Russia “Accidentally” Leaks Image Of Future High-Speed Helicopter: Media

Donate

Russia’s Kamov Design Bureau has “accidentally” leaked images showing the Russian future high-speed helicopter, which is being developed for the Russian Armed Forces.

Images of the supposed helicopter, which have been reportedly taken during a presentation of the new helicopter, have appeared in social media.

According to reports, Sergei Mikheyev General Designer of the Kamov Design Bureau has recently presented the helicopter concept drawings to an unknown group. Mikheyev reportedly said that the new technologies will produce higher speeds (up to 700 km/h) and better fuel efficiency that could make the US military very worried.

The new helicopter will utilize new engines, internal weapons bays, side-by-side cockpit, an improved coaxial rotors design, canards and a fighter-shaped wing. The concept will be also eqquiped with an infrared heat suppressing systems and various fuselage contour constructions with internal weapons bays as a stealth technology to avoid detection.

Russia "Accidentally" Leaks Image Of Future High-Speed Helicopter: Media

Source: facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/

Russia "Accidentally" Leaks Image Of Future High-Speed Helicopter: Media

Source: facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/

Russia "Accidentally" Leaks Image Of Future High-Speed Helicopter: Media

Source: facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Smith Ricky

    Interesting.

    • You can call me Al

      What about a load of BS, purposely leaked or “misplaced” in public ?.

      • Smith Ricky

        Sure…

  • You can call me Al

    Right quick Bolton, go spend trillions trying to beat the pesky Russkies to it;, otherwise this extremely advanced plane, chopper, helicopter hybrid, killing machine will wipe the floor with the the USA, USA, USA. Muppet.

    Whilst your at it Yankers, you should also be worried about this:

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmM0MTNmNDEtM2RjMC00NzI4LWFkY2ItZjY5NTFjZDEwNWE0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDk0ODI3OA@@._V1_.jpg

    (Airwolf 1984)

    • FlorianGeyer

      This documentary may interest you Al.

      https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/438233-french-national-energy-economy/

      It is about the absolute and imposed legal powers over the whole world that the US has forced unilaterally on the rest of the world.

      Essentially if the US deems a business deal by a non-US company anywhere in the world as ‘fraudulent’ , the US can prosecute such companies wherever they are IF the companies have used ANY US made goods or services within such companies. Even an ‘ I Phone’ used by company staff would be sufficient cause for the US to intervene. Such interventions often result in massive fines or the sale of ‘guilty’ company assets to US companies at a fire sale price.

      The US government is no less that the American tax payer funded legal and military muscle for the US Deep State and Israel.

      • Papi1960R

        You had me until your ignorant comment about Israel. Israel is no more a primary player in US Foreign policy than Paraguay or Malaysia.
        In fact the US Deep State has consistently used Israel as a wedge to keep Arab and Muslim countries divided.
        Unfortunately ignorant people who have never lived in the region let their antisemitism show every chance they get by making statements exactly in line with how the Deep State want you to think.
        You’ve been conditioned just like they want you to be.
        The Military Industrial Complex’s reach is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about.

        • Garga

          You too had me until you started to speak about Anti-Semitism. I thought you may have a point if I squint hard and look side-ways, but unfortunately you too are conditioned to a point where mere mentioning of the name “Israel” is equal to Jew-hating for you.

          Please don’t take offence, it’s not my intention. I meant that looking in the mirror and knowing the guy who looks back at us can be helpful from time to time.

          • You can call me Al

            Hahaha – boom. Nice response with a “tang”.

        • Harvey Swinestein

          You have exposed your true ZioNazi colors with your “antisemitic” rant buddy. There IS no US deep state. It’s a ZioNazi deep state within the US. The Goyim are not smart enough to create a deep state. All they can do is submit and acquiesce to what they are forced to do either economically, politically or militarily . . .

        • Concrete Mike

          Lol antisemitsm…nothing semite about those guys…there all eastern europeean.

          • d’Artagnan

            This anti-Semitic nonsense is another Hollywood created myth to sow discord in the west and hide Zionist crimes against humanity.

          • Concrete Mike

            Yep…use “fancy” words that no one knows what it means…and highjacking it.

            None of these guys are from samaria now are they….good samaritans are few and far between these days.

        • Tom Tom

          Cabalist and Secular Israel uber alles (?)

        • d’Artagnan

          Arabs are the only real Semites. And indeed, there is a lot of anti-Arab antisemitic hatred and propaganda in the west.

      • You can call me Al

        Thanks.

        I watched the video, but for some reason it kept freezing, anyway, I looked up this deal (that I missed) and the corruption involved then and even now it truly frightening. The implications also indicated fraud in the French government as well.

        I think you will find by the way that now, with the NAFTA, so called Canadian deal with Europe, with the potential of the TTIP arising in the near future and so on and so on, we are moving to those apocalyptic times, when a few Conglomerates rule the roost and can call foul on Governments.

        • FlorianGeyer

          If the US manages to survive as the worlds hegemon you will be correct Al.

          • You can call me Al

            mmmm, mmm well, thanks I think there Florian.

        • Harvey Swinestein

          Well said :)

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      so holywood discover it first after all.

      • You can call me Al

        As always !!!.

    • d’Artagnan

      No “leaks” are “accidental” in Russia, it is part of GRU’s disinformation and psy-ops campaign to confuse the US paranoid idiots and waste their resources.

      • You can call me Al

        That was my point. But thanks for the response.

      • You can call me Al

        I totally agree.

    • Tommy Jensen

      Nothing can beat US latest design group Force by Quantity technology “The Humble Bee”.

      These new attack helicopters fly 800km/hr, have flexible fuselage contour construction, front hydraulic weapon bays, side-by side coaxial rotor designs, canaryards, nano space engines,
      fighterwings, infrared radar heat suppressing and stealth plasma to completely avoid detection. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9860c51011cdb087d55aa3f43ca5fc887ca4fd6882e513cfc81c1c90e1d5989.jpg

  • Bob

    True successor to the Hind?

    • Simon Abruzzo

      kamov design

    • Garga

      Successor to this guy:

      http://www.egypttoday.com/siteimages/Larg/4956.jpg

      who mated with this beauty, perhaps:

      https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/web/in-rbth/images/2015-03/top/TASS_8761432_top.jpg

      Can 700 km/h be right? Fastest of helicopters fly at half of this speed.

      • John Whitehot

        “Can 700 km/h be right?”

        I got doubts about that.

        Helicopters have the intrinsic limit of the rotating blades, at high speeds the retreating blade ends up stalling.

        It’s an effect owed to the forward motion of the heli, and the rearward motion of the blades which in that instant have passed the 9 oclock (or 3 oclock) position and start moving against the overall direction – and the resulting subtractions of velocities.

        It must be said though, that IF this limit can be greatly surpassed, the “overlying rotor” design could be the only able to actually do it.

        Kamov has accumulated a lot of experience in designing such layouts, and greatly perfected them in the latest years; so there is a likeness that they are able to produce such device.

        The large wings seen in the picture may well be able to provide enough lift and keep the heli stable at those speeds, although it’s a way too technical aspect for non-engineers to analyse.

        • Garga

          There’s a physical limitation for the helicopter speed and you explained an important part of it nicely, the stall and “almost” sudden absence of lift on a side, although a coaxial configuration helps in this matter. There is another problem (shock waves, the tip of blade shouldn’t have a velocity higher than speed of sound and the inherent inefficiency of the way a chopper produces horizontal speed. At least with the current physics rules and materials.

          That’s why I suggested it may be gyro. By using fat and short rotors and a mechanism to reduce their rotational speed, it’s possible to achieve 600-800 km/h with a gyroplane. The problem is, it’s for level and straight flight in higher altitudes (10km-15km, where a chopper can’t possibly fly) and the lift sharply reduces in turns, hence the presence of wings in this design and also canards suggests it can turn very sharply.
          The engines in this craft’s case are very complicated, if jets are used. They’re not turboshafts because the rotor is not powered in most of the flight time, just during take off and landings (if done vertically, gyroplane is a natural STOL), so thrust must be generated by exhaust push, like a normal jet. However if it’s VTOL capable, the rotor should become powered too and this complicate things.

          There’s another rotor-powered Russian aircraft that shouldn’t be able to fly at the speed in which it flies: Tu-95 with it’s very unique engines and rotors. Overall, many Russian aircrafts shouldn’t be able to do what they do (like Su-27 family with their insane maneuverability) but apparently the planes don’t know it themselves!

          • PZIVJ

            Surprised to learn counter rotating rotors have been around for a while :)
            FA 223 Drache 1940:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e31894838c3b0033e5b98939a7e4a7b4c23507986fd919779e7467a30b6c2be1.jpg

          • Garga

            Yes, they’ve been around for some time. Would you believe if I told you the first model of a coaxial counter rotating helicopter was built in the 18th century, by a Russian?

            More or less working machines were built in 1930’s in Europe.

            https://www.motorwebmuseum.it/assets/Uploads/1930-Omologato-il-primo-elicottero.png

            Currently Kamov is the only company which produces several reliable models, with the US lagging behind, experimentin’ and stuff (by Sikorsky. Seriously, is it a Russian thing?).

            The current form of helicopters (tail rotor which has a handful of dangerous flaws) and tandem arrangement (like FA 223, Chinook and flying Banana) and intermeshing rotors are alternative designs due to the complication of the real helicopters which has a hell of a lot more moving parts,

          • John Whitehot

            “There’s another rotor-powered Russian aircraft that shouldn’t be able to fly at the speed in which it flies: Tu-95”

            Technically it’s a counter-rotating turboprop aircraft.

            the term “rotor” implies that most lift is generated by a rotary wing, while “props” in fixed wing aircraft generate speed.

            As you say, a gyro design (if it’s even possible to adapt one into lifting such weights) would compromise VTOL, combat helicopters are tactically required to be able to operate from forward established bases, which are essentially platforms in advanced areas.

            not to mention that helis must be able to stop in mid air, hover, perform lateral movement with zero forward speed, move backwards and so on – all these capabilities would be essentially lost in a gyro design of this weight.

            my take is that such speed may be attained in a helicopter by adding a transitional phase. Right now, the helis transition from hovering to moving.

            In this case, there may be some mechanism by which the cycle would be hover-move-move fast.

            there would be a point in the envelope where the fixed wings would start to take over the rotary ones, as the latter start losing lift.
            The heli in the drawing sports canards in front of the fixed wings, which makes me think that the designer is predicting the inability of the “collective” to provide reliable control.

            in practice, it would be a rotary wing aircraft that is able to transition into a fixed wing one and back – and in this case there is probably also a way to divert the engines exhaust to provide some speed too.

          • Garga

            There are experimental models like Carter PAV, take a look.

            Large wings and canards would add a tonne of drag when applying collective in a traditional helicopter which don’t use a combination of elevator+roll to turn, unlike planes. A single rotor helicopter doesn’t need them, let alone a twin rotor.

            Sikorsky made X2, a coax with a pusher prop (a better model than their ’70s design with 2 jet engines which had too much noise, vibration and fuel consumption) with fat and short airfoil blades with good speed (close to 500km/h) but it doesn’t have any wings. Wings screw up helicopter’s movement.

            Without further information or detail pics, the Russian new concept is a puzzle to me. I think the only way possible to achieve 700km/h while preserving VTOL and/or hover capability with the machine in article (those damn wings and pesky canard!) is a gyroplane with power-able rotors.

            You’re right about rotors and props, my mistake or in fact insufficient knowledge (both are called the same in Persian). Thumbs up.

          • John Whitehot

            “There are experimental models like Carter PAV, take a look.”

            Yes, there are – but nothing in this class of weight and power.

            Also, nothing doing any significant role in civil or military aviation, or able to lift the weight of one or two persons beyond its own – that’s a niche.

            “gyroplane with power-able rotors”
            possible in theory, in practice there is not one but two full weight and size rotors. As a sidenote, i wonder if this design would be able to auto-rotate – it would seem out of order but again i’m no engineer.

            I’m not excluding completely that some elements from gyro technology could be incorporated, in any case, it’s too soon to even speculate.

          • Garga

            Experimental in this case doesn’t mean a measly wireframe prototype, John. Powered rotors that can be disconnected (or vice versa) are not a theory.

            A great example would be Kamov Ka-22, which looks like a side-ways tandem helicopter with large wings and forward faced (puller) propellers. For take off and landings it’s main rotors were powered and control surfaces on wings fully deployed almost vertical to reduce the surface, pitch, yaw and roll by torque. In level flight, rotors became disconnected (wind powered), pitch, yaw and roll controls done by control surfaces like an airplane.

            Ka-22 was a record breaking bird with intact records for almost 60 years and it could carry a considerable payload, more than 15 tonnes.

            A noticeable difference (but not a huge one) between KA-22 and the craft in the article (if that’s a gyroplane/gyrocopter) is that the latter is coaxial counter rotating and former is transverse counter rotating. Also notice the mast casing shape in the new one.

            It seems someone in Kamov (and other Russia design bureaus) is bringing the older designs out to restart the work on them. Given their great experience with coax system and experimental gyros, perhaps it’s not far-fetched if they decided to combine the best of the 2 systems. They can solve the deadly flaws which plagued the American V-22.
            We have to wait to know more. For now I’m just pretending to know something to show off.

          • John Whitehot

            interesting.
            i remember reading about the ka-22 design, but only cursorly.
            it qualifies as “gyrodyne” rotorcraft, which is not the same as “autogyro”.

            yet it would still make little tactical sense if this new design is intended as a combat helicopter – the gyrodine would be able to transition between its phases for take off and landing, hence make for example a great transport aircraft able to reach helicopter platforms – but a combat helicopter needs to transition quickly and flexibly to/from hover, and also to perform movements that a gyrodyne cannot do (kamov helis during weapon systems shows often perform maneuvers in which they roll in circles around their targets while keeping their weapons pointed on them and showering them with iron and fire).

            i must admit that i’m not terribly excited by aeronautical “hybrids” – let a heli be a heli and a plane be a plane – so i may not be completely objective. But the fact that, no matter how big accomplishments these craft have attained, they have attracted no interest from the military, is a reality that probably has sound reasons.

            “We have to wait to know more” -agreed,

        • John Mason

          Retractable blades? Possible, then use jets for propulsion.

          • John Whitehot

            that’s an interesting observation. certainly hard to implement, but who knows.

        • FlorianGeyer

          I am sure that Hollywood will come up with a design that works in a movie John :)
          The CIA will likely be the sponsors.

    • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

      The Hind has no single successor, the two helicopters that took over the Hinds roles is Mi-28 for the attack and Ka-52 for the deep penetration/RECCE role.

      Todays battlefield is so advanced and require so much Intel that a single helicopter would not be viable, so far.
      Its better to has two very specialised airframes than one that can do some from both:
      “Jack of all trades, master of non”

      • John Whitehot

        imagine this thing flying at 700 km/h at 10 meters altitude, coming from behind the hill and swoop onto the ragheads domes.

        they would barely know what shredded them into ribbons and manured Syrian (or other) land with wahabist murk.

        • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

          That speed is useless on the battlefield, only good for to and from the AOR, and what you gain in those few minutes you loose in extra weight, extra parts to service, more wear and tear, more expensive to build and maintain, its an interesting concept though.

          In a tactical sense i cant see the purpose of that high speed, helicopters advantage is low and slow and hover; waiting in an ambush and rearming/refueling at a improvised FARP/FOB, even from a truck somewhere (The swedish tactic).

          In essence its a helicopterised version of a Yak-38

          • John Whitehot

            “speed useless on the battlefield”

            This goes among all the tactical pearls you have dispensed since years.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Dont pick and choose and take everything out of context, leave that for the MSM

            I said: “That speed is useless on the battlefield, only good for to and from the AOR”

            Several A-10 and Su-25 pilots have been asked if they miss a faster platform, they say no, because they are in the dirt, need to find target often using Mark 1 Eyeball, higher speeds just means shorter reaction time.

            Check up on the MiG-27, i recommend “Wings of Russia Studios”, episode “Ground attack, the jet strike”, if i remember correct, it was not liked because of it high speeds.
            All that also applies to helicopters.

          • John Whitehot

            look, it’s very easy.

            “speed” means that you CAN go fast.

            not that you MUST go fast.

            ask any helicopter pilot if he wants a platform that can make 0 to 700 km/h, or one that can reach only 150 km/h.

            “not liked because of it high speeds.”

            mig-23 and 27 had fast LANDING speeds. That’s something that no pilot likes.

            “All that also applies to helicopters.”

            in all this post, you seem to not be able to appreciate the difference between helicopters and planes.

            and i did not even comment on the “helicopterized version of the yak-38” pearl, something that could make some people fall off their chairs.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            “”speed” means that you CAN go fast.

            not that you MUST go fast.”
            Agree, but you pay a weight penalty for that option, the British pilots i talked to during my tour in Iraq preferred loiter time and weaponsload above speeds, so i have asked the pilots myself.

            Not many attack helicopters can only go 150 if any i cannot think of any attack helicopter at the moment, in a standard mission setup, that only can go 150.

            Im not talking about MiG-23, MiG-23 and MiG-27 are two quite different planes, and im just saying what im been told by the interviewed pilots.

            I have a very clear understanding of the difference between helicopters and planes and as a former infantry guy, i appreciate helicopters above planes in that sense, but that always depends on the situation where you have to choose.

          • John Whitehot

            “and as a former infantry guy”

            you hardly have had any military experience let alone service.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Dont tell me what i have and dont have:

            4 years in the Royal Danish Army Homeguard
            2½ years in the Royal Danish Army, Jydske Dragon Regiment MECHINF (Jutland Dragoon Regiment)
            Deployment to Iraq, IRAQ DANCON Team 8, JDR, MECHINF, Al Hartha COY, Basrah AOR

          • John Whitehot

            and i am mickey mouse.

      • Bob

        Point taken – but back in the 1970/80’s the Hind was an icon – a ferocious gunship for the time – was thinking in terms of equivalent contemporaneous performance and psychological impact.

        • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

          Thats is correct, Mi-24 was one of “The Big seven”, something every NATO soldier had nightmares about.

          The Hind was and always will be an icon of Soviet/Russian thinking and doctrine back then; 100% blitzkrieg on the ground and in the air.

          In my mind the Hind never had and never will have anything like it, its in a class for itself, as you say; an icon.

          Like a Porsche 911, there will be many like it, but none as iconic and classic as the original.

          • John Whitehot

            “every NATO soldier ”

            Most NATO soldiers didn’t have a clue about any of “the big seven” (actually, i’ve never heard the expression myself).

            “Soviet/Russian thinking and doctrine back then; 100% blitzkrieg on the ground and in the air.”

            Soviet never developed their operational and tactical doctrines around “Blitzkrieg”.

            West called the Soviet developments “Deep Battle”, which are completely different from Bllitzkrieg or Schewerepunkt.

            Start reading some book, like Georghy Isserson’s work on development of Soviet maneuver doctrine, instead of parroting things heard on US documentaries made for fats living in the suburb houses with the US flag on their front.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            “”every NATO soldier ”

            Most NATO soldiers didn’t have a clue about any of “the big seven” (actually, i’ve never heard the expression myself).”

            As a professional soldier, it is your responsibility to “know thy enemy”, you may not know it as “The Big Seven” but the chance that you have been a NATO soldier during the cold war and not know anything about your enemy, is just…. i dont know, but i have asked at least 15 guys that served back then, and if you say “Hind”, they know in the same second what i talked about.

            And not knowing the Hind, and have served as a professional soldier during the cold war, just makes me happy that the cold war did not go hot….

            “Soviet/Russian thinking and doctrine back then; 100% blitzkrieg on the ground and in the air.”

            Soviet never developed their operational and tactical doctrines around “Blitzkrieg”.

            Wrong, the soviet doctrine dictated speed and massing of forces above everything else, thats why they excelled airmobility and airborne forces, and why they developed the T-80, its not for nothing it was joked that T-80 crew only needed to know the direction to the English Channel.

            “Start reading some book, like Georghy Isserson’s work on development of Soviet maneuver doctrine, instead of parroting things heard on US documentaries made for fats living in the suburb houses with the US flag on their front.”

            Erhm, i have, and you dont know me at all, because then you wouldn indirectly call me an fat lazy American who think they are the next Rommel.

            im not American, i will never be, im Danish, so that hate against Americans, save that for an American and not me.
            Its not me stereotyping other people without knowing them

          • John Whitehot

            “As a professional soldier,”

            the period which you are talking about was one inwhere “NATO soldiers” were largely conscripts. With the exception of the US, “professionals” never exceeded 15/20% of any given NATO army, with large of part of them being “long serving volunteers”.

            NCO’s and Officers scored a little more, but you were talking about “soldiers”.

            “Erhm, i have, and you dont know me at all, because then you wouldn indirectly call me an fat lazy American who think they are the next Rommel.”

            Really, which one? because calling the soviet doctrine “blitzkrieg” normally comes from people that don’t make a battalion from an army corps. In regards to calling you fat, reread what i wrote because i don’t waste a second in explaining things to your likes.

            “and you dont know me at all”

            Lols, you so cute.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Soldiers are soldiers, no matter your rank.

            In Denmark a professional soldier is one that signed a contract, mostly a K35 or K60, (to you are 35 or 60), i do not remember what the contracts are called if you get elected to be an officer or sergeant.

            Well, im not the “normal” couch commander”, i have done my service and did a tour to Iraq, and i have been very interested in everything military, except ship stuff, for nearly 25 years now, learning my self english early on, since the school prioritized German back then.

            I propally misunderstood “fat living” with the description fat people, my bad.
            Military pension does not make a fat living here in Denmark

          • FlorianGeyer

            Yes, the British strategy in the 60’s/70’s was for the regular army of BOAR to blunt any soviet attack in the hope that they could hold out until the reserves from the UK , including the Territorial Army,could be deployed.

            The Honest John tactical nuke was an integral part of that strategy.https://ukcoldwarriors.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hj.jpg?w=468&h=502

  • Robert McMaster

    Yeah, from the Big Talkers Design Bureau. after 15 years, about 5 of them will actually be maufactured. Or as many as the SU-48. The Russians always float nice concept hardware but their ability to put solid stuff into serious serial production is a great weakness.

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      unlike the americans right?

      • Robert McMaster

        The difference is the U.S. make lots of stuff. Not very good stuff, but they just print money and make it anyway. China has the engineering, the money, the manufacturing capability plus they could just buy decent designs from Russia. But they don’t put the pieces together.

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          I will not challenge you because obviously you have no idea what you talking about. Speaking of chinese that have an uninterrupted history and culture for around 10.000 years and inventions that west took from them and declare it as their own invention when they keep living in caves and trees is kind of a very short sighted view of reality for you.

          In any case believe what ever you like. But try and understand reality and not the myths they feed you. This is said with out a desire to underestimate your intelligence on the contrary I hope to activate it.

          • Robert McMaster

            Try adding a little substance to you response.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            the substance is there, if you get educated enough and knew what you talking about. I am not here to educate you, so do your home work.

          • Robert McMaster

            kiss off

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            AFTER YOU KID.

          • Robert McMaster

            Troll

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            yes shit4brains did I touch a nerve?

          • Robert McMaster

            Troll

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            the substance is there if you was educated enough to see it. I am nt here to educate you so do your home work.

        • Empire’s Frontiers

          On the topic of putting pieces together, how many different locations how far apart are creating f-35 components?

          And what end is this distributed manufacturing meant to serve?

          Sure, Americans put the pieces together…

          • Robert McMaster

            All this super expensive high tech stuff is never combat ready. Always waiting for parts, broken down. Russia has fewer planes but a much higher level of combat readiness. In Syria, the Americans were dismayed to see how fast the Russians could turn over air sorties. Far beyond what the U.S. can achieve.

    • Zionism = EVIL

      Yeah really LOL

    • Barba_Papa

      Could still be very useful though, get the Americans to spend lots of money on a canard while the Russians opt for something more useful. While the Americans can borrow and print as much money as they want, billions spent on this are still billons not being spent on something else.

  • cliff

    This going to be a beast for the advancement pace of time.

  • Attrition47

    Why write “utilize” when “use” saves four letters and a spelling mistake?

  • gustavo

    Nop, this is not an accident.