Russia wants a hypersonic bomber

Russian leaders have taken notice of the U.S. Air Force’s plans to build a next generation bomber announcing they have set their sites on building a hypersonic bomber.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said his country won’t settle for a bomber like the B-2. Air Force leaders want to pursue the same hypersonic technology the U.S. military is trying to develop.

Rogozin’s comments come conspicuously close to a failed hypersonic test flight the U.S. Air Force held on Aug. 15. The test flight vehicle dropped into the Pacific Ocean 15 seconds after it was released from a specially outfitted B-52 and never reached the Mach 6 speeds U.S. Air Force officials had hoped.

To fly hypersonic means flying five times the speed of sound (Mach 5) or faster than 3,840 miles per hour.

The Russians hope to build their hypersonic bomber by 2020, Rogozin said. That timeline seems a bit ambitious if they are starting to develop the engines now.

The U.S. started its Waverider program in 2004 having spent $140 million. The Aug. 15 was the last test scheduled under the program. Pentagon officials will have to seek additional funding to continue the program.

Engineers built the X-51A Waverider’s scramjet engine to fly without liquid jet propellant. The engine instead uses the oxygen in the air to propel it. It also harnesses the energy created by its own shock wave to reach top speeds up to Mach 6.

The U.S. Air Force had hoped to outfit an operational aircraft with hypersonic engines by 2016. Following this month’s test failure and the questions over future funding, those goals are very much in doubt. For the Russians to design and deliver a hypersonic bomber by 2020, seems just as unlikely.

U.S. officials have not specified whether their own next generation bomber would fly hypersonic speeds. The U.S. Air Force said in 2007 the bomber would likely be subsonic to keep costs under control. Of course, the next generation bomber program has been scrapped and then brought back since then by the Pentagon.

However, it’s hard to envision the U.S. fielding a hypersonic bomber in the next decade with the budget shortfalls they will experience the next five years. Not to mention the struggle they’ve had building the fifth generation fighter fleet.

About the Author

Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is the executive editor at Tandem NSI and a contributor to He can be reached at
  • Pilgrimman

    >Hypersonic anything

    Oh God, my sides!

    • EJ257

      Did you forget the ICBMs they still have pointed at us?

      • Andy

        Did you forget OUR MISSILE DEFENSE ?

        • joe

          Did you in turn forget the ballistic missile defence they’ve had since the late eighties?

          Russia may not have vest amounts of money, which is what will probably kill this one, but they have very good engineers. I would be very hesitant before writing them off in this field of expertise:

          First object to orbit – Russian
          First manned heavy lift to orbit – Russian
          First supecavitating torpedo – Russian
          Fastest air-to-air armed aircraft – Russian
          Fastest tactical and strategic missiles – Russian
          Generally acknowledged scariest SAMs outside of US arsenal – Russian

          Am I saying they’re better than the US? No. But if anyone else can make this work, they’re a pretty solid bet.

          • Andy

            They bluff, Russian don’t have jackssst, S400 that all they have

          • andy

            Do you remember Russian test they BOULAVAR MISSILE ?

        • Stratege

          Missile defense is helpless against full-scale attack. Especially since the new Russian ICBMs/SLMBs (Topol-M, RS-24, Bulava SLBM) have maneuvering warheads (thats means unpredictable trajectory) which are capable to evade the missile defense’s interceptors.

          • Andy

            Again, they are untest

          • Stratege

            Russian missiles are regularly tested. A few of successful missile launches every years.
            While the last two test launches of the Minuteman3 missile (America’s only land-based ICBM) had failed.

          • William C.

            The Minuteman III has been in service for ages, it works but our SSBNs with their Trident IIs are the real threat.

            The Russians have had many difficulties getting their new SLBM to work, and most of their Typhoon class boats have been retired, leaving only the older Deltas.

          • Stratege

            In 2011, Russia produced around 40 of ICBM/SLBM. How many missiles were produced in the USA? And why the well proven old MM3 had failed?
            The reason the “Typhoon” class submarines are being decommissioned is that the R-39 (SS-N-20) SLBM that they carry have reached end of their operational lives. Another reason – extremely high cost to keep and maintain these giants. All operational Delta subs are being modernized and getting the new SLBMs. “Bulava” SLBM for the new Borei class SSBNs has refined to working condition, finally .

          • blight_

            Amusingly, we are doing civilian launches with our old Atlas and whatever’s left of MX rockets.

    • yoyo

      Don’t forget, they have supersonic cruise missiles, whereas we have zero.

      • Andy

        they cruise missiles are untest and unproven.

        • Stratege

          Russian cruise missiles are untested? Are you kidding?

          • Andy

            Again they missile are untested and even they Nuclear sub. are build straight from prototype to production …untested ..

          • JackBlack

            You know, there are still gulags for opinions like yours.

      • William C.

        Supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, which are far larger than the Tomahawk and subsonic cruise missiles and have a shorter range.

        Not that they aren’t a useful capability, but their large size can be a limiting factor.

        • Stratege

          Russian supersonic cruise missile “Klub” is smaller than Tomahawk
          Another one Russia’s Kh-101 (subsonic stealthy cruise missile) have a range of over 5000 km.

          • Stratege

            Kh-101 has twice range of the Tomahawk

          • B-52CrewChief

            The KH-101 version with the 5000 km range was cancelled in 2000. The active KH-101 only has a range of 2000 km to 3000 km.

          • William C.

            The Klub is a very interesting design. The supersonic version of the Klub is a pure anti-ship missile and only goes supersonic during the final attack phase. The Kh-101 with 5000 km range was never fielded either.

          • Stratege

            You can easily find photos of the Tu-95 bomber with Kh-101(102) under its wings

          • B-52CrewChief

            Yes the one with the shorter range.

    • Stratege

      Russians tested their hypersonic vehicles years before USA had tested it’s own.

      Soviet made hypersonic vehicle “Holod” (speed: >6.5M, duration of flight: 77 seconds) did a test flight in 1990s

      • Andy

        test what ? your new pak even copy f22…stop bluffing..

        • Stratege

          Soviets was ahead the USA in hypersonic technology.

          PAK-FA is not copy of anything. Stealth dictates the similar shape and look.

          • B-52CrewChief

            That’s what the Soviets said about the Boron spacecraft. Oh and don’t forget that brilliant russian mind that developed the TU-4 Bull. And several other aircraft.

        • JackBlack

          LOL, what?
          I have not read that their pilots are suffering from lack of oxygen.

      • PMI

        The X-15 performed almost 200 manned hypersonic flights from 1961-1967.

        You also conveniently left out the fact that GLL Holod reached those speeds after French & NASA engineers came in to help the project after the fall of the USSR.

        • Stratege

          The X-15 had the rocket engine.
          “Holod” was a worlds first hypersonic vehicle with the ramjet engine.
          The help of French and NASA was a only financial.

      • B-52CrewChief

        Sorry, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab performed scramjet tests in a classified (declassified in 1993) program from 1962-1978. It reached speeds up to mach 10 at 88,000 feet.

  • Nicky

    Who knows in the next 50 yrs the US can field a Hypersonic or Orbital Bomber

    • I say 20 years for the first.

    • wjsteele

      The US has had orbital bombers since the 70’s! It’s called the Space Shuttle and it’s mini successor, the X-37. (Why do you think the USSR went through so much trouble copying the Space Shuttle?)

      • tiger

        They are are not weapons systems.

        • Ben

          And why not? Because the Air Force says so?

          If you’re going to weaponize space, you’re smart to do it quietly. There’s no sense in tipping your hand from a military standpoint. Also, I don’t think the global community would like hearing that anywhere of any country could be engaged at any time, without warning or hope of defense.

          My money’s all on it being a bomber, among other things.

  • dirtylodown

    The keep reference this as a failure. This isnt the first test of this. It was successful last time. I do remember Shepard Smith talking about in a few years ago.

    • FormerDirtDart

      There have been three powered flight tests, all have failed to achieve planned test parameters.
      26 Aug. 2010: Achieved mach 5, but only met 2/3 of planned flight duration.
      13 Jun. 2011: Scramjet engine failed to transition to JP-7 fuel.
      14 Aug. 2012: Tail control surface failure caused catastrophic loss of control on separation from booster.

  • Nick

    Cool, maybe we can steal tech from them for a change.

    • Ed

      You mean like stealth tech? ;)

      • William C.

        It wasn’t stolen from them. The first aircraft with significant stealth characteristics (although unintentional) were the designs of Jack Northrop (US) and the Horton brothers (Germany).

        IIRC a Russian was the first to write up mathematical theory for RCS reduction. The Soviets never did anything with this however.

      • 00mpal00mpa

        The Russians developed their own stealth technology which is DISTINCT from American Stealth. Instead of using metamaterials which absorb the energy from radar pulses and transduce it into heat, it uses a plasma envelope to scatter radar.

    • john

      You mean you have never copied from them before? you must be joking. Lockheed got the idea from Yakalov which manufactured YAK-141. Go and read up, most of your designers originated from either Germany of Russia. Example. Sikosky

  • Musson

    So they can bomb any site in China within 11 minutes?

  • EW3

    Imagine the IR target a hypersonic anything would be.

    • Nick

      Doesn’t matter, nothing is fast enough to hit it.

      • EW3

        All things are hittable (or laserable).

        Folks said we could never hit a missile with a missile (bullet with a bullet) but the SM-3 is doing a decent job of it, as are the Patriots and Arrows.

        • RunningBear

          I haven’t seen any test coments about maneuvering the targets???, have you?

          Agreed, anything that is hypersonic and ballistic can be hit, but if it maneuvers hypersonicly in the atmosphere, I’m not the current systems can catch it.

          • Mat

            Most intercepts were of target ballons ,hardly comparable to anything going hypersonic ,remeber SR71 evaded all SAM defences, an its turn radius at mach 3 is something like 100miles.
            Lasers are strongly affected by atmosferic conditions so its quite unlikely for a land based laser to be able to shoot at anything in the stratosphere

          • Stratege

            SR-71 was able to evade obsolete SAM defenses. But it’s dead meat against the S-200 (long range Soviet system from the same time period) and newer SAM.

          • Dfens

            Like hell. It defeated S-200’s all the damn time. More revisionist history.

          • Stratege

            It was not able to defeat the s-200 since the sr-71 had never tried to overfy the s-200’s sites.
            S-200’s missiles had a peak speed around of 9000 kmh and 130,000 ft max flight altitute. That was more than enough to kill the SR-71.
            Sr-71 had straightforward maneuverability and literally zero chances to avoid a long range SAM missiles.

            Sure, SR-71 had many overflights over Vietnam/Middle East region against outdated/middle range air defense systems (mostly the SA-2). Where the myth about Sr-71’s invulnerability comes from.

          • B-52CrewChief

            Here’s the problem with the S-200. It flew at mach 4 while the SR-71 could do mach 3+. By the time the S-200 missile system could lock onto the Blackbird and launch. The SR-71 was already gone. It did not have enough range to catch up with the aircraft.

        • SecretSquid

          Yes, but what is the Pk? How many shots does it take? How long does the defender have to detect, ID, target, and kill? How many targets can he engage in that extremely short window? Hypersonic speed is a no-trivial force multiplier.

          Remember, it’s taken us 30 years and billions of dollars to achieve our current BMD capability. If hypersonic platforms and weapons buy us a 30-year advantage on our adversaries, it may be well worth the investment.

  • Supposedly, the Next Generation Bomber will be subsonic.

    • Raraavis

      The Next Next Generation Bomber is suppose to be a Global Reach Hypersonic or High-Hypersonic Bomber I think it is schedulrd to enter service in 2048. Seriously that is the time line that is also when the last B-52 is suppose to retire.

      • That’s the unofficial “2037 Bomber”. The Next Next Generation Bomber is supposed to be subsonic.

  • Raraavis

    The US Next Generation Bomber is suppose to be an subsonic, optionally manned shorter-ranged, smaller-payload, but much stealther B2. The Hypersonic Global Strike is not suppose to go into service until mid-century.

    I am guessing neither will ever be built.

  • dude

    It is much more practical (and cheaper!) to make the munition hypersonic than the whole aircraft hypersonic.

    SR71/B1A/F15/F22 all suggest that Mach2 is fast enough for manned aircraft. Use LO hypersonic A2/AD missile to destroy target protected by IADS.

    • Marvin

      Depends what you mean by “fast enough” (or, “fast enough for what?”) The stated goal seems to be to be able to strike a target anywhere in the world within a few hours – something that is not really practical with Mach 2 aircraft. Also, even at Mach 3 the SR-71 would have a tough time with modern air defenses. Hence most strategy today would involve strikes to first neutralize enemy air defenses via cruise missiles and low level penetration strikes below radar.

    • SecretSquid

      Russia has already a huge inventory of hypersonic munitions which provide it a robust Prompt Global Strike capability. They’re called ICBMs.

      They’re also completely unusable in any military contingency in which Russia is not willing to cross the nuclear threshold.

      Hence (I suspect) the need for a hypersonic delivery platform capable of precision delivery of conventional munitions.

    • TomR

      The SR71 has been engaged/fired upon some 4,000 times, and has never been shot down. Something to be said for speed.

  • Nadnerbus

    Never mind if they have the technical capacity to do this, which they probably don’t. They don’t have the money to do this, and unless oil shoots up to 200 dollars a barrel, they probably never will. Russia is commendable for their efforts to modernize their armed forces, both with new modern gear and trying to become more westernized with highly trained volunteers instead of apathetic conscripts. But they still have a fleet rusting pier side, massive investments in new ballistic missile subs and ICBMs, an underfunded fighter fleet, etc.

    There still seems to be an old Soviet mindset of keeping up with the Joneses, and trying to be a world power when they would be much better served acting in the capacity of regional power.

    • tmb2

      Their bomber pilots only get about 80 hours a year behind the stick. I can’t imagine that’s nearly enough hours to get good at flying anything let alone a bleeding edge aircraft.

      • Stratege

        Russian bomber pilots get about 120 hours in 2011.

        • Ed

          For comparison, B2 pilots get 100 to 150 hours per year. So hardly a difference there.

    • Stratege

      A regional power with the world’s most modern and the most numerous strategic nuclear deterrent forces?

      • Nadnerbus

        The focus on their nuclear forces is almost precisely BECAUSE they know they can’t go toe to toe anymore with conventional forces. Unless they are going to nuke their way into a position of world dominance, then yeah, they are still built and funded like a regional power. Nothing wrong with that either.

        • Stratege

          You mean that Russian army can’t go conventionaly against the whole rest of the world? But that’s not its purpose. Russian conventional forces are strongest in European and Asian region. The modernization program of the Russian army (besides the strategic nuclear forces ) is very ambitious.

          • Nadnerbus

            Yeah, well, that was my point (I think). Back to the article then, why a hypersonic bomber? Everyone knows what the US is all about. We want to put our nose in everyone’s business anywhere in the world in a short amount of time. Why does Russia need one when they already have the nuclear force to deter the US or any other stronger conventional military power? A hypersonic bomber is by nature a force projection platform, one that an expeditionary military would want, a hallmark of a world power, not a regional one.

  • tiger

    How about Russia finding a cure for AIDS or something? The world does not need a faster way to kill each other. We have plenty already. Even more flavored vodka types would be more useful to the world……….

  • Tim

    I wouldn’t take the Russian leaders’ comments seriously, especially when it comes to new weapon systems. They are no longer the Soviet Union, which collapsed while trying to top the U.S. on every weapon type. Nowadays, Russia can’t even produce a decent UAV. It is at least two decades behind the U.S. in that area. It’s only 5th generation fighter is only in the initial testing phase. By the time they could field that, the FF-22 is almost halfway through its useful life.

    • Andy

      and dont’ forget they can’t even buit a Amphibious, they ahve to buy it from French.

      • Ed

        So, whenever a country imports something they can’t build it themselves? Does that mean the US can’t make howitzers, since they import the M777? No medium transport aircraft because they import the C-27J? Russia makes aircraft carriers, for crying out loud…

      • Stratege

        Stupid note.
        Russia can built spaceships and nuclear submarines (the most sophisticated engineering creations), but can’t design amphibiousassault ship.

        I guess, you should also assume that the smartest and strongest nation on Earth (USA) can’t even design a decent machine gun so the US army uses a Belgian MG designs.

        • B-52CrewChief

          Well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Russians use equipment from other countries also.

      • SecretSquid

        You should do your homework. The Russians have built plenty of amphibious ships. They have exported plenty of large and small combatants to foreign customers around the world. They continue to be a major worldwide supplier of highly sophisticated weapons and platforms.

        Back on topic, Russian aerospace know-how is formidable. You underestimate them unfairly. Sukhoi, MiG, TSAGI, Khrunichev, etc. are still powerhouses in this field. If the Russians make it a priority and can sustain program funding, they are every bit as capable of producing a hypersonic bomber as the US defense industry.

  • Chris

    Russia’s biggest enemy right now is a declining population and a seriously hurting infrastructure. They are “reasserting” themselves to try and regain as much of their old foothold from the SU days as possible while the US is tied up in the middle east and asia. Nothing new here… they have to maintain a public image in the mother land. They would be dreaming to think they will have an operational (and tbh I don’t even see them having a test platform) by 2020. More like 2075.

    • Ed

      Agreed, 2020 seems unlikely – unless they plan to power it with rockets or something. But this is just a politician who *thinks* they should do that, with his reason being American progress. I hope that actual needs assessment will provide a more thorough base.

      That said, hasn’t there already been such research? Didn’t Sukhoi have an alternative to the Tu-160 that was much more ambitious?

  • Ron

    The arms race with Russia keeps us in check to always be ahead. Just when you thought we are laggin behind, BOOM DARPA is there to WOW us. Remember guys neither Russia or China sat foot on the moon yet!!!and that’s 60’s technology, need I say more.

    • Stephen

      I guess we should’nt have leaked the fact there was nothing on the moon to steal….

    • Stratege

      Do you really believe that USSR was not technically capable to set foot on the moon surface?

      • SecretSquid

        Probably not. By the time they could develop a sufficiently powerful and reliable booster, they lost the political will and economic ability to sustain the program. There have been some interesting revelations about the Soviet N-1 booster program in the last few years. You should google it.

      • B-52CrewChief

        Yes, I really believe the Soviets could not set foot on the moon. I do know they tried as hard as they could. Apparently the Soviets could not steal enough information on the Saturn V to build their own in time.

    • Alois

      60’s why can’t we revisit the moon with 20 15 technology. You know that was a Hollywood jock. just like James Bond

  • Marcellus Hambrick

    The Chinese will have one before the Russkies!

  • stephen russell

    Unless Russia steals plans from Area 51NV or other source & then engineers that way, since we see obvious espionage with F22 & T90 Stealth jets alone,
    Need to use Hypersonic for Military & Commercial
    IE Tokyo to London
    Miami to So Africa
    LA CA to Hanoi Vietnam Runs.

    • SecretSquid

      Yes some espionage…but not where you can see it. Much of the similarity is driven by aerodynamics and RF physics. Russian aerodynamicists (those who are still in business, anyway) are still among the best in the world.

  • sergei

    free vodka with purchase only yesturday bring certificate

  • Tim

    I presume these Russian hypersonic bombers will join their hundreds of 6th gen fighters , super subs and Mach 3 cruise missiles in fantasy land while the budget money ends up in Switzerland. Considering they have no more than six subs that can actually go on deep water missions and the whole defence industry has crumbled into nothing due to all the top guys leaving back in the 90’s I doubt very much this vodka fuelled bs means anything. Russia is militarily screwed and demographically consigned to a slow decline.

    The bear ia finished.

    • tiger

      It is stupid. Even for the US. As a research tool into hi speed flight? Fine. Beyond that, folks in the Midwest care more about the lack of rain than the lack of hypersonic bomber.

    • Stratege

      Russian military industial complex is on recovery now.

      Where you get the information about Russia’a only six capable subs? Isn’t it just a your wiskey fueled fantasy?

      Active Russian strategic subs fleet includes:

      ~10 of modernized Delta4 class SSBNs with updated SLBMs.
      Future strategic fleet: 8 of 4th generation “Borei” class SSBN equipped with new SLBM. Two of these subs scheduled commissioning this year

      10 active SSNs (“Akula” and “Improved Akula” class)

      8 active SSGN subs (“Granit”/”Antey” / NATO: Oscar1/2)

      10 of 4th generation SSN/SSGN “Yasen/Yasen-M” are planned. One scheduled commissioning next year.

      Russian demographic dynamics is getting better each year.

      • SecretSquid

        Nice post. For a minute there I thought I was the only one who’s been keeping current on recent events.

      • B-52CrewChief

        Congratulations, you finally did your homework. I’m proud of you Stratege…

  • GoHomeRuskies

    An eagle can fly – a bear? It hibernates and dies.

    • 00mpal00mpa

      I think you take the animal mascots too seriously.

      • blight_

        Double headed eagles are twice as awesome! lul lul lul.

  • Chris

    Reading this paragraph made my brain hurt:

    “Engineers built the X-51A Waverider’s scramjet engine to fly without liquid jet propellant. The engine instead uses the oxygen in the air to propel it. It also harnesses the energy created by its own shock wave to reach top speeds up to Mach 6.”

    A quick look at Wikipedia would tell you that:

    “The X-51 uses JP-7 fuel for the SJY61 scramjet, carrying some 270 lb (120 kg) onboard.”

    I believe what’s meant here, is that the scram-jet, being an air breathing engine, does not carry its own oxidant on-board.

    • guess

      It was my understanding that a scram jet had no moving parts. The super sonic air comes in the front, mixes with fuel and that burns producing thrust. Unlike turbo fan based engines, with their compressor blades

    • guess

      Besides. Aren’t all jet engines are breathing? Cause if it uses an oxidant it would be a rocket right? Cause that would be a chemical reaction causing the thrust like on the Saturn V…
      I think it must be a typo on defense tech’s end

      • Chris

        My point exactly, I just thought it would be sufficiently obvious.

  • Chris

    They did actually get funding for the next x-51 flight. Source: Family member in propulsion directorate in AFRL

  • Pappa51

    I think the Russian’s need to develop a Hyper Jet. It will keep them busy for years to come. Like they say Idle hands are the Devils work shop. And they have been in that work shop a long time. Really; an orbital bomber will be the next generation.
    I’m Done. . . .

  • DB Cooper

    They cant even build a plane that doesnt have to be taken in for major service once a year or build an engine for them that doesnt break down often and they expect to build a hypersonic plane that doesnt blow up? It won’t happen.

    • Stratege

      You have probably confused Russian planes with Chinese. But even Chinese planes (with Russian built-engine)doesn’t need to be taken out of service each year.

      • B-52CrewChief

        Actually, ALL aircraft need to have major service every year. That’s the nature of the beast. Stratege is right; the poor Chinese couldn’t design and build an aircraft without the Russians.

    • 00mpal00mpa

      They’ve already built hypersonic missiles that don’t blow up. Hypersonic aircraft are the next step. The russian design will use MHD propulsion.

  • SecretSquid

    What’s with the irrelevant picture, DT? Why a picture of a Boeing X-45 UCAV in an article discussing hypersonic bombers? There is nothing about the X-45 that is remotely hypersonic.

    Maybe DT needs writers or editors with a better command of defense technologies.

  • 00mpal00mpa

    It turns out that a Russian Hypersonic Plane is ALREADY in the works. It’s know to the west as AJAX. There are no photos of it that I could find on the internet. And I haven’t managed to find any news info about it but I suspect that the Kremlin is being suspiciously silent because they are busy at work with new technology. Given that they have a state controlled media, it’s highly unlikely that these sorts of defense projects would be publicized.

    • Thomas L. Nielsen

      “It turns out that a Russian Hypersonic Plane is ALREADY in the works. It’s know to the west as AJAX”

      Source, please?

      Regards & all,

      Thomas L. Nielsen

      • Stratege

        AJAX aircraft was nothing more than a paper draft.
        However, the new types of Russian ICBMs are equipped with maneuverable hypersonic vehicles (warhead-equipped, 6M at the terminal stage) with nonballistic (unpredictable) trajectory to avoid ABM. There’re also Russian hypersonic cruise missile Kh-90 (ALCM).

        • B-52CrewChief

          Sorry, Stratege, the KH-90 was only capable of mach 2.5 to mach 3.5 and the project was Cancelled in 1988. It was powered by a turbojet not a ramjet or scramjet.

  • Taxpayer71

    In general funding of advanced technology development such as WAVERIDER is justified by some envisioned military application/requirement that has passed some level of review in the acquisition and budget processes. What is the military advantage offered by a hypersonic bomber? While I like advanced technology as well as the next person, this project needs a good scrub to verify that it makes sense, especially in tight these tight budget times.

  • Jeffrey

    If the Russians do develop that kind of tech then we better stay on their good side. They are probably 17-19 years away from that us pretty much the same maybe less.

  • Here are a few select apps that can help you
    with motivation, organization, and ultimately just help you get things done.
    When creating a slogan, aim for the heart by playing up the emotional
    effect. Their club provides a huge state of the art equipment, saunas, masseurs,
    nutritionists, beauty therapists and the best personal
    training programs which will help you to
    get the best out of them.

  • Amazing! Its really amazing post, I have got much clear idea concerning from this article.