The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm
Posts: 59
Location: New England
Jacob,

Unless you were a Submarine Sonar Technician, don't believe everything you read online; the majority of the information is inaccurate or just plain false (fas.org and Janes --especially where sonar suites are concerned). The same holds true of the wacky, wonderful world of CNO Special Projects platforms. I was fortunate to be involved with both of these subjects, so I speak from (decades of) experience. I guess that makes me a living fossil. . . or a witness to history - which sounds a lot more palatable. For authoritative sources, Polmar is hard to beat. I've seen him make very few errors where sonar is concerned. Submarine sonar is a tough subject to get right, owing to many systems spread over many classes of boats, and scarce documentation in the unclassified realm.

Moving on, the BQR-2 used a circular array of hydrophone in 48 staves. There was an experiment to mount an array on the back of a submarine sail with mixed results due to high flow noise. The BQR-2 and BQR-7 were the primary passive submarine sonars throughout the late 50' to early 70's for a number of boat classes - the "S" girls that followed the Seawolf, and all of the 41 boomers until back-fitted with the BQR-21 (with the exception noted above). As a circular array it was always mounted low - inside a chin mount on boats that had them, and below the torpedo tubes on boats that didn't. The BQR-4 (and BQR-7) were conformal arrays. That is, they conformed to the shape of the hull, and were placed higher (basically U-shaped, so the baffle areas were large.)

The BQS-4 I pointed out above, (as opposed to the SQS-4 you mentioned) was the primary active search sonar when the Nautilus was decommissioned. And that IS the BQS-4 console in the photo - I sat in front of one longer than I care to admit, hoping to see something. (I rarely ever did.)

The ultimate forward arrays were Spherical, (AN/BQQ-2 sonar suite in the 60's, followed by the BQQ-5 in the 70's and BQQ-6 in the 80s.) These allowed for D/E (depression elevation) determination (up/down) so a target signal could be detected using it's bottom bounce angle. (You can do a lot with that kind of acoustic information.)

Towed arrays were a major game-changer and have evolved continuously since the BQR-15.

And you are correct - the BQR-3 was installed topside on the Nautilus/Seawolf in the early days. The Wolf did a lot of experimental testing in the 60's. (See the attached pic.) The Parche didn't carry the BQR-2, but had a BQR-21 topside/aft, as I mentioned. She left service with a BQQ-5 suite, which replaced her obsolete BQQ-2 system. The Q-5 was an awesome system. The Q-6 integrated every sonar, (Underwater Telephone/ Acoustic Emission Intercept / Bathythermograph and Towed Arrays) in a common system to a greater degree, but did not have transducers in the spherical array, just hydrophones. (Boomers aren't in the business of pinging.) The Q-6 sensor integration experience was highly useful for the systems that followed.

There has NEVER been an accurate model of the Seawolf portrayed anywhere in her Projects configuration that is accurate beneath the waterline. In drydock, a curtain that conformed to the hull was lowered as the drydock was emptied, protecting her modesty. An armed guard (MINSY PD) was posted outside the underbody curtain. Even they weren't cleared to look behind the curtain. Anything you see online or read in a book is pure speculation, fantasy or garden-variety BS. The same rings true for other projects boats. As long as inaccurate info is available, the truth will always remain protected. As it should be.

If the Navy ever declassifies the physical characteristics of the multiple Projects boats that have come and gone over many decades, I'll likely be the first to create and post accurate 3D depictions online. (I've posted a few submarine renders in the Virtual Ship Modeling section.) But until that day appears, myself and all who were/are involved swore and signed an oath to STFU, and for the most part, everyone has. A few stories have emerged, but the level of detail is astonishingly weak due to their minor involvement and limited "Big Picture" access. I can promise you, that there will be a lot of discredited so-called "experts" who will be most embarrassed when the real stories emerge - if ever. And the real stories are the stuff of movies, starring ordinary people, placed in extraordinary circumstances, backed up by a cast of hundreds of unacknowledged patriots.

Until then, keep in mind that those who know, --don't talk; and those who talk, --don't know.

CCC


Attachments:
Seawolf Hall Effect Sensor.jpg
Seawolf Hall Effect Sensor.jpg [ 83.77 KiB | Viewed 3241 times ]


Last edited by CC Clarke on Tue May 12, 2020 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
Hi CCC,

Good points. I think our disagreements about the sonar installed are mostly due to what the Nautilus was launched with vs. what she ended her career with. I'm still quite sure the BQR-4 was installed below the torpedo tubes though. I have found a lot of good information in Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines since 1945. Unfortunately, the National Archives has little available information on sonars other than the BQR-2, BQS-4, and BQR-4. I believe a lot of information even on obsolete systems is still classified.

I hope we will eventually see some details on the special projects boats. The only glimpses I've seen are a Piping TAB of the Halibut (when she had the hangar thruster and aquarium; before the skegs) and this photo of the Seawolf showing the unusual shape of the added hull section:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/575/0857516s.jpg

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm
Posts: 59
Location: New England
All of my comments are for final configurations (except where noted). As a boat ages, there are always sonar upgrades and other short-term test modifications installed, so there is no way to definitively define a ship's configuration except by year/period.

Common sonar errata that has been repeated endlessly until it's taken as fact: Trident submarines are often cited as having a BQS-15. There were BQS-15 components installed, (High Frequency sail-mounted projectors, the rotating receiver pedestal mounted above them, and the HF processors - basically the whole front end) but the back end of the system was pure IBM-built Q-6. IBM built the majority of the system in Manassas, VA. (not Oswego, where sub-system components were procured.) They sold their stake in the sonar system business to Lockheed/Martin after the SUBACS/BSY-1 fiasco occurred. IBM built very good systems with the best documentation I have ever read. There were 84 volumes of tech manuals for the Q-6 alone!

Other common mistakes for sonars installed on Tridents:

The BQR-19, (a mast-mounted array that was raised above the thermal layer while proceeding to periscope depth, installed on the original boomers) was never installed. Didn't need it with the spherical Q-6. The BQR-19 was never a navigation system as its often described. (24 staves of hydrophones in a tiny array on top of the mast.) It was purely dedicated for collision avoidance, and had super-short range with a very narrow receiver bandwidth. The BQR-19 used a BTR (Bearing Time Recorder) display. There was a remote BTR on the conn as well that the other sonars (BQR-2/7) could feed. It was the best BTR made until the PDRs (Precision Data Recorders) were furnished with the Q-5 and 6. I had a buddy who was the Sonar Supervisor on the 598 when they sank a Japanese freighter on their way to PD. He saw the BQR-19 flashing Alert light (that gave a semblance of fair warning until the BTR could trace enough lines to indicate target bearing) which triggered when it detected a high SNR broadband noise level. According to standard protocol, he instantly alerted the OOD that there was a close-aboard contact and he should abort the depth excursion. The OOD blew him off and the rest is history. The OOD and CO lost their careers; the sonar sup was unscathed. (Everything we said in sonar was recorded, as well as the primary passive sonar acoustic channel on our dual-channel, dual-tape deck UNQ-7s.

The BQR-23/25: Another towed array and processing system installed on old boomers that wasn't ever installed on Tridents. The same goes for the 60's BQS-13 Fire Control System components - again, it had it's own purpose-built FCS using 688-class components.

This is probably the most accurate unclassified as-built Trident sonar info ever published, so you saw it here first:

The BQQ-6 configuration was composed of letter-designated groups:

Group A: Detection and Tracking (Passive-only neutered Q-5 with BQS-15 components, and a pair of TB-16 "Fat Line" towed arrays.)
Group B: Acoustic Communication (AN/WQC-5 Underwater telephone) Used to communicate through the water acoustically with other equipped vessels.
Group C: Depth/Sound-Speed (AN/BHQ-1) a bathythermograph that measured the speed of sound through water as we moved up & down in the water column.
Group D: Emergency Acoustic Comms (AN/BQC-1) A short-range, underwater telephone located near each escape trunk to communicate with rescue vessels.
Group E: Distress Beacons (AN/BQN-1) Located near each escape trunk for rescue vessels to localize a downed boat's position. It could ping for ten days straight.
Group F: Depth Sounding (AN/UQN-1) - Standard Navy fathometer, good to 6000 fathoms,
Group G: Bathythermograph (Standard BQH-7 expendable SSXBT system, launched from the aft signal ejector to measure the water temp)
Group H: Recorder-Reproducer (Dual-deck AN/UN-7E - just like the Nautilus) When one deck got to the end of the reel, the other would start.

In the mid-80's, the Rockwell-built AN/BQQ-9 system was installed on all Tridents after the Georgia (at EB) and the first four boats were back-fitted by Trident Refit Facility's sonar shop over three, twenty-four day refit periods. The Q-9 used the 1" diameter Thinline Towed Array (TLTA) installed on a handling system in the superstructure behind the missile tubes. Initially, this was deployed on the surface manually, but proved to be too dangerous and the system was subsequently upgraded with a handling system that was operated inboard. One original TB-16 (called the Fatline Array after that) was retained. Both tow cable reels were housed just forward of the Sonar Control room (a pair of OK-742 Handling Systems.)

After attending a Rockwell International factory Q-9 course, I was the Lead for all four Q-9 installations performed at Subase Bangor.

The picture of the 50' section (we all knew it was longer, but that's what we called it) is the only known shot of the MINSY conversion that I know of online. The vertical plates that cover the sides of the Ocean Engineering section served two purposes - they kept it level, preventing it from rolling over as it was slid into place and concealment. (Notice the beams beneath - round hulls don't slide too well without side support and MINSY didn't use a launch cradle to move the OE section.) The plates were subsequently removed for hydrodynamic streamlining, (contributing to overall quietness and less drag) and a curtain was used when in drydock for concealment as noted above. Note the watertight door in Frame 27 leading from the front of the Crew's Mess. Above it hung the sign attached below. . . When inport, there was an expanded metal mesh door with a six-button cipher lock and a curtain positioned in the passageway behind the screen leading through the watertight door. It was removed when underway.

One day while inport, I was standing the Projects Watch when someone wearing an Admiral's costume pulled the and banged on the screen door, demanding access. He wasn't wearing the special access badge that was handed out topside when checking in, (only the crew didn't sport access badges) so I told him I couldn't allow him access. He got pretty pissed-off and asked me if I knew who he was. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "You could be anyone wearing an admiral's uniform sent down here to test me. No badge, no entry . . . sir. --I don't make the rules, I just obey them."

A moment later, the CO ran up behind him, motioning wildly for me to let him enter. As it turned out, it was COMSUBPAC! He shook my hand on the way out and thanked me for earning my 57 cents an hour.

Sorry to get off-topic in a Nautilus-related thread. . .

CCC


Attachments:
Frame 27 Sign.jpg
Frame 27 Sign.jpg [ 275.5 KiB | Viewed 3225 times ]


Last edited by CC Clarke on Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
Very specific question, but does anyone know how many turbines each of the Nautilus' shafts had? I thought it was just one, like the Skates, but one page 3 of this pdf:

http://navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/0857153w.pdf

it shows two turbines in series (presumably a high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine). I know this arrangement is quite common on surface ships, but I have never seen it on a submarine, so I would be interested to see if anyone knows for sure.

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
I have since confirmed from someone who trained on the S1W prototype that the Nautilus did indeed have a high pressure and low pressure turbine on each shaft.

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 8:05 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Ayer, Ma. USA
Interesting! I wonder why they went with that design and how many other early SSNs had two stage turbine systems? Was it carried through on the Skates?

I think by the Skipjack series with the S5W plant there were two main turbines driving the one shaft.

_________________
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for: "Project Azorian”
https://www.amazon.com/Azorian-Raising-K-129-Michael-White/dp/B008QTU7QY
"Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129" Book
https://www.usni.org/press/books/project-azorian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
And not only did the Nautilus have two turbines per shaft, she also had two coolant turbine generators (CTGs) in addition to the standard two SSTGs for a total of eight turbines in the engine room. Presumably the Seawolf had a similar turbine arrangement both during her S2G and S2Wa phases.

Presumably the Nautilus had HP/LP turbines because that was (and still is) the standard for most marine steam turbines. I bet they quickly realized that it would be preferable not to have eight turbines to deal with.

In the Skate TAB I have, it just shows a single turbine and SSTG per side, which would become the standard with the Skipjack and later like you said. The Tullibee and Lipscomb each had four turbines too, had propulsion turbine generators (PTGs) instead of propulsion turbines. The Jack and Narwhal both had a single, direct drive propulsion turbine, but I have heard that the latter had only a single SSTG because the main coolant pumps drew so much less power (I have not yet confirmed this). Incidentally, I believe the Jack was the only U.S. Navy submarine ever built without an electric motor on the shaft. And then the NR-1 presumably had two SSTGs/PTGs.

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm
Posts: 59
Location: New England
Seawolf (SSN-575) built in parallel with the Nautilus had a pair of main turbines as well. (I referred back to the Main Steam System - Engine Room pages in my piping tab to verify.)

She may have had an alternate lineup due to her (first) unique power plant before being converted to a standard pressurized steam plant (S2Wa) just like the Nautilus. Whenever we had issues with hard-to-find parts for the plant, Nautilus (parked nearby a@ MINSY being modified for museum duty) was our first stop since we had Brickbat priority and could cannibalize anything we needed.

CCC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Schodack Landing, NY
Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 55
D-Boy wrote:
Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced?


Nope, all still there. When she was prepared as a museum, all the work was done to make the ER accessible for a prototypical ''enter at the front, leave at the back'' tour route. Before they opened her, they changed their minds and decided to keep the ER closed for security reasons.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm
Posts: 59
Location: New England
Timmy C wrote:
Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training.


If she were still used for any type of nuclear propulsion training, (Who else uses this type of antique pressurized water plant? Hint: No one,) the public wouldn't be allowed onboard, and the WT door to the RC wouldn't be left ajar. I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces. (It's less than an hour away from me.)

The Nautilus was still a little too hot to be used as a museum ship and remained tied to the pier @ MINSY for several years, (I was stationed there at the time) before she was deemed ready for the public to step onboard and towed to the East coast.

CC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 55
CC Clarke wrote:
I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces.

CC

Yes, it is. At least it was before COVID. I did a re-enlistment back in the ER over a year ago.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:02 am
Posts: 160
Do we have a source for the diameter of the Nautilus' propellers?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 8:05 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Ayer, Ma. USA
Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.

I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.

Addendum:
BTW, I put one of your five blade printed screws on my USS Tullibee model (as launched version) that will eventually show up in the What’s New gallery here.

I mentioned it was from you in the write up on the model.

_________________
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for: "Project Azorian”
https://www.amazon.com/Azorian-Raising-K-129-Michael-White/dp/B008QTU7QY
"Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129" Book
https://www.usni.org/press/books/project-azorian


Last edited by Tom Dougherty on Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:02 am
Posts: 160
Tom Dougherty wrote:
Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.

I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.



Ultimately both though I started work first on the original conventional 5-blade screw.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
Tom Dougherty wrote:
Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.

I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.


Tom, if you do end up going down to Groton at some point, I would love to see a photo of the data inscribed on the propeller. Usually there is information on the pitch and diameter (among other things) on the hub between the blade roots.

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 8:05 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Ayer, Ma. USA
Jacob,
I will look closely at the propellers when I go.

I have not forgotten about the email concerning fleet boat refueling of seaplanes. I have gone through all my digital issues of All Hands from the 1944-45-46 period and two other sources in search of the reference on their use in the invasion plans. Nothing so far.

NEW EDIT The Submarine Force Library & Museum in Groton, Ct. has reopened after 14 months closure due to Covid.

Very Important Point: The museum is home of the Nautilus, SSN 571. But, Nautilus will NOT be there, as she is being moved on Oct. 16 downriver to Electric Boat for drydocking, hull repair, and repainting and other maintenance. She will return to the museum in early summer of 2022.

_________________
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for: "Project Azorian”
https://www.amazon.com/Azorian-Raising-K-129-Michael-White/dp/B008QTU7QY
"Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129" Book
https://www.usni.org/press/books/project-azorian


Last edited by Tom Dougherty on Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:28 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:02 am
Posts: 160
What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it seems very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 258
Location: United States
Woodstock74 wrote:
What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it seems very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any.


I would expect that the diameter of the propellers would be unchanged. They can't be much larger (not enough room and higher blade tip speed) and being smaller would exacerbate the decrease in propulsive efficiency. I seem to recall that a few 594s or 637s had five-bladed propellers specifically installed for trials, but in operational use, I believe the seven-bladed propellers were nearly always used after they were developed. So I wouldn't think of the five-bladed propellers as being specially-designed for speed.

I would also expect that the blade profile between nearly all seven-bladed propellers of that era to be broadly similar.

There is a set of propellers at Pearl Harbor (on base) that are either for the Nautilus or Skate. If I get the chance to get on the base, I'll take some photos.

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group