the E7 is being $hitcanned for a space based alternative using SpaceX rockets. Furthermore, this will take longer to deploy. Yes, aircraft vulnerability could be an issue but the E2 is perhaps more vulnerable than an E7 albeit more E2s can be acquired. Personally I believe the first consequence of a peer-to-peer conflict will the destruction of satellites by both nuclear EMP and kinetic hits thus ruining the future use of space near earth due to massive amounts of debris.
My understanding is that this doesn’t even call for more E2 rather the existing USN fleet would be mission stretched to cover the USAF.
As to EMP if a nuclear ASAT is used the effects would be destructive to both sides and given how orbital mechanics works a space based AWACS capability would require hundreds of satellites to provide 24/7 coverage.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
My understanding is that this doesn’t even call for more E2 rather the existing USN fleet would be mission stretched to cover the USAF.
As to EMP if a nuclear ASAT is used the effects would be destructive to both sides and given how orbital mechanics works a space based AWACS capability would require hundreds of satellites to provide 24/7 coverage.
Agree the effects of anti satellite weapons would be detrimental to both sides, if things are desperate, $hit will happen IMHO.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Im kinda stunned by this. The USAF was pretty clear, they desperately needed the E7 and its priority was extremely high. The E3 are already essentially phased out, with mission capability approaching zero, and even when operating, they aren't a good match for modern airwar with stealthy munitions and planes, and hugely complex battlespaces with drones and nodes.
The USAF had planned to use sat based systems, but it turns out there are hard and fast laws of physics problems with that idea. I don't see how anything has changed. If anything, the situation in Ukraine and the recent India/Pakistan conflict shows the huge value AEW and robust C&C.

I'm also not sure sats are survivable in a peer conflict with China. AFAIK the sat solution isn't all the way there either. The constellation isn't in place. There were still issues to resolve even for the simplest functionality.

If anything I thought the E2s would be canned and E7 would take over their mission, freeing up space on the carriers, and again, it's better suited to the mission in modern battlespace's. Instead the E2 lives on. If space based is the future, why not can the E2 as well?

E7 can fly from austere bases, but not as austere as E2. Plenty of 737 capable airfields on small islands. At least E7 737 parts are available and common. How many E2's still exist?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The USAF is pretty clear. It needs the E7 and its priority is extremely high.

None of that has changed. It hasn't yet been cancelled. Contracts are still in place & work is still going on. There's a proposal (not yet approved by Congress) for a joint USN/USAF unit of five E-2Ds to plug the short-term gap left by the dire state of the remaining E-3s. The budget for that unit is much less than the price of one new E-2D, so it must be using existing USN aircraft, & the extra budget for additional aircraft "to fill the near-term gap" would only pay for a handful.

The USAF has said that space-based surveillance can't do the job yet, & E-7 (or at least, something higher-flying & with longer range than E-2) is still needed, & everyone else who can afford it agrees. That's why Boeing is pushing the E-7 to NATO, Saudi Arabia, & France (though France seems to be looking at GlobalEye, & Dassault is pushing its own Falcon 10 based proposal).
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The USAF is pretty clear. It needs the E7 and its priority is extremely high.

None of that has changed. It hasn't yet been cancelled. Contracts are still in place & work is still going on. There's a proposal (not yet approved by Congress) for a joint USN/USAF unit of five E-2Ds to plug the short-term gap left by the dire state of the remaining E-3s. The budget for that unit is much less than the price of one new E-2D, so it must be using existing USN aircraft, & the extra budget for additional aircraft "to fill the near-term gap" would only pay for a handful.

The USAF has said that space-based surveillance can't do the job yet, & E-7 (or at least, something higher-flying & with longer range than E-2) is still needed, & everyone else who can afford it agrees. That's why Boeing is pushing the E-7 to NATO, Saudi Arabia, & France (though France seems to be looking at GlobalEye, & Dassault is pushing its own Falcon 10 based proposal).
Perhaps GlobalEye will be the beneficiary of this questionable decision, especially from a Canadian perspective.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Perhaps GlobalEye will be the beneficiary of this questionable decision, especially from a Canadian perspective.
TBH if I were on Bombardier's board, I would probably be trying to reach out to Northrop Grumman to see what would be needed to fit the MESA aboard a Global 7500 or 8000. Otherwise Airbus might want to look into seeing if the A220 or A320 or their variants could fit the MESA and necessary onboard systems.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Im kinda stunned by this. The USAF was pretty clear, they desperately needed the E7 and its priority was extremely high. The E3 are already essentially phased out, with mission capability approaching zero, and even when operating, they aren't a good match for modern airwar with stealthy munitions and planes, and hugely complex battlespaces with drones and nodes.
The USAF had planned to use sat based systems, but it turns out there are hard and fast laws of physics problems with that idea. I don't see how anything has changed. If anything, the situation in Ukraine and the recent India/Pakistan conflict shows the huge value AEW and robust C&C.

I'm also not sure sats are survivable in a peer conflict with China. AFAIK the sat solution isn't all the way there either. The constellation isn't in place. There were still issues to resolve even for the simplest functionality.

If anything I thought the E2s would be canned and E7 would take over their mission, freeing up space on the carriers, and again, it's better suited to the mission in modern battlespace's. Instead the E2 lives on. If space based is the future, why not can the E2 as well?

E7 can fly from austere bases, but not as austere as E2. Plenty of 737 capable airfields on small islands. At least E7 737 parts are available and common. How many E2's still exist?
Honestly I am not, not really. Then again, I am not making certain assumptions about plans and programms coming out of the Pentagon these days since there is the potential for money to be made, regardless of whether or not a system or capability is appropriate for (never mind whether it might be "best") the US.

Space-based AEW being one issue which might take years to develop and successfully deploy, OTOH it also might prove something to be which from a practical applications standpoint is simply unfeasible due to technical limitations as well as physics and astrophysics. One thing which has been getting observed is that the operational lifespans for some smaller satellites (like the Starlink constellation) is getting reduced due to solar radiation activity. Between that and the potential for other actors to start beaming signals at satellites to disrupt their function, making decisions based upon a system that is supposed to be getting developed rather than one which is ready to go into service seems unwise.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
TBH if I were on Bombardier's board, I would probably be trying to reach out to Northrop Grumman to see what would be needed to fit the MESA aboard a Global 7500 or 8000. Otherwise Airbus might want to look into seeing if the A220 or A320 or their variants could fit the MESA and necessary onboard systems.
The global might be able to fit the radar but the internal equipment is designed for an Airliner. Buisness jets have narrower fuselages it makes the more efficient and allows smaller engines but for the mission systems, work stations, servers…It’s like trying to fit the interior of an American sized RV into a minivan. It would have to go to the Airbus. Unless Bombardier is flush with cash or someone is quite insistent and has money burning a hole in their pockets. Besides they are already partnered for CAEW and Globaleye.
I doubt AB would do it just because right now they wouldn’t have a customer. European market is being pushed for “Independence”. They are more likely to clean sheet a radar or partner with Saab or Thales at the behest of Versailles.

Of course we have digressed.
The E2 Scheme proposed in the Budget proposal is the same degree of penny wise pound foolishness that has left Europe and Canada reeling in light of a long obvious absolutist neo Czarist Russian Threat and the Imperialist Communist China. It would leave a decades long if not longer gap with only a half arsed AEW to patch. Pulling E2s from the navy a platform that is already a major trade down in capacity and on top is a large step down in capability. E2 is designed to cycle up and down on a carrier deck it has three mission stations with no provision for crew rest even a head. So the Crew is going to impose a major penalty vs the E7 which could easily cover an 18 hour race track with 10 mission stations able to easily cover large scale operations. E2s limited max altitude will cut down over the horizon scan range. Making matters worse there are only 16 in the USN. Those 16 are supposed to be cycled with the active CVNs so increasing demand on fixed supply. Justified by hopes and Promises that the Spaceforce option will mature….
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The global might be able to fit the radar but the internal equipment is designed for an Airliner. Buisness jets have narrower fuselages it makes the more efficient and allows smaller engines but for the mission systems, work stations, servers…It’s like trying to fit the interior of an American sized RV into a minivan. It would have to go to the Airbus. Unless Bombardier is flush with cash or someone is quite insistent and has money burning a hole in their pockets. Besides they are already partnered for CAEW and Globaleye.
I doubt AB would do it just because right now they wouldn’t have a customer. European market is being pushed for “Independence”. They are more likely to clean sheet a radar or partner with Saab or Thales at the behest of Versailles.

Of course we have digressed.
The E2 Scheme proposed in the Budget proposal is the same degree of penny wise pound foolishness that has left Europe and Canada reeling in light of a long obvious absolutist neo Czarist Russian Threat and the Imperialist Communist China. It would leave a decades long if not longer gap with only a half arsed AEW to patch. Pulling E2s from the navy a platform that is already a major trade down in capacity and on top is a large step down in capability. E2 is designed to cycle up and down on a carrier deck it has three mission stations with no provision for crew rest even a head. So the Crew is going to impose a major penalty vs the E7 which could easily cover an 18 hour race track with 10 mission stations able to easily cover large scale operations. E2s limited max altitude will cut down over the horizon scan range. Making matters worse there are only 16 in the USN. Those 16 are supposed to be cycled with the active CVNs so increasing demand on fixed supply. Justified by hopes and Promises that the Spaceforce option will mature….
Not sure that the examples and analogies are accurate, because Bombardier's smaller Global 6000 serves as the platform base for the Saab Globaleye, which means that there should be enough power and space aboard the Global 7500 to fit the sort of systems an AEW aircraft would use. It would be more about whether the specific systems used by the MESA could be fitted, and whether there would be sufficient power and cooling available. Hence Bombardier possibly approaching Northrop Grumman to check.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Not sure that the examples and analogies are accurate, because Bombardier's smaller Global 6000 serves as the platform base for the Saab Globaleye, which means that there should be enough power and space aboard the Global 7500 to fit the sort of systems an AEW aircraft would use. It would be more about whether the specific systems used by the MESA could be fitted, and whether there would be sufficient power and cooling available. Hence Bombardier possibly approaching Northrop Grumman to check.
Oh sure it probably could fit even power but being a smaller diameter it would have less work stations, require a more extensive systems integration. Plus given they are already hosting Saab and to be L3 systems system? Is there a need?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Oh sure it probably could fit even power but being a smaller diameter it would have less work stations, require a more extensive systems integration. Plus given they are already hosting Saab and to be L3 systems system? Is there a need?
As I understand it, the Saab Globaleye involves Saab purchasing a green airframe from Bombardier and then installing the necessary mods. This works just fine for Bombardier if/when Saab scores a sale for Globaleye, OTOH does Bombardier no good if sales go the way of the Saab Swordfish which was to have a jet version based off the same base Bombardier platform.

If other potential AEW customers would prefer to have a radar like the Northrop Grumman MESA rather than Saab's Erieye, then it might be advantageous to Boeing rivals to see if any of their designs could be modified to fit and operate alternate radar and avionics fitouts.

IMO this should particularly be the case if/when some of the Boeing platforms which serve as the base for the E-7 or P-8 (B737-700/800/900 versions) end up going out of production.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The E-2Ds are new build aircraft in production right now. With both the US and Japan receiving new airframes this year, and France expected to field new airframes in the near future.
88 E-2D.. and a hot production line. But supply chain is based around the navy and deployed on carriers. I'm not trying to poop on the E2D, its fine, but it's not an E7. Its specifically built for a very different mission with very different capabilities, and huge compromises in order to be carrier capable.

There are already 14 E7s operating for more than a decade. And currently orders for for 5 more currently in production, and very likely orders for (4+6+28+2+6) another 46. So this isn't some orphaned platform with no other interest or support. There are over 7100 NG 737, and over 185 p8s based on very nearly the same aircraft. There is more expertise in operating E7 platforms in the USN than there is operating the E-2D.

While they have larger crews, and cost more, they are a far more capable platform. By orders of magnitude. The extra crew isn't to fly the thing, its to give the additional capabilities. Capabilities that make very desirable for peer conflicts.

IMO the short field performance advantage of the E2 is pretty pointless. The E7 and P8 can operate from most small airports. The E7 has more than double (triple?) the range of the E2, and flies faster (double the cruise speed). So even if based further away, can get on station as fast if not faster. E7 can be refuelled and actually has the crew and accommodation for long missions 18+ hrs and crews and aircraft can sustain that kind of tempo and supply chains that can handle the entire fleet at high tempo.

Space-based AEW being one issue which might take years to develop and successfully deploy, OTOH it also might prove something to be which from a practical applications standpoint is simply unfeasible due to technical limitations as well as physics and astrophysics. One thing which has been getting observed is that the operational lifespans for some smaller satellites (like the Starlink constellation) is getting reduced due to solar radiation activity. Between that and the potential for other actors to start beaming signals at satellites to disrupt their function, making decisions based upon a system that is supposed to be getting developed rather than one which is ready to go into service seems unwise
There are hard and fast issues that run up with Space based. It was a detection platform, never anything more. It can't do other missions, have other capabilities. There are no man in the loop. Sats have very, very limited power budgets. Talking about radar with a power output of a CB radio. Not 100's of kw, but perhaps a 100w with limited duty. There is a thermal budget too. Any optical sensing, well there's issues with that too. By virtue of distance and weak transmission, jamming or other forms of interruption are likely to be highly effective. Sats don't have unlimited spectrum and are in fixed orbits, you can't concentrate your network, and if the entire constellation has even a small serviceability issue, then the entire constellation output and capabilities are affected and the enemy will know it. With the battlespace becoming so complex, onboard computing processing is a huge issue, and sats don't have the volume, weight, power, to do it well. Sats can't be upgraded in hardware. They have limited life spans.. etc etc etc.
In conflict, its entirely possible the earth's orbit is completely unusable, for decades, maybe permanently, as anti-sat munitions create an ever increasing debris ring around the earth.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
There are hard and fast issues that run up with Space based. It was a detection platform, never anything more. It can't do other missions, have other capabilities. There are no man in the loop. Sats have very, very limited power budgets. Talking about radar with a power output of a CB radio. Not 100's of kw, but perhaps a 100w with limited duty. There is a thermal budget too. Any optical sensing, well there's issues with that too. By virtue of distance and weak transmission, jamming or other forms of interruption are likely to be highly effective. Sats don't have unlimited spectrum and are in fixed orbits, you can't concentrate your network, and if the entire constellation has even a small serviceability issue, then the entire constellation output and capabilities are affected and the enemy will know it. With the battlespace becoming so complex, onboard computing processing is a huge issue, and sats don't have the volume, weight, power, to do it well. Sats can't be upgraded in hardware. They have limited life spans.. etc etc etc.
In conflict, its entirely possible the earth's orbit is completely unusable, for decades, maybe permanently, as anti-sat munitions create an ever increasing debris ring around the earth.
More power than a legal CB radio in the US, as those are limited to 4 watts for AM/FM and 12 watts PEP for SSB transmission, not that I have ever heard of anyone hooking up an amp to a CB radio and getting an output into the kw range. Incidentally that may, or may not, overwhelm nearby electrical systems that are not sufficiently grounded or shielded.

It would also be entirely possible for someone to setup a ground-based transmitter and send a couple of kw of RF energy directly at a LEO AEW satellite to do interesting things to the satellite or even components like antennas.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
IMO this should particularly be the case if/when some of the Boeing platforms which serve as the base for the E-7 or P-8 (B737-700/800/900 versions) end up going out of production.
Well the NG is out of sale to airlines it’s still an active line, And if Boeing did end the NG line they are still building Max variants which though troubled are a reengined version of the NG at heart. Combine that with the large existing fleet support. 737 NG parts and support would be plentiful well into the 2050s. Which again is why I don’t see a reason to jump down to the Bombardier.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
More power than a legal CB radio in the US, as those are limited to 4 watts for AM/FM and 12 watts PEP for SSB transmission, not that I have ever heard of anyone hooking up an amp to a CB radio and getting an output into the kw range. Incidentally that may, or may not, overwhelm nearby electrical systems that are not sufficiently grounded or shielded.

It would also be entirely possible for someone to setup a ground-based transmitter and send a couple of kw of RF energy directly at a LEO AEW satellite to do interesting things to the satellite or even components like antennas.
Ha! Also it's not the 1960s, everyone seemingly these days has orbital capabilities and there could be mass adoption of antisat weaponry.

But that's the problem. Sats don't have unlimited power budgets. something like the E7 has a power budget in the many 100's of Kw, So several orders of magnitude greater, and can vary and direct that power with more focus and precision, and combine with superior processing, physically larger antenna arrays. Something like an E7 may be the idea platform to make sat based networks much more resilient. Its very much an enabler and complimentary.

While Canada is interested in the Bombardier, I don't see the US doing that.
There are already gulfstream AEW planes in existence, such as the EL/W-2085 based G550 and Gulfstream makes planes in the US, and is in service with the USAF, which actually acquired a ELW-2085 and modified it to be the NC-37b. There are 13 in operation, more than globaleye/Erieye. If they just wanted to downsize, then they could simply acquire that. It would still be more capable than E2s.

But that's the whole point of the E7, it's a much more capable plane than the E2/EL/W2085 or Globaleye, which while useful, is in a different class with much smaller manpower, more limited capabilities, limited endurance, less processing, smaller less powerful radar, etc.

Well the NG is out of sale to airlines it’s still an active line, And if Boeing did end the NG line they are still building Max variants which though troubled are a reengined version of the NG at heart. Combine that with the large existing fleet support. 737 NG parts and support would be plentiful well into the 2050s. Which again is why I don’t see a reason to jump down to the Bombardier.
South Korea, Australia have both put in new projects to replace their existing Wedgetail fleets. Its highly likely to develop a variation based on the airframe the p8 has. The E7 is based on the 700ER, the P8 on the 800ERX. They use the same engines already. Having increased commonality between them would be advantageous. Plus the P8 has external hardpoints and internal weapon spaces. Having the E7 able to launch drones, decoys or munitions could be a huge advantage. There was also talk about fitting a larger, even more powerful and sensitive radar. While internal spaces are likely going to be used, a lot of the P8 militarisation would be advantageous in a newer version. E7 development was before P8.

The Max is newer. But many of its modifications are not really of interest for military purposes. But instead of a 800, maybe a more military focused Max. Form a basis of a future P8 and E7 variant. However in the current environment, I don't see anything getting funded or happening.

Realistically the P8 and E7 might be the last planes of their type. They will probably have long service lives, 40+ years (maybe even 60+ years), and then be replaced by something completely different.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
South Korea, Australia have both put in new projects to replace their existing Wedgetail fleets. Its highly likely to develop a variation based on the airframe the p8 has. The E7 is based on the 700ER, the P8 on the 800ERX. They use the same engines already. Having increased commonality between them would be advantageous. Plus the P8 has external hardpoints and internal weapon spaces. Having the E7 able to launch drones, decoys or munitions could be a huge advantage. There was also talk about fitting a larger, even more powerful and sensitive radar. While internal spaces are likely going to be used, a lot of the P8 militarisation would be advantageous in a newer version. E7 development was before P8.
Three pitches I know have been made to the ROKAF are E7, CAEW but built on the Bombardier As well as GlobalEye. For the Australians last I saw that wasn’t programmed until the later half of the next decade. So everything seems to still be built on the 700 series. Using P8 to build as a host for E7 derivatives I don’t think would work. Although the external hard points would be fine potentially even the wings. The internal cargo hold is taken up by avionics and counter weight.

Ha! Also it's not the 1960s, everyone seemingly these days has orbital capabilities and there could be mass adoption of antisat weaponry.

But that's the problem. Sats don't have unlimited power budgets. something like the E7 has a power budget in the many 100's of Kw, So several orders of magnitude greater, and can vary and direct that power with more focus and precision, and combine with superior processing, physically larger antenna arrays. Something like an E7 may be the idea platform to make sat based networks much more resilient. Its very much an enabler and complimentary.

While Canada is interested in the Bombardier, I don't see the US doing that.
There are already gulfstream AEW planes in existence, such as the EL/W-2085 based G550 and Gulfstream makes planes in the US, and is in service with the USAF, which actually acquired a ELW-2085 and modified it to be the NC-37b. There are 13 in operation, more than globaleye/Erieye. If they just wanted to downsize, then they could simply acquire that. It would still be more capable than E2s.

But that's the whole point of the E7, it's a much more capable plane than the E2/EL/W2085 or Globaleye, which while useful, is in a different class with much smaller manpower, more limited capabilities, limited endurance, less processing, smaller less powerful radar, etc.


South Korea, Australia have both put in new projects to replace their existing Wedgetail fleets. Its highly likely to develop a variation based on the airframe the p8 has. The E7 is based on the 700ER, the P8 on the 800ERX. They use the same engines already. Having increased commonality between them would be advantageous. Plus the P8 has external hardpoints and internal weapon spaces. Having the E7 able to launch drones, decoys or munitions could be a huge advantage. There was also talk about fitting a larger, even more powerful and sensitive radar. While internal spaces are likely going to be used, a lot of the P8 militarisation would be advantageous in a newer version. E7 development was before P8.

The Max is newer. But many of its modifications are not really of interest for military purposes. But instead of a 800, maybe a more military focused Max. Form a basis of a future P8 and E7 variant. However in the current environment, I don't see anything getting funded or happening.

Realistically the P8 and E7 might be the last planes of their type. They will probably have long service lives, 40+ years (maybe even 60+ years), and then be replaced by something completely different.
The main reason I said what I did was in the hypothetical that Boeing went cold on the NG. Which is unlikely right now, yet not impossible. If things don’t shake up well for the AMTI program or someone decides they want an E7 or P8 capability late in the production cycle Boeing could use the Max as the basis for new variants. In example the story of the E767.
in 1976 Japan wanted an AWACS, the E3 was on its way but Japan realized that the USAF would consume the line for some time. So they bought E2C as a stop gap. Fast forward 15 years to 1991, Japan had the money and was shopping for E3s but in April 1991 the 707 line was cold they had started the last 707 before Japan could put in the order. Boeing hadn’t started the Wedgetail program yet. They could order the E3 radar sets. Boeing came back to Japan and offered to mount them into the New 767 Japan agreed in 93 and ordered 2 followed by 2 more on 94. After the last two were order in 94 Australia solicited for what would become the Wedgetail.

This said I suspect that AMTI will eventually become the thing that replaces AWACS at least for top end with Drones taking lower end. Still it’s not an easy thing. Airborne Moving Target Indicator is question mark. On GMTI I Know Umbra has been making a push but it’s using 10 micro sats with a planed 24.
Yet to get global 24 7 365? I mean SpaceX Starlink has 7760 satellites right now for global coverage.
Obviously that’s a communications satellite but still it has to pass overhead to get the signal to ground stations at a regular frequency with a train of them to keep the signal. I am not an expert but I can’t see getting real time AMTI coverage that could replace AWACS and JSTARS in a single theater well offering the mission flexibility needed by the U.S. DOD without at least a few hundred satellites. With the U.S. DOD being a Global power that’s pushing atleast a couple thousand.
 
Top