# The Case for AEW&C Aircraft



## Calvillo (16 Aug 2020)

Major air powers in the world - including the naval aviation of certain navies - operate Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft. Notably absent from those air powers is the Royal Canadian Air Force. All G7 countries except Canada; China, Russia, Brazil, India, Australia, even Singapore whose territory is smaller than Calgary, operate AEW&C. Would operating those kind of aircraft not increase the capability of the RCAF? During peace time, I think those can be used to patrol our territories in the North, to ensure the integrity of Canadian sovereignty. Canada is such a vast and scarcely populated country. Surely we can use early warning that the aircraft provides.

From what I see, there are five platforms currently available that are not produced by Russia or China. Boeing E-767, Boeing E-7, Grumman E-2, Embraer R-99 and Gulfstream G550 AEW. E-3 AWACS is no longer in production and while CP-140 does surveillance, it is not an AEW&C platform.

To discuss, does the RCAF have the need for AEW&C platform, or is it content with AWACS that NATO provides? If yes, which one among the five platforms above that most fit into RCAF missions and requirements?


----------



## Mountie (26 Dec 2020)

Don't forget the SAAB/Bombardier Globaleye built on the Global 6000 which is manufactured in Canada.   











 Combine this with the SAAB/Bombardier Swordfish also built on the Global 6000 as a replacement for the Aurora and the RCAF could have a decent fleet on a common aircraft.  This would surely reduce logistics, maintenance and training costs.  The Swordfish participated in the South Korean MPA competition.  It was said that 10 Swordfish could be procured for the same cost as 5-6 P-8 Poseidons.    




The RCAF could field a fleet of 6-8 Globaleye and 18-24 Swordfish for a reasonable cost.  Perhaps it's time for more but slightly less capable systems? 18-24 Swordfish vs 10-12 Poseidon for example.

_“Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no matter how capable or well-equipped, can be in only one place at one time.” _– Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates


----------



## dimsum (26 Dec 2020)

What's the endurance on a fully-loaded Swordfish?  Will there be issues with external weapons like torpedoes at high altitude (for fuel consumption, sensor range for surveillance, etc.)

If the Swordfish doesn't have the same endurance (requiring more aircraft/crews to do the same job as a P-8, for example) or it has limitations on altitude, then is it a worthy platform to replace the Aurora?

Another issue is personnel.  Do we have the personnel (especially experienced senior folks) to crew that many aircraft?


----------



## Zoomie (27 Dec 2020)

AIRBUS makes a C-295 for every mission set.  ISR, SAR,MPA, AEW, there is even a gunship variant.

If we are already establishing a national parts bin and MRO facility for the Kingfisher, let’s expand and include more.









						C295
					

The Airbus C295 is a new-generation tactical airlifter in the light and medium segment. It is robust and reliable but also highly versatile in terms of the number of different missions it can perform. The C295 conducts multi-role operations worldwide under all weather conditions. It is fully...




					www.airbus.com


----------



## CBH99 (27 Dec 2020)

Interesting crossroads.

On the one hand, procure a few more C-295 aircraft to introduce an AEW capability to the air force.  Expand on the MRO facility.

Or...procure a few Swordfish, which are built on a Canadian platform.


----------



## YZT580 (27 Dec 2020)

The C295 doesn't have the legs to operate as an effective AEW platform and it is too slow.  Better to purchase the swordfish and then add a few transport versions to the order form; especially since we are in need of new ones anyways


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2020)

This article from Nov 2018 says that Saab has ended marketing efforts for the Swordfish because of lack of interest.



> Over the past two years, Swedish aircraft manufacturer Saab has put its advertising muscle into promoting a maritime patrol aircraft it called Swordfish.
> 
> But in the absence of a launch customer and no immediate sales prospects, the company is ending its marketing campaign — at least for now, the head of its Asia-Pacific business said Thursday.
> 
> “From a product perspective, we are no longer marketing it. So it was a concept. It was an opportunity that we looked at on the back of GlobalEy











						Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus
					

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## GR66 (27 Dec 2020)

Why Swordfish INSTEAD of P-8's/Aurora replacement?  The Swordfish has great legs but people in the know here have expressed concern about the exterior-mounted weapon performance and the payload (weapons and sonobuoys) compared to a full-size MPA.

In my perfect world you'd still replace the Aurora's with a full-sized MPA, but I'd gladly see that fleet supplemented by a half-dozen Global-Eyes (which also to my understanding also have maritime search radars) and a half-dozen Swordfish.  

This would almost certainly require changes to our pilot/aircrew training system and retention measures, as well as some tough trade-offs elsewhere in our defence budget.  However, I think these are capabilities that our allies would greatly value.  NATO and the US are putting much more emphasis on ASW warfare and being able to bring strong capabilities to the table would be appreciated.  Same with the Global-Eye.  Much of the current military threats from China and Russia (and Iran/North Korea for that matter) are based on concerns that they could make quick territorial grabs before the West can mount a response.  Any ISR assets that can help to identify military build-ups/movements before such actions take place would allow the West to react in advance and hopefully deter the action in the first place.  ISR assets like these are also an easier sell to the Canadian Government/population than things like tanks/missiles.

While we're at it, wouldn't it be nice if we could add a couple of EW/stand-off jamming aircraft similar to the EC-37B Compass Call being procured by the US (https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/compass-call)?  Turkey has purchased a pair of Global 6000's to convert into their own Jammer/Electronic Attack aircraft (https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...urkey-receives-global-6000s-jammer-conversion).  One can only dream...


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:


> In my perfect world you'd still replace the Aurora's with a full-sized MPA, but I'd gladly see that fleet supplemented by a half-dozen Global-Eyes (which also to my understanding also have maritime search radars) and a half-dozen Swordfish.


If we're going to replace the Auroras with a full-sized MPA, why Swordfish at all then?


----------



## GR66 (27 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> If we're going to replace the Auroras with a full-sized MPA, why Swordfish at all then?



From Wikipedia:

Boeing P-8 Poseidon Range:  2,222km
Bombardier Global 6000 Range:  13,390km

One to do the heavy lifting along our major Sea Lines of Communication, the other to keep an eye on the distant North (or South China Sea?) when we want eyes in those places too.


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Boeing P-8 Poseidon Range:  2,222km
> Bombardier Global 6000 Range:  13,390km
> ...


Those numbers didn't make sense because a 737 flies much farther than 2000km.  That's the distance between Toronto and Winnipeg.

The P-8 range is combat radius (from Wiki, it's out and back with 1/3 fuel for combat operations) while the Global 6000 range is ferry range (one-way, without fuel for operations).  Also, a better comparison would be if there was a combat radius for the Swordfish with the added components and weight.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Dec 2020)

Calvillo said:


> Major air powers in the world - including the naval aviation of certain navies - operate Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft. Notably absent from those air powers is the Royal Canadian Air Force. All G7 countries except Canada; China, Russia, Brazil, India, Australia, even Singapore whose territory is smaller than Calgary, operate AEW&C. Would operating those kind of aircraft not increase the capability of the RCAF? During peace time, I think those can be used to patrol our territories in the North, to ensure the integrity of Canadian sovereignty. Canada is such a vast and scarcely populated country. Surely we can use early warning that the aircraft provides.
> 
> From what I see, there are five platforms currently available that are not produced by Russia or China. Boeing E-767, Boeing E-7, Grumman E-2, Embraer R-99 and Gulfstream G550 AEW. E-3 AWACS is no longer in production and while CP-140 does surveillance, it is not an AEW&C platform.
> 
> To discuss, does the RCAF have the need for AEW&C platform, or is it content with AWACS that NATO provides? If yes, which one among the five platforms above that most fit into RCAF missions and requirements?



Perhaps "platform-centric" is not the best way to view the issue?  Why not "capability-centric" and let the platform(s)/systems flow from that?

To begin, the RCAF already participates in a (joint) sovereign AEW&C program that provides continental AWE&C capability.  The platform is an E-3A AWACS.  In the future, NORAD renewal will substantively depend on ABMS to provide the updated/upgraded AEW&C capability.  So.....'Tick.'

So then Canada must decide if it wants to be in the business of providing AEW&C capability, in support of its own national values and interests and/or those of allied nations, beyond its own sovereign borders?  That's the question.  Frame the characteristics of an affirmative answer to this question, and that will shape what platform and/or platforms, should form the solution.  I'll posit that a future AEW&C solution will AT LEAST have the following components:  a) Manned aircraft; b) optionally-piloted aircraft; c) unmanned aircraft; d) space assets; and e) ground surveillance assets.

Is your intent to discuss a) only?

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2020)

It would be great if we had a national military strategy to help frame the capabilities we need.  SSE has some goods but it doesn’t go into enough details on what operating environments we need to be ready to operate into. As it stands, the tactical/operational levels seem to largely decide what we need to prepare for, which is inappropriate.


----------



## GR66 (27 Dec 2020)

> Those numbers didn't make sense because a 737 flies much farther than 2000km.  That's the distance between Toronto and Winnipeg.
> 
> The P-8 range is combat radius (from Wiki, it's out and back with 1/3 fuel for combat operations) while the Global 6000 range is ferry range (one-way, without fuel for operations).  Also, a better comparison would be if there was a combat radius for the Swordfish with the added components and weight.



For a more apples to apples comparison, the ferry range of the P-8 is listed at 7,500km (http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/boeing_p8_poseidon.htm).  

I think that the maximum (ferry) range makes a difference based on the missions for which you'd use each of the aircraft.  

At almost 14,000km range, a Swordfish could leave Shearwater, transit all the major sections of the NWP and return without refueling



Similarly, flying from Guam (which could be reached without refueling from Comox), a Swordfish could fly through the South China Sea, the East China Sea, around Japan and back to Guam without refueling.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Dec 2020)

I think those numbers for the global express need to be down rated a bit. Wikipedia has the Sentinel at 9249km and 9 hrs endurance









						Raytheon Sentinel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I've often thought it would be a good idea to procure a few Global Express 6500/7500 for a lower cost ISR/AEW platform but I have a hard time believing it is a credible replacement for the Aurora. I wouldn't think the need would extend to a great many aircraft either. Then we bump up against the near constant; where do we get the people


----------



## Weinie (27 Dec 2020)

With that kind of mission set,(9-12K km) would you need a second crew on board? Don't know a lot about this world.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2020)

My longest Hornet mission was ~10hrs (alone), B-2 crew fly 24hrs missions.  I think it could be manageable.


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2020)

Weinie said:


> With that kind of mission set,(9-12K km) would you need a second crew on board? Don't know a lot about this world.


Auroras only have 1 crew onboard and do 10+ hour missions.  The Argus had 2 crews, but their missions were about 18 hours on average.


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:


> For a more apples to apples comparison, the ferry range of the P-8 is listed at 7,500km (http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/boeing_p8_poseidon.htm).
> 
> I think that the maximum (ferry) range makes a difference based on the missions for which you'd use each of the aircraft.
> 
> At almost 14,000km range


As I said, that range is for the aircraft it's based on, not including the weight of the mission equipment, armament, crew, etc.  It's not a valid comparison.


----------



## GR66 (27 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> As I said, that range is for the aircraft it's based on, not including the weight of the mission equipment, armament, crew, etc.  It's not a valid comparison.


Fair enough.  My main point remains the same though...if we were to look at the Swordfish I'd only look at it as a possible supplement to a proper Aurora replacement (P-8?) rather than as the replacement itself.  That being said I wouldn't be opposed to a lower-cost platform to augment a fleet of P-8s.  I think ISR assets should be a key focus for Canada as essentially an island nation.  The Bombardier Global series of jets has the added advantage of being a Canadian product.

Even a couple of GlobalEye AEW & C aircraft would be a good supplement to the Auroras/P-8s for maritime domain awareness as they have maritime surveillance radar as well (but unlike the Swordfish are unarmed).


----------



## Zoomie (28 Dec 2020)

Low-cost option to supplement a fleet of P-8s?   CP-295W - heck the SAR variant we currently have sitting in Hgr 14 is a MPA.  

Swordfish/Poseidon/etc are all nice capabilities and great dreams - in 10 years we will be flying our 295s ISO fishpat/DIX-Ex/ISR/etc - everything except actual ASW tasks.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Dec 2020)

Since we're spitballing different platforms here, I just thought of something.  It's a solid 50/50 either a good idea, or a terrible one.  Not quite sure.

If we intend to replace the Aurora with something along the lines of the P8 - what about that equipment/similar equipment, but on a Canadian made aircraft??


Canada still produces medium passenger jets, no?  What about a pretty straightforwards installation of the same equipment (or similar) used on the P8?

Although the economies of scale will be minimal, it also shouldn't be that hard to install those systems & software on an airframe other than the P8.  

It allows the government to purchase Canadian aircraft, support our aviation industry with something other than a bailout, and would give us the same capability (or similar) than if we had just went with a P8.  

Could also put us in a position to possible sell some abroad, if Bombardier actually worked at it.


Just an idea    


(Some of you folks have first hand experience in the MPA world.  Is that doable?  Are the systems on the upgraded Auroras similar to the P8?)


----------



## dimsum (28 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:


> Fair enough.  My main point remains the same though...if we were to look at the Swordfish I'd only look at it as a possible supplement to a proper Aurora replacement (P-8?) rather than as the replacement itself.  That being said I wouldn't be opposed to a lower-cost platform to augment a fleet of P-8s.  I think ISR assets should be a key focus for Canada as essentially an island nation.  The Bombardier Global series of jets has the added advantage of being a Canadian product.
> 
> Even a couple of GlobalEye AEW & C aircraft would be a good supplement to the Auroras/P-8s for maritime domain awareness as they have maritime surveillance radar as well (but unlike the Swordfish are unarmed).


I'm not sure what your background is, and I'm not AEW&C expert, but those aircraft (and AWACS) go far beyond Maritime Domain Awareness.  Their main role is battlespace management (like airborne ATC).  Also, Auroras and other ISR aircraft don't vector fighters onto targets - they are the sensors while AEW&C (or AWACS) also do the "control" portion. 

The follow-on effect is that we would need more AECs and AC Ops since it wouldn't be the same crew type (maybe the Pilots but even then I'm not so sure due to quals needed) flying the AEW&C aircraft and the ISR aircraft.


----------



## GR66 (28 Dec 2020)

> dimsum said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what your background is, and I'm not AEW&C expert, but those aircraft (and AWACS) go far beyond Maritime Domain Awareness.  Their main role is battlespace management (like airborne ATC).  Also, Auroras and other ISR aircraft don't vector fighters onto targets - they are the sensors while AEW&C (or AWACS) also do the "control" portion.
> ...


I'm aware that the GlobalEye has capabilities that go beyond an MPA/ISR aircraft.  I'm just noting that among their capabilities they also have a maritime search radar which would allow them to supplement the capabilities of our MPA's if/when required.  We have the World's longest coastline.  The more assets that we have that can let us know what's going on there the better...even if it's not their primary purpose/capability.

As far as the additional personnel, doesn't that apply to ANY new capability we are proposing to add to the CF?  More tanks = more Armoured Crewmen and techs to support.  More logistical support capabilities = more Log O's and MSE Ops, etc.  If we always fall back on the idea that we can't add any new capability because we currently lack the proper staffing then we are locked in to exactly what we have now.  Obviously any changes will require a review of how the CF is organizes and staffs itself.  It just happens to be my personal opinion that due to our geographical position in the World that naval, air and ground assets that monitor (and protect) our territory should be the highest priorities for our military.  I'd count MPA's (and AEW&C aircraft) among the key components of that capability that should be invested in.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Dec 2020)

Now I have no experience but is there not a point where we are trying to do too much with one platform? What is the number of aircraft we would need to preform an AEW&C role? Some mention the CP-140, but any aircraft we upgrade/ convert would reduce the rest of the fleet. If we are adding rolls to a future aircraft, we will need many more airframes, after all a bird doing a Maritme patrol off the north sea cant be doing AEW&C in Romania. That means we need more crews, techs, infrastructure, etc... something that might be a hard sell right now.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Dec 2020)

Not sure how accurate it is but the Quwa website has a chart comparing the P-8 and Swordfish.

And here is an article from the Royal Aeronautical Society that gives a good overview of the Swordfish and its capabilities.  Interestingly, besides the Bombardier air frame the aircraft would also use some other made-in-Canada components including flight deck (Bombardier) and MAD boom (CAE).


----------



## Underway (9 Jun 2021)

Random questions and I thought that starting a new thread wasn't really the best idea.  

Is it possible for AEW to be done by a UAS?  Or do you require a crew to staff sensors and equipment for an AEW platform to be onboard.  Would the data management of such a system be prohibative (aka to much information in the data pipe back to the ground control station to properly transmit).  Would this mean a UAS could do limited AEW (say Link out tracks) instead of proper AEW?

Also rotary wing vs fixed wing AEW.  UK, India and Russia in the past (and currently) have operated AEW from helicopters due to space constraints on their carriers.  Generally do these rotary wing AEW have different roles then a fixed wing version?  Less capacity etc...  Is a control aspect for AEW not important in a naval context?


----------



## dimsum (9 Jun 2021)

Underway said:


> Or do you require a crew to staff sensors and equipment for an AEW platform to be onboard.


If the bandwidth is able to handle it, why not?  I wouldn't be surprised if the US is thinking about this already.

My WAG is that Link tracks, etc from an AWACS (or AEW&C) might be less bandwidth-intensive than pushing full-motion video and other sensor feeds to the fidelity required for weapons engagement.  And current RPAS do that already.

I have zero experience on AWACS or AEW&C platforms though, so happy to be corrected.


----------



## GR66 (9 Jun 2021)

In a Canadian context would the primary area of interest for an AEW aircraft be the arctic?  Others have mentioned the issues with controlling UAV's in the far North due to limited satellite coverage.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jun 2021)

AEW aircraft do more than just sense. They are a command and control node for aircraft.  That requires humans providing the control and relaying the command.


----------



## Underway (9 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> AEW aircraft do more than just sense. They are a command and control node for aircraft.  That requires humans providing the control and relaying the command.


Isn't that AEW&C aircraft though (not just AEW)?  Am I splitting hairs for the definition of the term by leaving of the "&C"? 

The reason I ask is perhaps an odd idea.

 AEW UAS/RPAS rotary wing for naval assets. 
The concerns regarding this are thus.  First is how AEW work (hence my questions).  My research suggests the negatives of rotary wing AEW are endurance both of the aircraft and crew (flying in a shaking helicopter gets tiring) so missions are shorter.  Altitude is not as high so sensor coverage has limitations.  Space for the sensor, leading to less powerful radars.  Space for pers in the back to do the command control nodes.

Could one remove the command/control function and essentially make it a radar extension for the ship.  Over the horizon, early detection of a missile/aircraft would give a ship more time to respond, and with an active missile be able to begin the engagement beyond the 20-25NM range of most ship based radar horizons.  It would also mean that an AAW platform wouldn't need a carrier of somesort to provide early detection of airborne threats below the horizon.  It could do it for a TG that didn't contain that sort of air support.

Depending on the size of the UAS its likely one could fit two in the space of a single ASW helicopter, and have an added capability for a TG.

The problem I can see with would be the latency of the information and the volume of information sent to the ship.  There is a lot of processing that goes into command/control and people are required to deconflict between linked out tracks, their own sensor tracks, as well as different sensor input tracks.  My suspicion is that AEW&C aircraft do this in situ on the aircraft and then Link out their already processed/corrected information to the rest of the battlespace in order to manage the situation.  A UAS wouldn't be able to do this processing and should just send the raw data to the ship/control station to be processed by bigger computers and smart people there.  Which then would have it integrated into the ships tactical picture, and then Linked out to the rest of the TG.

So maybe AEW isn't the correct term.  Maybe this is an Airborne Remote Sensor.


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Jun 2021)

Underway, are you talking about something similar to the UK Crowsnest capability they will be fitting on their Merlins? Essentially something to take advantage of better RADAR/ESM horizon?

Edit: Nevermind, I see you mentioned the UK in your initial post. My bad. Where would you base an Unmanned AEW platform out of curiosity? As you say, you will have to give up one of your Cyclones at minimum?


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jun 2021)

Underway said:


> Isn't that AEW&C aircraft though (not just AEW)?  Am I splitting hairs for the definition of the term by leaving of the "&C"?
> 
> The reason I ask is perhaps an odd idea.
> 
> ...


If you remove the C2 element, it essentially becomes an ISR platform.  Might as well get Global Hawks/Tritons.  While we need sensors up North, we are also in desperate need of a suitable C2 infrastructure... 

There were a couple of rotary wing AEW platforms developed (6 according to Wikipedia), for a total of 58 airframes built.  Given the size and power requirements of modern radars, it is very difficult to integrate on a helicopter. Having said this, Leonardo are integrating such a solution on their EH101 (Crowsnest).  Just looking at pictures of the thing, it doesn't look right.  And generally speaking, when something doesn't look right in aircraft design, it flies like crap.


----------



## Underway (10 Jun 2021)

> Where would you base an Unmanned AEW platform out of curiosity? As you say, you will have to give up one of your Cyclones at minimum?



In a TG you have X number of ASW helicopters to properly provide coverage (both in time, space and for proper maintenance).  Given the TG size listed in both SSE and LEADMARK this is 4 frigates (CSC, Halifax) and one AOR.  That's a max of 6 helicopters.

You might not need (or have) all six, so ISR assets might be added in instead.  And CSC will have a flex deck where you could place another aircraft.



SupersonicMax said:


> If you remove the C2 element, it essentially becomes an ISR platform.  Might as well get Global Hawks/Tritons.  While we need sensors up North, we are also in desperate need of a suitable C2 infrastructure...
> 
> There were a couple of rotary wing AEW platforms developed (6 according to Wikipedia), for a total of 58 airframes built.  Given the size and power requirements of modern radars, it is very difficult to integrate on a helicopter. Having said this, Leonardo are integrating such a solution on their EH101 (Crowsnest).  Just looking at pictures of the thing, it doesn't look right.  And generally speaking, when something doesn't look right in aircraft design, it flies like crap.


ISR thanks, that's what I was going for but was unable to articulate it.

I have looked up some of those rotary AEW.  UK has CROWSNEST on their Merlins as well.  There was an attempt by Lockheed to develop an AESA version for the UK program that attached onto the Torp hardpoints but it never made it to production.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> And generally speaking, when something doesn't look right in aircraft design, it flies like crap.


Now I really want to know how the WWII Blohm and Voss aircraft handled   

Those things look like Frankenstein designed aircraft.  They pop up in the Weird Wings subreddit all the time.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jun 2021)

dimsum said:


> Now I really want to know how the WWII Blohm and Voss aircraft handled
> 
> Those things look like Frankenstein designed aircraft.  They pop up in the Weird Wings subreddit all the time.


Actually, BV trainers and flying boats were quite good...just that BV141 freakshow thing.  Fortunately they stabilized after the war, later becoming MBB.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jun 2021)

Ah yes, the BV141 -- first aircraft designed by a HQ committee.


----------



## GR66 (11 Jun 2021)

Personally I think any expanded ISR capabilities would be a good thing for the CF and our allies.  While I don't think that our current iteration of great power competition is likely to see Russian tanks driving towards the Fulda Gap, it's quite possible that we will see more Crimea type quick snatches of territory or increased conflicts involving proxy forces in small wars.

Detecting military build ups in advance by our adversaries or providing better info on insurgent forces could go a long way toward deterring aggression in the first place or stamping out brush fires before they get out of control.  Good bang for the buck to my mind.


----------

