<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/75.png?v=1690916059" width="495" height="500">


Photo inadvertently reveals funding progress of Hush-Kit Book 2.

ANOTHER security blunder by Hushkonian Air Force:

<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/Twin_28e88da7-8d55-45cb-84fd-f62fcd51ea95.png?v=1690916062" width="500" height="329">


<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/ta5.png?v=1690916062" width="500" height="348">Dozens of artworks for the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 have already been created by Andy Godfrey, among them the most exceptionally rare, beastly and charismatic aeroplanes ever to scare a drawing board. Here are 4 teasers, can you identify them? For volume 2 we have gone more technical, more disrespectful and even weirder. This is an even more dangerous dive into the dark exciting world of combat aircraft in all their flaming thunderous glory. Saab, Dassault, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems have looked deep into their vaults to find us some extremely rare photos and information (other manufacturers you are also very welcome to get in touch).  <img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/Screenshot_2023-04-25_at_14.51.25.png?v=1690916063" width="500" height="219"><img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/spit.png?v=1690916062" width="425" height="500">

Can you ID these four aircraft?

The book is now 64% funded (tell your friends) so you deserve an exclusive article -- ready? Let's go. DISCOUNT CODE: NEWYEAR2023


 de Havilland DH 108 Swallow versus Sud-Est SE 5000 Baroudeur – Progeny of the Komet?


Well, the sub-heading may be a bit of a big ask, but in a sense, the de Havilland DH 108 Swallow was very much a jet-powered Komet, and the Sud-Est SE 5000 Baroudeur, was, like the Komet, intended to operate from any surface using a take-off dolly, and landing on a skid undercarriage.

The DH 108 was first proposed as a demonstrator for the Comet airliner, which had originally been proposed as a tailless flying wing. In the end, however, its primary purpose became the investigation of the stability and control of swept-wing aircraft, and the potential of a tailless swept-wing configuration as transonic fighter configuration. The configuration bore a resemblance to the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, but was built around a lengthened Vampire fuselage, with a single fin added.

 

Three prototypes were built, and all were destroyed in fatal accidents. The first aircraft was to investigate low-speed flight and featured a 43 deg sweep wing with fixed outboard slats. This aircraft flew on 16 May 1946, and was limited in speed to about 200kts. It was destroyed in low-speed trials on 1 May 1950, failing to recover from an inverted spin. The second aircraft flew in June 1946, and had a 45 deg sweep wing with automatic leading edge slats. This aircraft crashed in a high-speed accident on 27 Sep 1946, which resulted from a massive structural failure, the cause of which was considered to have been a high-speed pitch oscillation at about Mach 0.9.

 

The third aircraft featured a more refined fuselage and cockpit shape, a more powerful Goblin 5 engine, and, critically, power-boosted (hydraulic) elevons. This aircraft made its first flight on 24 July 1947, and on 6 Sept 1948 exceeded Mach 1 in a shallow dive, the first British-built aircraft to achieve this. The aircraft was lost in another fatal accident on 15 Feb 1950, again following a structural failure, possibly following pilot incapacitation due to oxygen system failure.

 

Much was learned from the DH 108 Swallow, albeit in hard classroom of fatal accidents. The aircraft had low pitch inertia because of its tailless design, and this was combined with a short moment arm for the flight controls. At transonic and supersonic speeds, changes in the pressure distribution over aircraft result in the centre of lift moving aft, requiring nose up control input to trim the aircraft.  Given the short distance between the control surfaces and the centre of gravity, and the low inertia in pitch, pitch oscillations are likely, causing structural failure and the loss of the second aircraft.

The third DH 108 was built with hydraulically-assisted pitch controls, a key step in the development of supersonic aircraft. Powered controls enable the trim change associated with high-speed flight to be negotiated safely.

 


 <img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/Screenshot_2023-01-26_at_13.10.02_79bd9187-af2a-4ba2-a980-3cec7fd386c0.png?v=1690916066" width="500" height="312">



 DISCOUNT CODE: NEWYEAR2023


 

The Sud-Est SE 5000 Baroudeur was designed with the intent of providing NATO with a tactical aircraft which could operate from any surface, and it proved to be remarkably successful in this objective. The aircraft was a lightweight single-engine configuration, with a swept wing and a T-tail, and was generally a conventional design, with the exception of its undercarriage arrangements. The first flight of the Baroudeur was on 1 August, 1953. Incidentally, Baroudeur translates as ‘Battler’, a word much loved by Australian politicians, who use it to describe low-income workers, generally struggling under the economic conditions provided by those same politicians.

To provide an all-terrain undercarriage system, while minimising the weight of the aircraft, take-off was made on a large-wheeled trolley which detached from the aircraft at lift-off, and then was automatically braked for recovery. The trolley featured differential brakes and a steerable nosewheel, allowing the pilot to taxi while connected to the trolley. Landing was made onto compact twin retractable skids and a rear-mounted tail skid. This was a similar concept to that used by the Me 163 Komet, which took off using a twin-wheeled dolly which dropped away on take-off, with landing being onto a central sprung skid.

This arrangement proved to be remarkably successful, and its versatility was proved by demonstrated operations from surfaces as varied as stony sur face, a beach, grass, a ploughed field and snow and ice. The aircraft was also flown successfully both directly from its skids, and with the trolley still attached. The success of these ‘off piste’ demonstrations was such that three SE 5003 pre-production aircraft were ordered, and joined the two SE 5000 prototypes in flight trials.

In flight, the aircraft handled well once strakes had been fitted to alleviate a Dutch Roll problem, and the aircraft was demonstrated to be supersonic in a shallow dive. In the end, the Baroudeur lost out in the NATO competition to the Fiat G 91. The G 91 offered no better performance than the Baroudeur, but could carry a greater warload, and had an undercarriage able to operate from grass strips, if not the range of surfaces demonstrated by the French aircraft.

Another concern which might have influenced the decision was that, while operation from any surface sounds attractive, this capability can also involve significant problems for logistic support, and particularly for the ground vehicles supplying fuel and ordnance. It is interesting to observe that although Harrier aircraft can in principle operate from anywhere, they actually have rarely operated from austere dispersed sites.

For this comparison, the Sud-Est SE 5000 Baroudeur emerges as the clear winner, partly because the de Havilland DH 108 Swallow was simply a step too far for the aerodynamic knowledge and control technology of the day. However, the Baroudeur also achieved and demonstrated all it set out to do, and its avant garde undercarriage system delivered great versatility. On looks, perhaps the Swallow edges out the Baroudeur, but I cannot really regard it as a success. - Jim 'Sonic' Smith

de Havilland DH 108 Swallow versus Sud-Est SE 5000 Baroudeur – Progeny of the Komet?

<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/scott.jpg?v=1690916070" width="500" height="334">


To celebrate The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 reaching 35% funding we share this<a href="https://hushkit.net/2019/01/15/interview-with-a-british-f-35b-lightning-ii-pilot-semper-fidelis-to-semper-paratus/"> insightful interview from 2019</a> with a F-35 pilot. Thank you for helping us get to 35%! 

 


 RAF Wing Commander Scott Williams flew the F-35B Lightning II, the world’s most advanced fighter, with the US Marine Corps. We interviewed him to find out more about what is also the world’s most controversial aircraft. 


What were your first impressions of the F-35B? Technologically mind-blowing and a true engineering marvel.  As a pilot, it flies extremely smoothly and the handling is exceptional, especially when converting flight regimes to slow speed or jet-borne modes; that transition is almost imperceptibly smooth with no adverse characteristics.  High angle-of-attack manoeuvring is very easy and forgiving, with excellent nose and flight control ‘authority’ throughout.  Power is very apparent with impressive acceleration in dry power on take-off. Which three words would you use to describe the F-35B?  Lethal; Game-changing (I consider that one word!); Growth.

“‘…FIGHTING THE F-35 IS LIKE GOING INTO A BOXING MATCH AND YOUR OPPONENT DOESN’T EVEN KNOW YOU’RE IN THE RING YET!’”

What are the greatest myths about the F-35B? That it isn’t operational; that stealth doesn’t ‘work’; that external stores on F-35 defeats the point of its design. 

What are the best and worst things about the aircraft? The best thing is how quickly and effectively the F-35 allows the pilot to make decisions – fusing sensor and other data from onboard and off-board sources to display what’s out there and what’s going on.  Worst thing? I’d like a bit more fuel but what pilot doesn’t?!

 

Have you flown basic fighter manoeuvres against Typhoons (or any other types) if so, how did the aircraft do? I haven’t flown BFM in the F-35B against Typhoon or other types (yet!) but I’m sure I will soon 

Though the aircraft is not designed primarily as a WVR ‘dogfighting’ platform - and this may not be a desirable way to fight- how would it do in this respect? Pretty darn well, but there are so many factors that determine the outcome of a WVR fight; pilot proficiency, situational awareness, missile capabilities, countermeasures…every one of these things makes a difference but if one were to postulate that in 1000 BVR engagements only a few would likely end up in a WVR fight, you need to ask yourself where you should invest the money, proportionally.  Designing a lightweight dogfighter was arguably relevant in the 1970s as fly-by-wire tech gave birth to increasing (super)manoeuvrability; today it isn’t anywhere near as important but still cool for air shows. 

Can the aircraft currently work communicate well with Typhoons, what are the considerations in working together? I won’t talk about what we do with Typhoon but the communications have been tested on trials and they work.  I’d say a generic consideration for working latest generation fighters with legacy platforms is ensuring you understand their capabilities and limitations. 

 What is your most memorable mission in the F-35B? There are a few, but the one that stands out for me has to be my first STOVL flight.  Comparing the aircraft to the Harrier first-hand was a unique privilege and genuinely brought a smile to my face. I think the UK and US teams who developed the STOVL Control Laws (CLAW), and the pioneering research from the VAAC Harrier and test pilots, were responsible for a huge triumph. Boscombe Down, take a bow! 

What’s the best thing about the sensors? How they interact and complement each other with sensor fusion.  For 15 years I’ve flown aircraft that need a targeting pod strapped on – these things were normally only bought in limited numbers so you’d get to use them on specific events.  Having a targeting pod on every single F35 (the EOTS – Electro-Optical Targeting System) is hugely beneficial for training in all missions.   

How good is the situational awareness compared to other aircraft you have flown and how does that change things? Nothing compares to it.  Nothing.  And information changes everything.  When you look at Boyd’s well-known OODA loop, traditionally the hardest things are to answer ‘what’s out there’, ‘what’s it doing’, ‘what do I need to do’.  That decision loop can cause paralysis which can lead to a quick demise in a combat fight.  F-35 helps enormously in this regard and allows the pilot to act rather than react – reacting is what we’ll make the enemy do. Constantly. 

When will the British have a combat-capable F-35 force? The UK has a combat-capable F-35 force today and declared Initial Operating Capability very recently, so are able to deploy on combat operations at any point from herein. The Block 3F capability is highly combat-capable, despite what you may wish to believe or what is written by a number of prominent bloggers. 

What would you change about the F-35B? Across all three variants the B does has the least fuel, but I believe it makes up for that with the ability to operate from the QE Carriers, bases with much shorter runways (~3000ft, predominantly for a re-supply tactical AT platform), or even other nations’ carriers when required. 
 
How does its reliability and ease of maintenance compare with other aircraft you’ve flown? Most of the previously reported reliability issues have been software-related in my experience.  Maintenance is logical and designed to be as straightforward as possible but the still maturing F-35 global sustainment enterprise results in delays in supplying spares to a high number of demanding customers and countries.  With 8.6+ million lines of software code, this aircraft is many times more complex in how it operates compared to a Typhoon (or even an F-22 Raptor) but the latest software and hardware combinations in Block 3F have resulted in improved reliability for sure!   

Will a F-35B  fly the close support mission in a different way to a GR4 or Typhoon?  F-35 will be able to fly the mission in a much more hostile and contested airspace than a GR4 and Typhoon by virtue of its low observable capabilities. However, the rudiments of how a pilot conducts CAS do not necessarily change that much but differences in platform sensor capabilities are an example.  It’s well documented that F-35 does not currently have a CCD capability in the EOTS so we’re restricted to infra-red only.  That’s something I’d like to see improved soon in impending upgrades and it’s ‘in the plan’ so to speak.  Expanded weapons integration in future will also open the variety of effects that we can give the ground commander too. 

Do you like the helmet system?  The HMD is a truly incredible piece of kit because it really does bring a further dimension to the situational awareness for the pilot.  If you then consider the built-in Night Vision Camera and ability to project full-coverage IR imagery of the outside world no matter where you point your head, the ability to point or cue a weapon quickly by day or by night is a great capability. 

What should I have asked you? What’s it like working closely with the US Marines!  It’s awesome – those guys and girls work like Trojans to achieve the mission and we have a close relationship building for cooperation in future.

 

How would you rate its BVR capabilities?  Second to none really.  First to see is first to shoot, is first to kill.  I recently heard a comment from someone that ‘…fighting the F-35 is like going into a boxing match and your opponent doesn’t even know you’re in the ring yet!’  I like that comment because our lethality is enhanced by being able to deliver the killer or knock-out blow to our opponents before they get enough awareness on what’s going on to prepare or do something about it. 

How would you rate its ground attack and recce abilities compared to the GR4 or Typhoon? We only have Paveway IV currently, however this will expand with SPEAR 3 and other weapons in future but the single weapon option is a bit of a limitation of sorts right now, even though PWIV is an excellent weapon that’s proven itself against our enemies time and again.  There is also potential for UK to procure the GAU-22/A Gun Pod if needs be and the USMC have already employed it.  The variety of recce options on F-35 are good – from EOTS (IR) to DAS, to Radar Mapping, we have a true all-weather and, in many cases, multi-spectral recce capability.  However, F-35 isn’t a dedicated “recce” platform so you can perhaps understand why there’s no pod like the RAPTor on Tornado as an example.

Tell me something I don’t know about the F-35B. “I could tell you but I’d have to kill you”… 

What is your rank and with which air arm do you serve?  Wing Commander, Royal Air Force 

What is your unit? Currently VMFAT-501 (USMC F-35B Fleet Replacement Squadron or FRS).  However, this year all of my Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Instructor Pilots (IPs), Engineers and Mission Support staff will form the nucleus of 207 Squadron at RAF Marham on 1 July 2019, and we will also fly our aircraft back to the UK later that month. 

Which types have you flown? Harrier GR7/GR9; Tornado GR4 (post-SDSR10, after Harrier was retired early) and I now fly the F-35B Lightning and instruct both US Marine and UK students on VMFAT-501.

 

Why was 207 Sqn chosen for the F-35B?  Will the RAF and RN share F-35s? The choice was intentional — and was made due to the fact that 207 originated as 7 (Naval) Squadron, RNAS, in 1916.  When the independent RAF was born on 1 April 1918 and subsumed RNAS and RFC squadrons, 7(N) re-badged to become 207 Sqn.  So the number plate was purposefully chosen to have both Naval and Air Force lineage.  We don’t ‘share’ the F-35B Lightning like one might share a car with a friend or partner.  Instead the Lightning Force – and by that I specifically mean the aircraft, its personnel, equipment and support infrastructure – is all jointly-manned by serving Royal Navy and RAF personnel, including our vital civilian and reservist staff who make up what we call the ‘Whole Force’.

FUNDING REACHES 35%: Interview with a British F-35B Lightning II pilot: Semper Fidelis to Semper Paratus

<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" height="500" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/bobf_41ecd8f5-da86-44d0-ada5-648c930ee05e.jpg?v=1690916073" width="500">


If you live in London and fancy visiting the Battle of Britain Bunker, I'll see you tonight. 

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 is now 96% funded! Thank you for getting us this far.

Talk tonight from The Battle of Britain Bunker

<img alt class="doksoft_image_img" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/3615/3620/files/image-108.png?v=1690916077" width="500" height="350">



 By former F-14 pilot Jon Schreiber, with former Topgun instructor and F-14 RIO Dave Baranek



 But first, here's an update on the book..we have now reached 70% funding, so here's a big thank you! Time to recruit all your friends to join the project and make it happen. Now over to the Tomcat boys. 


 

The F-14 Tomcat, born of lessons learned and policy denied1, became a star of the US Navy’s combat weaponry and the silver screen but more significantly, it was the most important warplane of the Cold War. Yes it was! Here’s why.

The F-14 embodied the broadest capabilities of any airplane ever designed for and flown in combat. It was a tactical airplane with strategic capabilities. Genius.

For today’s mission we won’t compare the Tomcat /AIM-54 missile combination to the Flanker /AA-10C. Instead, we’re going back to when the F-14 first brought sensational performance to American carrier flight decks.

The F-14 had the capability of destroying ANY opposing aircraft ANY where in the world. No other Cold War aircraft had the single mission capability to send two nuggets on a “standard” mission from the CV and trap two Aces a few hours later. The AIM-54 and the AWG-9 enabled incredible combat capability. With the AWG-9 able to track two dozen separate targets and feed the data to a swarm of million-dollar missiles doing their job, two J.Os3 could find themselves at the tactical pointy end of a powerful strategic spear. This capability was on American flight decks SEVENTEEN YEARS before the AIM-120 provided multi-shot capability to other American fighters. Additionally, the F-14 was armed with weapons that can kill from inside 1000 feet (the M61 Gatling gun) to 70 nautical miles with the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Tomcat was designed with an incredibly versatile performance envelope that boasted high-g manoeuvring, high-speed, great endurance. The Tomcat’s godlike potency captured the aviation world’s attention when it was introduced as one of the earliest 4th generation fighters.

Leveraging the Tomcat’s versatility during FleetEx 83 (April 1983), several F-14s reportedly overflew a Soviet military base near the Kamchatka peninsula – proving the assertion of Admiral Watkins, then CNO, that the USSR was “as naked as a jay-bird” in that AOR. Following the FleetEx 83 F-14 flyover, which caused a political stir, Able Archer 83 demonstrated NATO’s first strike capability in November 1983. Coincidence? We think not. The F-14 demonstrated it was capable of first strike. But how did a tactical airplane enable such a strategy?

In 1986, the F-14 proved that its extraordinarily capable weapon system and its endurance could create a “strategic-tactic,” variously known as Chainsaw and Tanksaw, enabling a single F-14 to achieve a kill volume covering approximately 2% of the Pacific Ocean. Kills at 700NM from the carrier meant anti-ship missiles carried on aircraft like the Bear and Badger were no longer a sure threat to the U.S. Navy’s fleet, allowing carrier-based and other long range strike aircraft to be flown feet dry over the USSR. The F-14 had completely amputated the air leg of the Soviet triad.

In a scenario where a Tanksaw F-14 shoots down outbound Soviet bombers while they are still feet-dry over the USSR, the cognisant Soviet Air Force General, who was just handed his retirement by a couple of Navy flyers, will need to temper his response to losing those capital assets so early in the campaign. His problem is not the aggressive F-14; his problem is that the standard USN F-14 always travelled with a team of “goodfellas.”  Goodfellas in the form of one or more Battle Groups, and during the cold war a Battle Group deployed with organic strategic capabilities. If F-14s are able to kill bombers feet dry over the Soviet Union then the organic assets of the Battle Group have the ability to strike critical C4 targets in country. By severing critical C4 links across several Soviet regional C4 facilities the U.S. will have gained a great advantage of shortening the Soviet strategic decision-cycle time from about 40 minutes to less than 10 minutes. That advantage could disable initiation of the Soviets MAD3 response thus decapitating the entire context of the Cold War conundrum. Tactical to strategic, indeed.

The versatility of the F-14 was a triumph, forged in titanium, of the West’s ability to thwart any threat, thus ending the cold war and reserving a spot for the USSR on the “ash heap of history.” 2 While many other aircraft can claim a supporting role in ending the cold war, the key aircraft that crippled the air leg and MAD response of the Soviet Stratigiya was, unquestionably, the Tomcat.

Notes

The F-14 incorporated many lessons from the ongoing air war in Vietnam, as did the F-15 Eagle. These included the importance of good maneuverability and cockpit visibility, the value of a built-in gun, and many more. As far as policy denied, this includes the failed attempt to force the Navy to accept the F-111B when it needed a versatile fighter and the missile-only armament of other recent American fighters. 
In his “Westminster Speech” of 18 June 1982, US President Ronal Reagan said, “…The march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history….”

 
Abbreviations used in the article that may not be common knowledge: J.O. = junior officer; CNO = Chief of Naval Operations; AOR = area of responsibility; MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

Authors:

Jon “Hooter” Schreiber is pappy to three cute as the dickens girls, father of two cool sons, and husband with limited fashion sense. He is a retired US Navy fighter pilot (F-4s and F-14s) and active GA pilot. Opinions offered free of charge.  
Dave “Bio” Baranek is enjoying retirement with his wife. He occasionally writes and creates aviation-related videos. He is a retired US Navy F-14 RIO and former Topgun instructor.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not endorsed by any organization.

We flew the F-14 Tomcat, here’s why it was the most important Cold War warplane

We're now 32% funded! Thank you

Dear supporter


 Quick project update


We're now 87% funded, thank you! So we are now close to this project getting the green light, but we must reach 100%. Spread the word to hurry things up if you like (but you've already done your bit so no pressure). 

In the meantime, we are interested in your ideas for book 2. If you have an idea of a subject for an article then let us know in the comments section below. 

Yours in camber and peaky airfoils, 

HK

We want your ideas

Hi,

Zoom quizzes are a nightmare so we've decided on a different format for the Hush-Kit Aviation Master Quiz. It will happen on Twitter. Simply follow @Hushkit_av_quiz and all will be explained. ONLY SUPPORTERS OF THE HUSH-KIT BOOK 1 or 2 are eligible to join.

First quiz is planned for this sunday night 20.00 UK time.

Look forward to seeing you there,

All the best,

Joe

You are invited to a supporters only online master aviation quiz this sunday

A sequel to the much-loved Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Plucking the best from over 1,000 articles from the highly respected Hush-Kit blog, Volume 2 takes an even deeper dive into the thrilling world of military aviation.
A lavishly illustrated coffee-table book crammed with well-informed and utterly readable histories, listicles, interviews, and much more. Beautifully designed, with world-class photography, here is an utterly entertaining, and at times subversive, celebration of military flying!
The spectacular photograph of the F-4 Phantom we have used on the cover was taken by Rich Cooper from the Centre of Aviation Photography.
About Hush Kit . . .
‘Joe Coles has written the most explosive book about aircraft ever’ Jim Moir (Vic Reeves)
'Joe Coles is one of the brightest, funniest people I know, and the only writer who makes aviation interesting to me. He manages to find something human in the cold, war-spattered world of planes, and brings light to the darkest subjects.' Eva Wiseman, Observer

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Volume 2

Ebook plus your name printed in the back.

eBook

First edition hardback plus your name printed in the back and the ebook.

Hardback

Signed first edition hardback plus your name printed in the back and the ebook.

Signed Hardback

Unique high-quality Hush-Kit T-shirt unavailable anywhere

Vulcan

A video call from the author to talk to you (or your group) ABOUT A FAVOURITE AEROPLANE

Venom

One hand-drawn illustration of an aircraft of your choice by the author.

Sea Fury

A pack of Hush-Kit Jet Warplanes trump cards

Jet Warplanes trump cards

A pack of Cancelled and Experimental Aircraft trump cards

Cancelled and Experimental Aircraft trump cards

Personalised Fuselage Illustration in the Book

A3 Personal Fuselage Print

Blog Article

Aircraft of WW2 trump cards

Be a part of our community! 334,112 people from 207 countries have pledged £11,980,334 to fund 646 projects - and counting!

Trending Now

Coming Soon

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Volume 2

About The Book

Join Our Newsletter

Your Bag