Sea Control - Sea Control 581: The MLR's Missing Link

Episode Date: July 5, 2025

The Marine Littoral Regiment's Missing Link

You're listening to Sea Control, hosted by the Center for International Maritime Security. Ahoy, shipmates, and welcome back aboard Sea Control. I'm your co-host, Brian Kerg, and our guests today are Captains Brendan Costello and Tyler Muniz of the United States Marine Corps. We'll be discussing the recent article, The Marine Littoral Regiment's Missing Link, which was published in the August 2024 edition of the Marine Corps Gazette. As a reminder, all views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any other organization with which we're affiliated. Gentlemen, welcome aboard Sea Control. Can you tell us a little bit about yourselves and your professional backgrounds?

My name is Brennan Costello, Captain of the Marine Corps. I'm an Air Support Control Officer and a Chinese foreign area officer. I was stationed at Mass 3 in beautiful Camp Pendleton from 2018 to 2021. Then I was selected for the FAO program and did my master's at NPS in Monterey and then studied Mandarin Chinese at DLI. Currently, I'm on in-region training, rounding that out, and getting ready to head back to the fleet. Good day, everyone. My name is Tyler Menees, and a little bit about myself. So I joined the

military in 2016 with my first duty station in Okinawa as an air support control officer, same as Brendan. And after two years, I spent a couple of years in Camp Pendleton before I've seen the Marine Corps to become a civilian in civilian life. I'm now a program manager at a technology company called NetApp, but I still like to dabble with, you know, what's happening on the military side, keeping up with what our future force design is supposed to look like. And another thing is that I've just joined a reserve unit.

So I will be drilling out of mass six, starting here in the new year. Well, Hey, first of all, I'm going to share the love with MAS-3 because I'm part of Control Group 38 right now and ComSquad in 38 myself, so I work with those fine warriors all the time, and it's very exciting to have an article like this by authors like yourselves discussing this element of the Marine Air Command and Control System or the MAX and the agencies and how they can support the subject of today's talk. So let's move to the article itself.

um so you guys wrote this article that we referenced in the uh in the intro can you walk us through the big blue arrows on his core thesis like what's your elevator pitch let's see so for for this article right um general burger in force designs uh stood up this this whole concept of having a standing force somewhere in the western pacific in order to be that sort of blunt zone in case crisis went off uh between us and china and it's a very difficult problem in the first place to to try and see how do we overcome these tyranny of distance how do we integrate with our maritime forces how do we how do we affect uh the enemy in their own engagement area right so so his his concept was developing these uh mlrs with all sorts of

capabilities such as you know air defense missiles and uh stand-in forces and able to sustain itself uh as well so so we we liked we liked the idea we like that concept but we're like we feel like it's missing something right because there's there's a few components to to the mlr such as a littoral uh combat team uh logistics battalion and then an air an air defense battalion or anti-air battalion but like as we we're used to in in uh regular magtas marine air ground task force where where's the air component and then really where is the sensing component right what how do we how do we see and target something we can shoot something but how do we target something realistically so that that was i think sort of the the genesis of the article that uh

came to being and bernard i don't know if you want to add anything on that yeah and you know yeah to add to what tyler said i think we we both kind of recognize that um the mlr is well set up for its air defense capabilities in in terms of sensing uh with the tps 80 um however it there is a gap when it comes to actually sensing surface targets um so in order to enable the littoral combat team with you know it's it's uh surface surface missile systems to actually uh you know close c denial kill chains the mlr would need some sort of capability that would that would allow it to find targets at range in a very similar sense with some sort of surface search radar.

And so that's kind of where Tyler and I started from and sort of recognized also that it's likely that if crisis or conflict were to kick off in the Western Pacific, the opportunity for the availability of naval and joint intelligence assets could be limited, primarily due to the PLA's anti-access area denial system. Hey, great. Appreciate that elevator pitch. And so kind of as a read back, I understand it's like, hey, you've got this formation called the Marine Littoral Regiment, and the Marine Corps spent a lot of effort baking this thing,

but maybe there's some ingredients that are missing, or maybe there's some other things that would optimize its ability to actually perform its function. And your article discusses some of those in terms of sensor capabilities and fusing some of those sensed items or intelligence or tracks or whatever term of art you want to use. So that's great. Let me pull you guys back up a little bit. So many listeners probably are familiar with all the things we're talking about, but I'll bet there are a lot that might not be as read in. So your article actually takes us there and you discuss the operational context regarding challenges to American military power in the Western Pacific vis-a-vis the Chinese regional military capabilities. So what's up again? This is a maritime audience. So as far as like great power competition in China, bad, that's probably well known.

And you could assume that level of knowledge within the listeners. However, take us down to the operational context that kind of helps us bridge to the concept of the Marine Patrol Regiment. I'll let you guys take it from there. Yeah, so I think fundamentally it all sort of starts with the enemy threat. So essentially the PLA has established a anti-access area denial system. What this is, is essentially a slew of weapon systems that include ballistic air, land and sea launch, ballistic and cruise missiles that essentially allow the PLA to target anything up to out to Hawaii and then north up to Hokkaido and then all the way down to even potentially, depending on the weapon system, northern Australia or about that area. So essentially, this could limit the Naval and Joint Forces' ability to actually enter the region. And it's our opinion that this capability, I think in general, this capability was established to deter or defeat the United States in the case that the PLA were to take some sort of action in the Western Pacific.

whether that would be an amphibious invasion of Taiwan or potentially some sort of escalation in the South China Sea. So A2AD essentially was the threat environment that informed force design. Force design recognizes that the current military layout in the Western Pacific has drastically changed and that China has become our pacing threat. And in order to address that, Marine Corps has stood up the Marine Littoral Regiments. These Marine Littoral Regiments are meant to essentially be established pre-crisis as a what we call stand-in force. So they're essentially set up throughout what we call the first island chain from Japan down through the Philippines, able to quickly respond to any sort of threat or any sort of escalation crisis within the region. Yeah, and to piggyback off that, right, when we, you know, do work and do operations, right, we're used to having that freedom of movement, be able to maneuver our forces wherever they need be, whether on the land or, in this case, in the sea, open ocean. But when you have that layered defense that the PLA has, how do you enable maneuver then?

How do you get within the engagements of the ME and put effects on them? So this was a really juicy problem. And the MLRs being a part of that solution is how we came to our topic. Great. Excellent. Thanks, guys. Definitely appreciate that. So to read back, you provide the operational context and you discuss specifically one formation, one key formation of the Marine Force stand-in force concept. So if I understand you correctly, the stand-in force concept is having forces that can persist inside of an adversary's weapons engagement zone. And per the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, we have interpreted that threat as the People's Republic of China. Hence, we built these Marine Littoral Regiments designed to operate in that region.

So they fall under 3rd Marine Division. You've got the MLRs. You've got 3rd and 3rd MLR based out of Hawaii. You've got 12th MLR based out of Okinawa. And within the MLRs, you've got those three key formations that you referenced, that Littoral Combat Team, which is the actual infantry battalion with shooters attached to it effectively. You've got that Littoral Anti-Air Battalion, which provides air defense for the MLR. And then you've got the Littoral Logistics Battalion, which, of course, sustains the entire formation.

So appreciate you guys building that out. So let's go ahead and jump on to the next topic, which really gets into the meat of your article. So we set the operational context. We set the table. We understand the MLR. Your article then discusses a series of constraints on U.S. joint forces. And it emphasizes, your article emphasizes aviation, both land-based aviation and naval aviation, and sea denial as contributed by the Marine Littoral Regiment. So talk us through those constraints and what is the so what for U.S. military commanders and planners? Yeah, so I can jump on this, speak to it a little bit. So how we saw it was that due to the PLA's A2AD, it would impose certain specific constraints.

And we broke it down into aviation simply because that's what would likely support the MLR sea denial targeting capabilities. So for land-based aviation, essentially, it's broken down into two components. With land-based aviation, constraints are essentially they're forward postured and then distance. So the forward-postured land-based aviation within the First Island chain, like stationed at places like Kadena, Fatenma, Clark, all these bases, airfields, are very much targetable by the PLA's A2AD system. They'd likely be high-priority targets because it would basically, if they were able to crater the runways, destroy a certain amount of aircraft, it could potentially halt any aviation operations coming out of that airbase. And so that would make it difficult for the MLR to receive any kind of support from that land-based aviation. uh secondly uh distance um this mostly applies to large group 5 uas that could also provide isr support to the mlr that any most group 5 uas or even things like strategic bombers

are stationed in the continental united states with the marine corps getting the mq9 i believe they're getting established in hawaii that may change the context a little bit but still distance has a pretty significant impact on us on sortie generation rates so being able to persistently provide the mlr with uh sorties um isr sorties will prove difficult simply because of how vast the pacific is um and that's not to mention uh any sort of um threat from a2ad likely trying to target those aircraft um so and then i suppose for for naval aviation for naval aviation um they they'll all they're also constrained by the distance um their range and then uh they also face resource constraints essentially the way the navy operates is

the carrier is the striking arm of the carrier strike group and surface combatants are act as the shield they provide the close-in air defense so then the uh the carrier can launch sorties to go and strike however with the a2ad it's likely that a carrier strike group will try to operate outside of the ranges of the PLA's weapon systems so as to mitigate how many weapons can be launched in a salvo against it. And this naturally will affect how far the aviation assets on the carrier can actually reach. So essentially, this makes it very difficult for any carrier-launched aviation to get within the western pacific within the area of operations that the mlr would be established in

secondly the navy's isr and c2 aircraft are too few and too valuable to risk supporting the mlr take for example the e2 hawkeye the hawkeye is extremely valuable to the navy's targeting capabilities, whether it's for AOMSW, or if it's for air-to-air engagements. The E2 Hawkeye is much too valuable in naval kill chains to then source for the MLR's own operations. And so that's basically the gist. Tyler, I don't know if you have anything else to add. think of having these super capable you know uh systems weapon systems your your f-35s your f-18s your carrier super capable systems that you just cannot afford to lose like so obviously we we don't want to risk having them in the weapons engagement zone right so so we're we're constrained on how

close those carry strike groups can get uh and we cannot remove we cannot try to sort out those capable aircraft as brandon said the e2 the mh60s in order to provide support for the mlr because then that takes away from the capability of protecting mother protecting the heart of the carry strike group um and then because of that standoff that the strike group has to have The whole range issue, being able to timely, habitually able to support without a huge logistical burden to get from wherever their safe assembly area is to where the MLR is operating. So there are heavy constraints in probably our primary method to affect the Western Pacific using highly capable systems that we just cannot afford to lose should a crisis occur. Thanks for that breakdown, guys. So my readback is the Pacific is big.

sortie generation is going to be challenged whether it's you know a land or naval based aviation because of geography and the enemy threat and there's just not enough aviation based isr because we can't risk what we have and we can't afford to lose it so that's that's the constraint as you articulated in the article and just now so let's move on to really what your core pitch is so up till now you've just been we've been problem training we've been describing a challenge you guys propose a possible solution and that involves adding capabilities to the mlr that will enable it to overcome the constraints that you've outlined and fulfill the aspirations within the standard force concept so what are those capabilities yeah so essentially just

breaking it down first vertical takeoff and landing capability this is primarily because it makes it more expeditionary um allow it fits into the mlr's logistical footprint uh much easier um it makes a lot more sense if you're trying to be able to set up be able to operate in places where you don't have assured access to airfields um you might not have uh expeditionary uh airfield services um and then also a vertical takeoff and landing capability essentially allows a little bit of uh allows agility um for the a platform to be able to stay underneath a um surface vessels radar horizon so they can essentially mask their signature better um because really that's a key key component of the mlr and the stand-in force concept writ large is is signature management

trying to maintain low signature throughout operations secondly we outlined that it should be unmanned this is mostly because unmanned aircraft are generally cheaper it's a lot cheaper to train someone to pilot UAS than it is to train a manned pilot. Also, it's easier in terms of maintenance. And then you can also get pretty solid time on station with an unmanned system. This is pretty vital for the MLR because they'll likely have to keep multiple systems up and the longer time on station means uh they're able to monitor for longer um and then thirdly uh uh link capability um essentially this will allow the um essentially link capability will enable any sort of asset to be able to contribute to the ctp as in it would

then provide reach back to any c2 node established link capable c2 node established by the mlr that then would be able to push that to a ctp or larger cop fourthly is a surface sensor potentially subsurface as well and then eo io sensors so something like a surface search radar is vital to be able to actually generate track data that then can be used for the purpose of targeting. Additionally, EO-IO sensors are essential to getting positive identification as well. So those are the capabilities.

Yeah, that's it. Tyler, do you have anything to add? something to to close that kill chain we got the f2t2ea right we gotta we want to make sure that we have all the capabilities in order to do that organically because where the mlr is operating assembly area might be a thousand miles away habitual support might not even be there we're all we're all again used to the mag the mag taffery concept now in in a maritime environment like how how the navy does you have you have aviation um assets in order to be your eyes out forward of the carrier give you the information to to find fix track and then

relay that target information for us for the ship or dg to engage and assess with what the mlr has now um we we have a hard time seeing like without big planning logistics behind it in order to give them those eyes to find and fix it it makes it difficult for them to use their missiles to engage and assess if they if they if they come to a point where they do not have that support, then it is difficult for them to perform their jobs of being that front blunt force to be able to try to open up those avenues of approach or follow on forces in this maritime operation. So all those capabilities that Brendan listed are what we see that the MLR needs in order

to perform or on its own that whole kill chain. Good breakdown, guys. So what I'm hearing are sensors, unmanned sensors that you can employ in the air, some that you would deploy on the surface that are cheap, that are easy to train to, easy to employ, that you could put into a hostile environment and that you can afford, at least within the context of a campaign or operation, that you can't afford to lose, that won't break the commander's ability to fight if you lose them. as you guys were talking what came to my mind um i'm not sure if you're familiar with uh starcraft or frankly any real-time strategy game where there's like that fog of war where if you don't have something one of your own forces that can see what's happening uh like a fog literally covers it so you have no idea what's happening so your opponent can move in there and that can be a surprise for you or if you just happen to push a force forward you may inadvertently run right into

the jaws of their defense and get blasted so i recall being a much uh younger individual uh playing games like that very uh regularly and then you would have some sort of scouting uh platform that you might just send forward just to get sa that if it got shot at the sky no big deal as opposed to like launching my battlecruisers my very expensive battlecruisers my capital ships right that would be my striking arm like to destroy an enemy outpost but if i roll right to the defenses i'm going to lose something that cost me an enormous amount of resources so that's part of my hypothesis that if marines want to actually understand the mlr the stand-in force or the operational environment we talk about all the time just make them play starcraft so hey you

mind if i steal that analogy i'm gonna i want to use that it's all yours man spread that far and wide um so i'll i'll turn it back to you and the subject of why i'm taking your time today so uh let's again back to the article so appreciate the breakdown of the asset specifically uh but those assets like any asset it cannot be employed on its own right it requires forces or personnel to employ it even unmanned systems right um so here you recommend standing up what you call a littoral scouting squadron so talk the listeners through that proposal if you would brandon i feel like you should you should talk about this because i almost forgot about the fact that we didn't have it under so there's many ways that you could cut the cake on this one right you could have

you could say hey it's going to be part of an already established uh unit in in the mlr like the lab and you're like well does the lab have the capability should the lab own aircraft they are command and control anti-air battalion do do do they have how big is the lab going to get when you have to to do maintenance for have all those uh personnel in order to support the aircraft uh the pilots so it's like now you start thinking okay you might need a whole uh squadron or the closest thing would be a vmu but we're talking mlr now so so there so we're saying hey add one more one more piece to the puzzle but want that one more component in order for it to to close the kill stream this and this one component this one entity has has all the all the assets that it

needs in order to support its mission of finding fixing tracking targets because you can't just have you can't just have a group three ass and say hey uh gunny first lieutenant pilot this okay someone figure out how to do main someone figure out how the logistics in order to get the parts to fix this aircraft now you're going to need a whole slew of experts and a whole a whole slew of people in order to support those experts so that they can go out and do their missions and and make those stories happen so it would thought that you know okay maybe can't go in the lab can't go really nice to the best the best option probably to make its own squadron and that's where the littoral scouting squadron came from yeah and and just to add i think tyler was was uh hinting

at it essentially establishing another a squadron with an with the appropriate with the asset underneath it under the mlr uh would allow it to establish habitual relationships with the other subordinate units within the MLR. I think this is, we thought this was really vital simply because it allows the MLR as a whole to employ the asset as one package. That isn't to say that an asset, a UAS asset within the MEF is going to be immune to the ATO cycle. Obviously, it will absolutely have to go on the ato cycle however if such an asset were placed in the wing it would essentially divest divest the opportunity of building of maintaining habitual established relationships and thus an established command and control structure

within the mlr uh for its sensing capability through this squadron uh so that's kind of that's kind of where we were coming from big part of it is is the habitual relationships um and obviously you know a flying squadron would know how best to maintain and and pilot its aircraft and and i'd like to go back to the the ato cycle right you were saying that the any aircraft in the meth is not immune to to being pulled in order to support some other mission right we get it but we also like to to say that hey this is because it's a habitual relationship is a capability for the success of the mission of the mlr right yeah a joint force commander would have to think very hard how you know how much am i going to get from pulling this asset support another mission

how much am i going to get by removing that capability that is critical to the success of this uh of this unit in order to support something else so i think that also makes it more crucial for it to be a part of the mlr not just because the head virtualization but also because you can see that is critical to success of its mission that's a perfect segue as far as you know the the comparison or rather the the calculus in terms of what do i gain by taking something from somewhere else right so by that i mean this i can hear some listeners who are very mindful of that zero-sum game that our standing force structure consists of knowing that if you stand up a new formation if we say hey let's stand up this little scouting

squadron uh we we don't just have an infinite bag of new marines and new stuff to pull that from right um it comes at a cost so presumably it would come from out of hide uh from within an air wing and so if we're talking about the mlrs we're talking three meth so we're talking first marine aircraft wing is where we're going to pull that stuff from uh so if that's the case or maybe that's not what you see it well that's how i'd envision it um is that where you envision is coming from and if so have you considered how the wing would adjust or i guess another way to put it if the squadron does come from within the wing the lss the littoral scouting squadron if that comes from within the wing does the wing lose other capabilities based off the current

structure or have you offset for that somehow in your in your vision i don't think we went that deep into hey now we have this asset now administratively how are we going to to support it what rank and file structure will it uh come from in order to go here we we presented the asset as hey this is going to uh support the mlr and it's and it's uh mission and it's going to have all these things to uh to support it while it's operating but as far as where it comes from present day i i feel like we give the capabilities and we we would like someone else to try and and solve that problem because that's a very juicy and complex problem um general level problem maybe so so i would say i haven't really thought about it much as it will it could it come from

the mall absolutely absolutely the everything else came from from different regiments and different units uh would the mall lose its only vmu unit most likely what what capabilities or impacts does that have? Not really sure though. So I feel like that's a question for someone else. I'd like to see how they solve that puzzle. Yeah, that's a fair response. I mean, frankly, that's a .mlpf question. And I don't mean to be too much of a Debbie Downer in terms of when we get great ideas like this, because I was one of those people who got thrown into the room as far like, okay, what do we do with this if this is a capability we want, and then doing all the really deep dives on that. And then, of course, you're talking to all sorts of organizations at headquarters

Marine Corps, whether it's about facilities, whether it's about structure, total force structure division, how you actually do that, how you actually run the staffing models to make Marines actually get orders and move to new formations, so on and so forth. There's levels and levels of complexity. And I don't say that to discourage yourselves or any other listeners or writers to think through, like, what do we actually need? That might just be to your point, hey, we've identified that there's still other questions that need to be answered. Maybe we're not the people with the expertise to answer them, but we're not worried about that. We're worried about this other problem. So we'll let other minds figure it out and chew on the rest of the

dot NLPF stuff. So finally, gentlemen, are there any other key points that we didn't discuss that you want to hit on? Yeah, I'd like to add, kind of throwing in a little bit of FAO perspective. I think it's important to note that A2AD is not a silver bullet. I know it's become kind of a boogeyman in the national security sphere. I know that a lot of criticism has been levied at force design, and we felt that a lot of that criticism wasn't necessarily constructive, and I think this is kind of our attempt to sort of address that. Although our operational context kind of starts with the assumption of A2AD, I know we go through the process of kind of looking at the PLA's targeting capabilities and seeing where the MLR is able to kind of

defeat them. And I think it's important to note that the PLA's A2AD is as much about concrete weapon systems as it is about a form of psychological warfare as well. Deterrence exists just as much in the mind. And, you know, the PLA is trying to push a narrative as well, that the U.S. wouldn't be able to stand up against A2AD. And although I think force design is definitely on the right path and people should criticize it because that makes it better, I think the MLR A2AD is not a silver bullet and force design was established to try and address that uh and the mlr was born from that

effort the the only thing for me is i i i feel like i feel like you know when we went through tbs and everything it was all about seizing key pieces of key terrain as as the objectives but the mlrs being a standing force are placed pre-crisis you know so so they're there beforehand hand and the when the crisis mode does hit i i don't i feel like it's not really a a method of seizing key trains a method of seizing key avenues of approach so that we can then allow those follow-on forces so i feel like that that that is a where our future is going we we the terrain is already there we're slinging missiles we want to it's a battle for freedom of movement freedom of maneuver i think will be in our future and that is uh and that is what we want to try and solve

gentlemen great concluding thoughts there um i'll just comment i appreciate the reference to um the pla or the prc's uh narrative warfare right um because much of this began uh in a way to prevent a fait accompli of say the pla taking name the piece of key maritime terrain or name the assault on whatever country in the first island chain. You know, they can move so quickly, we wouldn't be able to respond in time, and then we have a much harder challenge to deal with because they've already consolidated gains on the objective before we've developed a coherent sight picture of what's going on

or been able to delay or defend against such an attack. So it started out in a kinetic sense, but it's really important to note this overarching theme of the PRC's narrative warfare and achieving a narrative fait accompli where, in our minds, we've already perhaps come to accept that they're going to win or that they have won. And so cognitively, we're paralyzed and they achieve that effect. And we're deterred from reinforcing efforts like this to prevent them from achieving that goal, which is contrary to our own national security objectives.

So that's a very important point. I appreciate you bringing that up. And finally, yes, you know, force design criticism. What's great about this article is you're not sitting here saying like, hey, the Marine Corps is all messed up by trying to do this. Rather, you're saying, hey, the Marine Corps has gone in this direction. That is the marching orders we've been given. But here's how we can improve. And we're always looking to improve. And I think that's something that's critical and actually a very notable quality of the Marine Corps.

You know, from the establishment of the Marine Corps Gazette, you know, leading up to or shortly after, rather, World War I, by then Lieutenant Colonel Lejeune, our service has had a very healthy relationship with critical discourse. And I recall probably most viscerally, and you probably do, too, from your own PME and education, the discussions about just maneuver warfare within the pages of the Gazette in the 80s and in the early 90s, the culmination of MCDP-1 and maneuver warfare becoming our philosophy. Similarly, I think you see a very healthy discourse in not just that forum but others about ways that force design can improve. And it's been a campaign of learning. We're constantly learning and changing. And you guys have a proposal here that might allow the Marine Littoral Regiment specifically to build out on its value proposition. That's really great. I mean, for me, my own perspective has changed over time.

I think where you sit is where you stand. And so this is my first time actually being part of a control group. So when I see Head Force Marine Corps describing the standing force as being the JTAC of the Joint Force, I think, hey, the control group has an awful lot to offer there that the MLR might not be the right fit for when you talk about certain capabilities. So, again, I'm seeing it through a new lens. That's why I'm thinking about it. I'm not saying that's the right answer, but it is unanswered. And your proposal here kind of speaks to a lot of what, again, if you guys as veterans of Blacklist, of MAS 3, and the other MAS agencies, all that stuff is definitely coming to bear in the article.

I was thinking along those lines when I was reading your stuff. So, hey, I'll pause there. uh gentlemen finally where can listeners find you online if you uh if you live there and what else are you working on yeah so so if you would like to uh reach out to me you can find me on linkedin tyler muniz i feel like i'm the only one there you can see me with my birmingham smile in front of a red uh brick wall uh if you want to talk to me in real time i do stream on a platform called twitch uh anyone who comes in is able to to discuss you know current problems of the day um video games or when military people do come through we do talk some some military topics as

well so you're free to come visit me twitch handle is vapriak i can put that in the meeting notes if you'd like but yeah talk to me in real time there or connect with me on linkedin and uh you can find me on linkedin as well uh although uh i'm not on there too much so if anyone does reach out expect a delay um but right now what what else am i working on i'm i'm working on my pcs and that's about it that is a campaign plan all in itself um so gentlemen thanks again for joining us uh good luck at your current assignments or your next adventures fair winds and following Seas. So listeners, bravo Zulu for tuning in, and we'll see you next time.

© BF-WATCH TV 2021