arent

BRITS are not confident in identifying some of the UK’s most famous landmarks – including Hadrian’s Wall, the White Cliffs of Dover and the Angel of the North.

A poll of 2,000 adults found 59 per cent struggled to name well-known sites across our native country, compared to 41 per cent who identified them correctly.

While 94 per cent could correctly recognise the Statue of Liberty in New York, 36 per cent were not able to name iconic landmarks closer to home, such as Hadrian’s Wall or St Paul’s Cathedral (35 per cent).

Angel of The North (20 per cent) and the White Cliffs of Dover (18 per cent) were also among those left unidentified.

However, 62 per cent admitted they want to learn more about British landmarks and local history.

The research was commissioned by Travelzoo, which is celebrating all the great places to see in the UK.

ABOVE PAR

Inside Europe’s largest mini-golf course in UK which even has its own waterfall

GO SEA

EVERYTHING you need to know about sewage and swim safety at UK beaches

The club for travel enthusiasts has teamed up with TV personality and keen explorer, Julia Bradbury, who said: “I have been lucky enough to visit almost every corner and coastline of our amazing country.

“From rugged peaks to gently rolling hills, fairy tale villages and vibrant cities.

“We have so much diversity packed into our island, I can’t imagine ever being bored exploring it, and I encourage others to discover the incredible places right on their doorstep too.”

The study also found cost was the biggest barrier to exploring local landmarks (43 per cent), followed by lack of time (34 per cent) and transport logistics (30 per cent).

Three in 10 (31 per cent) believe people are more likely to visit international attractions over UK landmarks.

When asked to place landmarks geographically, 38 per cent were unsure where Stonehenge was located, whereas 66 per cent could not correctly identify the region for Hadrian’s Wall, and 33 per cent struggled with Giant’s Causeway.

More than four in 10 respondents who had children (43 per cent) did not think their child could correctly name well-known UK landmarks off the top of their head.

Parents believed their children would be more likely to recognise the Statue of Liberty (74 per cent) and the Eiffel Tower (75 per cent) over Stonehenge (63 per cent) and The Angel of The North (42 per cent).

In addition, 81 per cent believe children need to learn more about UK landmarks and local heritage.

More than a third (34 per cent) said they would not know where to begin when it comes to exploring what is on their doorstep.

Almost three in 10 (29 per cent) believe they have visited more countries outside of the UK than they have counties across the country.

That may be set to change, as a fifth said they are planning to spend more time holidaying in the UK this year compared to previous years.

Ease and reduced stress compared with travelling abroad was cited as the main driver behind choosing a UK trip this year (27 per cent), followed by shorter travel times (25 per cent) and cheaper to stay in the country (22 per cent).

The coast topped the list of staycation destinations, chosen by 61 per cent, according to the OnePoll.com figures.

As a nation, Brits are willing to travel for short-break destinations, with journeys averaging almost four hours for a one to three-night getaway.

Cat Jordan, for Travelzoo, said: “These findings show there’s a real appetite to connect with what’s on our doorstep, but many people don’t always know where to start.

“In a country with so much to discover, it’s easy to overlook just how much is at our fingertips.

“With so much history, coastline, and culture spread across the UK, you don’t need a passport for it to feel like a proper break.”

Here’s a riddle for you: A conservative Republican senator, a top economic advisor to the Trump White House and a venture capitalist walk into a conference room at a financial conference and claim a new government program will be a boon for all American families.

Question: Do you think these people are looking out for your interests?

If you trust Sen. Ted Cruz, economic advisor Kevin Hassett and millionaire Brad Gerstner to do so, feel free to stop reading here.

If you’re skeptical, read on.

But keep in mind that Cruz (R-Tex.) was last seen in these pages promoting yet another big tax break for the 1%, Hassett appeared the other day on Fox Business arguing that while Americans are spending a lot more on gasoline, “they’re spending more on everything else too” on their credit cards, as if forcing households to max out their credit is a good thing; and Gerstner is, well, a millionaire tech investor.

At their panel discussion on May 4 at the annual Milken conference, Cruz, Hassett, Gerstner and their interlocutor, Michael Milken, talked as though the Trump accounts would be so fabulous for average American families that they would obviate the need for Social Security.

“Here’s the dirty little secret,” Cruz said. “Trump accounts are Social Security personal accounts.”

Milken echoed that thought: “Do you have the right to decide where your money goes, or should you be giving it to the government and [letting] them decide where it goes?”

That gave the game away — this is yet another effort by Republicans and conservatives to end a program they’ve been trying to kill, and to give Wall Street firms a bigger bite of your retirement resources.

Let’s start with a primer about the Trump accounts, which were part of last year’s GOP budget bill and will be open to investment starting on July 4.

The headline pitch for these accounts is that they’ll be seeded with a one-time $1,000 government contribution for children born from 2025 through 2028, unless Congress extends the government donation. Accounts can be opened for children born before or after those dates, but they won’t get the government donation.

Families can add up to another $5,000 in contributions every year until the child reaches 18, but those donations won’t be tax-deductible.

The money must be invested in low-cost stock index funds or exchange-traded stock index funds, and can’t be withdrawn for any reason without penalty until age 18. After that, the funds can be withdrawn without penalty for certain purposes such as educational expenses or the purchase of a first home. The accounts eventually become converted to conventional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, and distributions will be taxed as ordinary income, though family contributions will be returned tax-free.

That $1,000 donation is the best feature of the accounts. But that may be their only good feature. For almost all the financial goals confronting average American families, such as saving for college or retirement, they’re inferior to tax-advantaged savings plans already on the books.

Like those programs, they’re much more advantageous for wealthier than to low-income families: Wealthier families typically have the wherewithal to make their annual contributions, and get a larger break from the tax deferrals of investment growth within the accounts because their tax rates are higher.

Though their promoters claim that the accounts will level the economic playing field for all families — “helping the bottom 10%,” Hassett said on the panel — that’s not the case. “Clearly, the program is structured to subsidize savings for those who already have the capacity to save, rather than meaningfully closing the wealth gap,” observes Sheryl Rowling of Morningstar.

Another drawback cited by economists and financial planners is that the accounts are locked into corporate equity investments. Before the beneficiary reaches age 18, the investment mix can’t be adjusted. That’s dangerous because portfolio concentrations in corporate shares are inherently risky.

“A high school senior who plans to enroll in college next year cannot change the investment to a lower-risk portfolio,” say, to a mix of equities and bonds, notes Greg Leiserson of the Tax Law Center at NYU. “If the market crashes the summer before she plans to enroll, the Trump Account is of greatly reduced use.”

Trump account promoters have massively overstated the potential wealth gains for ordinary Americans. At the Milken conference, Cruz said that a child with a Trump account will have about $170,000 in it when he or she reaches 18 and $700,000 at age 35. “And very quickly after that, you get into the millions,” he said.

Cruz did acknowledge that those figures apply to households that “contribute regularly.” In fact, they apply largely to households that contribute the maximum $5,000 every year.

The White House estimates of potential returns are based on questionable assumptions about stock market gains over the 18-year periods in which the accounts will grow on a tax-deferred basis.

According to the government’s own estimates, the account of a family taking the $1,000 seed money but making no contributions beyond that would have as little as $2,577 in their account after 18 years if stock market returns come to 5.4% over that period.

The government estimates, however, that the account would hold $730,395 if the family contributes the maximum every year and the stock market returns more than 18%. Another 10 years of growth at that level, and the account would grow to $1.9 million when the child reaches age 28.

The problem with long-term market estimates, such as the ones offered by the White House, is that they’re highly variable. No 18-year periods are the same. One thousand dollars deposited in a hypothetical account invested in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund would grow to about $6,600 if its 18-year lifetime culminated in 2025; if the 18 years ended in 2008, however, that deposit would have grown only to $3,960. In the 18-year period that ended in 1960, the account would have grown only to $2,940. What will the next 18 years bring? Who knows?

Variability like this, along with the sheer uncertainty of stock market projections for the future, helped sink George W. Bush’s 2005 attempt to convert Social Security into private accounts, which was also pitched as a key to minting millionaires by the millions through the magic of the market.

I asked the White House to respond to these criticisms. Spokesman Kush Desai called my questions “both a stupid and out-of-touch take,” asserting that the accounts are “already shaping up to make a generational difference for working-class children.”

The truth is that if Trump were really intent on taking steps to “strengthen the financial security of American workers” and creating a “path to prosperity for a generation of American kids,” as he claims to be, he and his GOP followers in Congress wouldn’t have scissored away the American safety net, which is what they’ve done.

They wouldn’t have imposed new work requirements and narrowed eligibility standards for food stamps, resulting in the exclusion of more than 3 million people from the program, a decline of 8%. They wouldn’t have cut nearly $1 trillion in funding for Medicaid over 10 years, jeopardizing coverage for 3.6 million young adults. They wouldn’t have allowed Affordable Care Act premium subsidies to expire, resulting in a drop in Obamacare enrollments of about 1.2 million Americans this year compared with last year.

If they really cared about educational opportunities for “a generation of American kids,” they wouldn’t have narrowed eligibility for higher education Pell grants, and wouldn’t slash research grants for universities coast to coast.

So how can families better prepare for college and retirement expenses? For education, 529 plans are probably preferable to Trump accounts. The investment choices are more flexible, withdrawals are tax-free at the federal level and sometimes at state levels if used for most education expenses, and there are no federal limits on contributions (contributions aren’t tax-deductible).

For retirement, advisers have been favoring Roth IRAs. Contributions are not tax-deductible, and this year can be made by couples filing jointly with taxable income up to $242,000 ($153,000 for singles) and are limited to $7,500 a year ($8,600 for those 50 and older). But withdrawals aren’t taxed if you’ve held the account for at least five years and you take the money out after you turn 59 1⁄2.

The bottom line, then, is this. Take the $1,000 if your child is eligible. As Rowling wisely advises, “Any time the government offers free money, you should take it.”

As for the rest, treat any claims offered by Trump account promoters as inherently suspect.

The Lakers understand the daunting challenge they’re about to face against the defending NBA champion Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference semifinals.

Lakers coach JJ Redick referenced the great Chicago Bulls teams that won back-to-back championships in 1996 and ’97 and the Golden State Warriors teams that won titles in 2015 and ’17 when talking about the Thunder after practice Sunday.

“The Thunder is one of the greatest teams ever in NBA history,” Redick said. “It’s just the reality. They’re that good. I think our guys recognize that and respect that, and we know what kind of task we have in front of us.”

The Thunder had the best record in the regular season at 64-18. They were ranked first in defensive field-goal percentage (43.7%), first in defensive rating (106.5), first in net rating (43.7) and second in points given up per game (107.9).

They have the league’s reigning most valuable player in Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who is the leading candidate to repeat as MVP. He was second in scoring this season (31.1 points per game) and leads the postseason in scoring (33.8).

The Thunder just swept the Phoenix Suns in their first-round series. The Lakers eliminated the Houston Rockets in six games.

This season the Thunder beat the Lakers by an average of 29.2 points per game in sweeping the four-game set. So the Lakers are facing long odds to win this series, but they say they aren’t intimidated heading into Game 1 on Tuesday night.

“You can respect the team but you can’t fear them,” forward Jake LaRavia said. “You can’t come into the game fearing the opponent and then you’re just gonna come in and get punked. So, we respect how good this team is, but our goal is to win — win the games and win the series. So, our mindset stays the same.”

The Thunder have a reputation as a stingy defensive team — they were called for the seventh-fewest fouls per game (19) this season.

“They’re top five in every category that’s disruptive-base: steals, blocks, turnovers forced, all that stuff. And they don’t foul,” Redick said. “They somehow do all of that without fouling, which is one of the most remarkable things, I think, in NBA history.”

Gilgeous-Alexander is famous for drawing fouls. He took nine free throws per game this season, third-most in the league.

“Nobody’s been able to stop him all season,” Redick said. “So, you can hope and pray.”

Oklahoma City star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander drives against the Lakers during a Thunder win on April 2.

(Cooper Neill / Getty Images)

The Lakers had their own weapon at the free-throw line, but it’s unclear when Luka Doncic might return from injury. The All-Star point guard hasn’t played since sustaining a Grade 2 left hamstring strain against the Thunder on April 2.

Doncic was coming off a magical month, becoming the only player in history other than Michael Jordan to score 600 points in March.

Redick had no update on Doncic’s status — he remains out indefinitely.

But the Lakers got by the Rockets with LeBron James leading the way. He averaged 23.2 points, 8.3 assists and 7.2 rebounds in the six games. And star guard Austin Reaves, who also was injured in the April 2 game against the Thunder, returned to help beat the Rockets.

Still, few think the Lakers, who advanced past the first round for the first time since 2023, can get by the deep and talented Thunder.

“You could say nobody thought we were going to get past Houston, but everybody in this building believed,” Reaves said. “It’s the same mindset going into this. We obviously know the team that we’re about to face and how good they are and the problems that they can create for 48 minutes. So, we’ll have to lock in every single day, film, whatever it could be, to continue to get better and and pay attention to all the little details like they do.”

A much-anticipated debate featuring leading candidates in the Los Angeles mayor’s race is set for Cinco de Mayo before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. But it won’t include all the leading candidates.

The influential homeowners group has invited just incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, and not the three other top contenders Spencer Pratt, Adam Miller and Rae Huang.

The group explained its decision by saying that big, crowded debates can often feel chaotic.

“Rather than hosting a stage filled with a long list of candidates, we have chosen to invite these two leaders specifically because they represent Sherman Oaks on two critical — and complementary — levels of government. This format allows for a deeper, more meaningful discussion about the issues that directly impact our neighborhood and our city,” the group wrote in its description of the debate.

Some of the other top candidates took issue with being excluded.

“If the SOHA wanted a real debate on topics like public housing, a public bank, free and fast transit, and the things that matter to Angelenos all over the city, they should call off their gate-keeping process that keeps the system and the establishment protected,” Huang spokesman Emel Shaikh said in a statement.

From the Miller camp, spokesperson Jaime Sarachit called it “a missed opportunity for these voters not to hear directly from a candidate offering a different approach to solving L.A.’s biggest issues, especially on housing, homelessness and public safety.”

Pratt didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Angelenos could have a chance to see more of the major candidates the next day, May 6, for a televised debate featuring Colleen Williams and Conan Nolan of NBC4 and Enrique Chiabra of Telemundo 52. KNBC hasn’t yet confirmed the lineup, but the station said to participate candidates must have received at least 5% support in two reliable 2026 polls.

Homeless camp skirmish

Raman scouted out a Harbor Freeway overpass in South L.A. last month after parents at nearby 61st Street Elementary voiced concerns about a homeless camp that students had to pass on their way to school. Raman documented her visit with a post on Instagram, saying “these parents have tried again and again to get someone to listen to their needs — and again and again their concerns have fallen on deaf ears.”

But when City Councilmember Curren Price on Tuesday proposed making the area an anti-encampment zone under the city’s municipal code 41.18, Raman voted against the motion, which passed anyway.

Raman routinely votes against 41.18 zones, saying that reducing homelessness requires connecting people to housing.

“This provision at best shifts encampments around a neighborhood.” Raman said in a statement. “Our working protocols are dependent on that. However, enforcement alone does not drive reductions in homelessness. What works is connecting people to shelter and housing.”

That explanation didn’t stop Bass and Curren, who represents the area in question, from throwing shade Raman’s way.

“It is frustrating when efforts to move forward are met with opposition from those who are not fielding these calls, not hearing from parents, and not seeing these conditions firsthand,” said Price spokesperson Angelina Valencia-Dumarot.

Bass campaign spokesman Alex Stack chimed in: “Raman went to this very school to make an Instagram post about how nobody was helping them, and then turned around three weeks later and voted to allow the encampments to return.”

It’s Miller Time!

Adam Miller has scooped up a couple of names from Bass’ past.

Bill Burton, Miller’s senior advisor, who was a deputy press secretary under then-President Barack Obama — also moonlighted for Bass’ 2022 mayoral campaign as a stand-in for Rick Caruso during Bass’ debate prep, though he didn’t work for the campaign in a formal role.

Burton said during that campaign that the race between Bass and Caruso was “essentially a Democrat versus a Republican.”

Now, Burton is running the campaign for Miller, who voted for Caruso in 2022, though he describes himself as a lifelong Democrat.

Separately, Sarah Sheehan, who worked as Bass’ communications director on her 2022 campaign, is working as a consultant for the Miller campaign.

Sheehan said in a statement that the city needs an outsider.

“That is why I decided to work with Adam Miller,” she said.

Lauren Perez-Rangel, who also worked on Bass’ 2022 campaign as a spokesperson, is also working for Miller.

State of play

— BUDGET: Mayor Bass released her $14.9-billion spending plan Monday, which included a proposal to hire 510 police officers — roughly enough to cover retirements and resignations. The budget must be approved by the City Council, and will be the subject of weeks of hearings.

— COVER UP: The Department of Water & Power has drained the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades to replace the damaged floating cover, frustrating residents who fear there won’t be water to fight potential wildfires.

— EYE OF THE STORMWATER: Los Angeles officials announced a $40-million project at MacArthur Park this week that’s aimed at turning rainstorm runoff into lake water — and maybe improving the park’s tarnished reputation as well. The project will also include new landscaping, walking paths and other features to enhance the location’s appeal as a park.

— LAHSA LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority announced Monday it plans to lay off nearly 300 employees, citing the county’s decision to withdraw funding and set up its own homeless services department.

— INTO THE BREACH: After the massive leak of LAPD files due to a data breach in the L.A. city attorney’s office, officials are seeking explanations from the city’s top lawyer. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said she expected City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to appear before a council committee this week about the data leak. “When did the city attorney’s office become aware, what actions were taken, and why were city officials not notified promptly?” Jurado said. “Right now, we’re still left to question and trying to assemble the information.”

— CULTURE OF FEAR: In the LAFD, firefighters rarely question orders because doing so could invite retribution from bosses. That culture was evident in firefighters’ testimony about the Lachman fire, which reignited into the Palisades fire days later.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Echo Park and Venice this week, bringing inside more than 40 Angelenos and clearing eight RVs and trailers off the streets.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will continue to meet to speak about Bass’ proposed budget.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

The Air National Guard is pushing Congress to boost fighter numbers as it seeks to modernize its aging inventory. With the Air Force at large feeling the effects of years of underinvestment in new fighters, and with China presenting a massive pacing challenge, the move is the latest effort to ensure that the service can keep up in terms of numbers and capability.

According to a report from Air & Space Forces Magazine, Air National Guard adjutants general from more than 20 states sent a letter to Congress last week that requests multiyear funding for the acquisition of between 72 and 100 new fighters each year.

These numbers would be a significant hike compared with recent years: not since 1998 has the Air Force bought more than 72 new fighters in a single year.

“The United States Air Force is the oldest, the smallest, and the least ready in its 78-year history,” the letter states. “We must build a fighting force that will win.”

Specifically, the letter urges the minimum annual purchases of the 48 F-35As and 24 F-15EXs, with a preferred goal of 72 F-35As and 36 F-15EXs.

While the letter was signed by Air National Guard leaders, these totals would be expected to furnish units of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components.

By comparison, the Air Force requested funding for 48 F-35As in Fiscal Year 2024, followed by 42 in 2025, 24 in 2026, and 38 in the proposed 2027 budget.

The Fiscal Year 2027 budget request also includes funding for the purchase of 10 F-35Bs and 37 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps and the Navy, which is already a notable uptick in planned acquisitions. At the same time, the F-35 program has faced worrisome delays in work on a new radar, as well as a host of other critical upgrades.

For the F-15EX, budget documents show the service requested 24 aircraft in 2024, 18 in 2025, 21 in 2026, and 24 in 2027.

A sustained annual buy of even 24 F-15EXs would represent an acceleration over current production plans for the Eagle II, after the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request increased the program of record from 98 to 129 aircraft, including funding for 21 jets in a single year. In its latest budget request, the Air Force provides no details about whether there may be any new changes to the planned total fleet size for the F-15EX.

One of those who signed the letter is Brig. Gen. Shannon Smith, head of the Idaho Air National Guard, who told Air & Space Forces Magazine that, “We are burning these jets and the airmen over time to support the joint force to accomplish the president’s goals with Epic Fury in this conflict with Iran.”

On top of the demands of combat operations, Brig. Gen. Smith warned that the Air National Guard fighter fleet is rapidly aging, meaning that “Most of the money will go to keep them flying. In a few years, they’ll be struggling to be flyable, let alone be relevant.”

While plans are in place to replace A-10s and F-15Cs, even older F-35As will need replacement before too long, Smith added. More urgent is the looming requirement to supersede the more numerous F-16s.

In total, the Air National Guard has 24 fighter squadrons, 11 of which have already received new fighters or are planned to. While some Guard F-16 units have transitioned to the F-35, there is no plan in place for the Guard’s remaining 13 Viper squadrons. Taken together, the Guard’s inventory constitutes close to half of all combat-coded F-16s.

In the past, thought has been given to a new light fighter, to balance the more costly and capable F-35 and, now, the F-47, although that would be extremely costly and take years. Another option would be to start buying new F-16 Block 70/72 jets, although the production line is already burdened by multiple export orders.

Even if Congress supports the Air National Guard chiefs’ recommendations and the budget is available, getting new jets on ramps will be far from easy.

As well as boosting capabilities and ‘combat mass,’ new fighters bring other advantages in terms of reduced maintenance demands, easier access to spare parts, longer airframe life, and overall higher availability.

The issue of spare parts is a critical one. Back in 2024, we looked at how, by the Air Force’s own estimates, hundreds of its aircraft are at risk of being left grounded due to a lack of spares, thanks to a $1.5-billion shortfall in its budget request.

However, meeting the aim of 72 to 100 new fighters each year would demand a significant uptake in production capacity, which is already stretched. With that in mind, the Air National Guard projects it could still take 10 to 15 years to re-equip units now flying older fighters.

One option to re-equip Guard and Reserve units would be to cascade fighters down from the Active component, but Air National Guard chiefs warn against this, too, since it only pushes recapitalization with new fighters further down the line.

What is unclear is how the Air Force’s plans for the F-47 sixth-generation fighter might play into this.

In 2023, then-Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall said that the service was working around a future force planning construct that included 200 of the sixth-gen combat jets.

At this point, however, there are still questions about how exactly the F-47 will fit into the Air Force’s future force structure and how many of the jets the service might actually procure. The jet was originally planned as a replacement for the F-22, but that appears to have changed, or is at least in limbo. It is by no means clear how long the F-22 will be around after the F-47 is introduced, but if the F-47 is delayed, it could come at the end of the F-22’s service life. If the Air Force intends to operate the two at the same time, at least for the earlier part of the F-47’s career, but delays in fielding it occur, this could also open up another gap in the combat mass.

Another factor is the service’s emerging plans for fielding its future fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, which are being designed from the ground up to work in close concert with current and future crewed jets. In the past, the Air Force has signaled that it wants to buy over 1,000 CCAs. However, this number is understood to cover multiple CCA increments, with Increment 1 being procured in numbers between 100 and 150 units, at least to start with.

Ultimately, the CCA effort aims to drastically improve the tactical jet fleet combat mass, which could offset the dwindling fighter force, and active-duty F-35 and F-22 units will get them first. Thereafter, they could be quickly rolled out to fourth-generation jets, too. On the other hand, the CCA concept still has much to prove and is not without risk.

In the background to all this are the concerns within the U.S. military leadership at large about the significant advances being made by the Chinese military and, in this case, its air arms. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force is rapidly expanding and modernizing at a scale that threatens to surpass the United States in both numbers and capability. Warning signs of a massive fighter expansion include an apparent new J-35 factory and the many Chinese CCA programs.

As long as the U.S. government continues to procure aircraft at comparatively slower rates, China has the opportunity to race ahead and is already producing advanced fighters in large quantities, creating a growing imbalance in the Indo-Pacific region.

Clearly, there are very many factors at play, not least budgetary. However, in making their case to Congress, Air National Guard bosses are once again underscoring the continued demand for crewed combat jets within the service, and at the same time, highlighting some of the challenges in keeping the fighter force at the top of its game.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com