The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
David

You mentioned the canceling of the ERGM and have spoken of the trouble adapting some of the guidance packages from larger projectiles via PM. How much work would it take to enable the mk-45 to fire VULCANO rounds? The NFS version has an up to 100km range.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
jasonfreeland wrote:
David

You mentioned the canceling of the ERGM and have spoken of the trouble adapting some of the guidance packages from larger projectiles via PM. How much work would it take to enable the mk-45 to fire VULCANO rounds? The NFS version has an up to 100km range.

Boy, that's a good question, man. I don't know. It's probably a programming language issue.

There are several things to consider:
- The Mk45 guns the USN has right now are 3 different types and were made by 3 different companies: FMC, United Defense, and BAE.
- They are controlled by at least 2 different GFCS: Mk86 and Mk160.
- The Mk45 Mods1, 2, and 4 have different critical parts.

The critical parts are the EP panels and the ready-service loader (or the gun monkeys call it the "drum"). I don't know how far to technically describe, so I will just say that the Mod1 could fire the Deadeye SAL projectile. The Mod2 could not. The Mod4 is arranged specifically for extended range guided projectiles in excess of 5' in length. It's a programming issue inside the loader (how the rounds are programmed) and in the EP panels (the parts that tell the loader what to program into a GPS guided projectile).

So, with the projectiles, the Oto Volcano rounds undoubtedly speak Oto language, and the USN 5" guns speak FMC, UD, and BAE or Mk86 and Mk160 programming languages.

The 5" Excalibur round is being produced by BAE, and it is probably being readied for the Mk160 (and perhaps the Mk86 as well). I am willing to bet that the rounds will be firable from the Mk45 mod4 only. I would prefer the Excalibur, because it's RAP, ready for Dahlgren and ship-board testing, and it would provide both GPS and Semi-Active Laser seeker capabilities in every projectile.

Honestly, I think the Navy should perform a shoot off with 20 rounds of each type of ammunition at Dahlgren and then another 20 rounds from a newly upgraded CG (Bunker Hill, Antietam, etch) performing NGFS at groups of targets at different ranges at sea and another 20 at a moving target hulk with IR blooms on board. Then, whichever works better...let a contract.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I'd love a shoot off. Are the Ticos getting gun upgrades?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
jasonfreeland wrote:
I'd love a shoot off. Are the Ticos getting gun upgrades?
There is a LOT of conflicting information on the net about this. Some reports say yes, they are getting their Mod1 and Mod2 guns upgraded to the Mod4 and some say, hell no! It's not worth the effort!!!

The real answer is that yes, they are receiving upgrades to the gun and ready service loaders.

Pictures from USS Princeton CG-59:

New ready-service loader:
Attachment:
1512455_10202279436565817_6280350987334714982_n.jpg
1512455_10202279436565817_6280350987334714982_n.jpg [ 124.08 KiB | Viewed 1588 times ]


Modified gun, still shrink wrapped!
Attachment:
10154023_10202279339483390_3517833290936443584_n.jpg
10154023_10202279339483390_3517833290936443584_n.jpg [ 69.56 KiB | Viewed 1588 times ]

With this upgrade aboard the CGs, they do not replace the gun shield. The shield remains unchanged, but the internals are completely different. See the barrel length difference.

I say that an upgraded CG should do this instead of a DDG is because the upgraded CGs put the brand new DDGs to shame. The upgraded CGs can perform both BMD and AAW at the same time (a weakness of the DDGs), it has 122 VLS tubes, and two guns with two magazines.

Sure the VLS Aegis system should have been built on a stronger and more resilient hull, but the Ticos still pack a far greater punch and offer a greater capability over even the newest DDG.

If I were to design a properly "modern" CG, I would lengthen a DDG-51 hull to about 600' and give it a modernized CG-52 Aegis and sensor system with 128 - 160 VLS and 2 Mk71 8"/60caliber guns. :heh:

By the way....AMDR can suck a big one.... :heh: SPY-1(v)D plus the SPQ-9B is an extremely effective system against both ballistic and supersonic sea-skimming threats.

For this project, I will be doing a similar modification to the gun system for economical reasons. There is a large number of Mk45 Mod1 guns from the Spruance-class and first 5 Ticos in inventory. I propose pulling them and upgrading them to the Mod4 and replacing their weather shield with a proper splinter shield of 1 1/2" HSLA-80. That will increase the weight of the mounts quite a bit and slow the traverse rate a little, but it would protect the ships from near miss and other shrapnel. When dealing with a battleship , a ship that is expected to take hits, such armor/splinter protection is necessary.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Thank you David, that was some pretty informative information on the subject. In regards to SPY-1(v)D and SPQA-9B, my one concern is can they use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination? Separate illuminators have always seemed a failure point to me. I love the APAR SMART-L combo our allies are using and the AMDR seemed like a closer match to its capabilities. Am I wrong in this thinking? I also have to wonder if converting the non VLS Ticos for shore bombardment wouldn't be a good use. I know the spares issue has been raised, but I'm talking about stripping AEGIS off completely. I don't know how much that might change the issue as I have no idea what parts got stripped.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
jasonfreeland wrote:
Thank you David, that was some pretty informative information on the subject.
:thumbs_up_1:

jasonfreeland wrote:
In regards to SPY-1(v)D and SPQA-9B, my one concern is can they use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination? Separate illuminators have always seemed a failure point to me.
Well, this is testing the limit of my technical knowledge. I am not an FC or an OS, but I have asked a lot of questions, so I will say what I know. The Aegis WDS utilizes a look-shoot, shoot-look discipline. That's mainly because the SPY-1 panels are so powerful that when the missiles fire and rise out of the launchers, if they are hit with a fully power SPY-1 radar, they will likely fry out or detonate. So, literally the radar turns off as the missiles are being fired. I don't know for sure, but when you're pumping out over a megawatt of radar energy, I don't think there is any way that AMDR will be able to get around that problem.

Concerning directors themselves, the SPY-1 panels can act as illuminators if they need to. The reason why they don't fully do that is because having dedicated directors is SOOOOOOO much more effective. When dealing with saturation attacks, having directors to do that last bit of correction is awesome. Keep in mind that the directors only control the very last bit of the missile's flight. The rest of the flight time is done by data link.

jasonfreeland wrote:
As far as I know I love the APAR SMART-L combo our allies are using and the AMDR seemed like a closer match to its capabilities. Am I wrong in this thinking?
Good question, man. I don't know. I just know how Aegis works. We just need a self-defense test ship with Aegis so we can test Aegis under full fire conditions.

jasonfreeland wrote:
I also have to wonder if converting the non VLS Ticos for shore bombardment wouldn't be a good use. I know the spares issue has been raised, but I'm talking about stripping AEGIS off completely.
Spare parts issues are actually non-issues. Contractors are more than happy to build more replacement parts.

jasonfreeland wrote:
I don't know how much that might change the issue as I have no idea what parts got stripped.
For instance, the Kidd class was "picked clean", but guess what? The US reactivated AND modernized all 4 Kidd-class DDGs for the Taiwanese. This was done for about $200 million a piece. So, honestly, the claim about lack of spare parts aboard modern ships is totally 100% BS.

Concerning making the 2 remaining "first 5" Tico hulls NGFS ships, depending on how many missiles you want to have and if you want to bring the stern up flush with the rest of the hull, you could mount several 8" guns on board. At least you could mount 2 Mk71 guns and 64 VLS. That's what I would do. The Mk71 is a real game changer. The VLS gives you a self defense capability as well as a decent strike capability.

Food for thought!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Hi Dave, all...

Since yo were talking about Mk71 guns...in your suggestion for a 21st century Iowa class you mentioned:

- Modified LHD sensor and electronics suite.
- 96-128 Mk41 VLS tubes (the super structure's missile decks can accommodate up to 160 Mk41 VLS)
- 4 Phalanx CIWS
- 2 RAM
- 6x Mk45 Mod2 upgraded to Mod4 gun mounts.
- 2x Mk160 GFCS
- 9x 16"/50caliber guns
. > 11" and 13" precision guided extended range munitions

Would the Mk71 system fit into the positions of the current 5" guns? 6xMk71 would be quite a puntch... :big_grin: Also, since I read that the Mk45 guns only have fiberglass, non armored, housings...would it be possible to create twin Mk45s and put them in the armored turrets of the current 5" guns creating 12x5" auto loaded guns?

thanks
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
anj4de wrote:
Hi Dave, all...
Hey, man!

anj4de wrote:
Would the Mk71 system fit into the positions of the current 5" guns? 6xMk71 would be quite a puntch... :big_grin:
No, not at all. The Mk71 requires a base ring (20') that is way, way too big to fit in those positions.

anj4de wrote:
Also, since I read that the Mk45 guns only have fiberglass, non armored, housings...would it be possible to create twin Mk45s and put them in the armored turrets of the current 5" guns creating 12x5" auto loaded guns?
My design in this thread has Crane assemble HSLA-80 gun shields instead of the weather shields to provide them a very, very good level of frag protection. Making them duels is something I have "WIFfed" up, and it's probably feasible, but not likely at all. I am even calling for us to not buy new Mk45 Mod4 guns, because it would be cheaper and thus more feasible if we were to pull the Mk45 Mod1 and Mod2s we have in DRMO from the Spruance and first 5 Ticos and upgrade them with the Mod4 kit before installing them on the battleships. Using existing material and as little R&D as possible is the real key and winner to this modernization.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
Hi Dave, any updates on this build, any new pictures to show? I've built one Tamiya New Jersey, I'm thinking about starting a second one as a re-activated and modernized Wisconsin with the Pontos set as a base. Hope all is well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
tko24 wrote:
Hi Dave, any updates on this build, any new pictures to show? I've built one Tamiya New Jersey, I'm thinking about starting a second one as a re-activated and modernized Wisconsin with the Pontos set as a base. Hope all is well.

Good afternoon!

I am in San Diego right now attending 4 weeks of school, so unfortunately, no. However, in my building is the Mk45 Mod2 and Mod 4 schools along with a LOT of other combat systems. In the same building is also the Phalanx CIWS school, and they have 4 mounts, one of each of the current variants of the CIWS. During the day, you can hear them test run the guns. It's cool.

I hope to get out early one day to do some good photography of the mounts, radars, and other weapons systems out here, especially for my Iowa. She sits on my dining room table with LCS-1 Flight II gathering dust. There is also a large number of LCS out here, so I am hoping to get some pictures of them as well.

Since you're in your planning phase, hit me up if you have any questions about how to modernize your Wisconsin. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Hello again

It's been a while...
Well, I am still thinking about an upgraded Iowa/Wisconsin and have now started on a 1/700 version, a trial so to say, before i one day will start on a 1/350 subject. I picked up a Tamiya NJ and a Trumpi Wisconsin and I am in the process of upgrading/kit bashing them into a "Wisconsin"...my 2015 version.
I jave so far built the new decks for the VLS before and aft of the rear funnel. I am not quite sure about the VLS layout though. I have serveral version in mind without knowing if that would be doable at all.

1. 2x32 forward of the funnel infront of the CIWS deck, 2x64 aft of the funnel. CIWS deck as it already is...more or less.
2. 1x64 and 2x32 forward of the funnel, delete the CIWS deck there and split in half, mount where Harpoon launchers were left and right of funnel. Additionally 2x64VLS on the rear deck as above. 2x2 Harpoon launchers left and right of the rangefinder tower for the 16" turret. This option would not leave too much space for the rear mast though.

Here are a couple of pics of where I am so far...

Image
Image
Image
Image

An additinal question...the latest version of the CIWS, 1b I think, in a lot of cases sits in a mount that looks a bit like a living room chair...Dave has this on his 1/350 version as well on th efwd structure. What is this and is it required for the CIWS now? I know the AB class destroers have it as well.

thanks
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1272
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
what is the current outlook of whether or not the Iowa class will be returned to service and modernized again to augment our fleet? I'm sure Dave is in the "know" about this.

no arguments or discussion about whether or not they fit in modern warfare please.

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:30 pm
Posts: 1494
Location: Cape Canaveral Florida
Well, I am a program manager in the navy, specifically the E-2D Training Program and a retired Commander E-2C NFO. My last tour was with 7th Fleet Staff so I have some insight into the OP Plans for the Asia pivot and the budgets for navy procurement. So I will offer the following....

Unfortunately, Never..............

I agree that that is a shame because I did my Midshipman 1st Class Cruise on USS New Jersey. I have had the opportunity to do many things in the navy and standing on the bridge as the officer of the deck guiding her out of Long Beach Harbor ranks up there with any of my experiences.

All 4 Iowa's are Museums. In FY20 SSBNX will crush the navy's budgets for shipbuilding and the new aviation programs will be in sustainment less JSF. The reason the navy is spending $14Billlion+ on the Ford class is to supposedly cut cost in manpower over the Nimitz Class. Battleships are manpower intensive. The Iowa's are not suitable for refit for a number of reasons. Money and the "they do not fit in modern warfare" are two.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
what is the current outlook of whether or not the Iowa class will be returned to service and modernized again to augment our fleet? I'm sure Dave is in the "know" about this.

no arguments or discussion about whether or not they fit in modern warfare please.
The Iowa and Wisconsin are still on the hook to be reactivated in National Emergency, yes. They receive special maintenance to meet that requirement.

Mark McKinnis wrote:
Unfortunately, Never..............
I agree with Mark for sure! If nothing happens, no the Iowas are not coming back. However, if we see one or two CVNs get sunk...by all means, two Iowas would come back very quickly as the long-term reactivation of Kitty Hawk and JFK were to begin the 3-4 year reactivation process.

Mark McKinnis wrote:
OP Plans for the Asia pivot and the budgets for navy procurement. So I will offer the following....

All 4 Iowa's are Museums. In FY20 SSBNX will crush the navy's budgets for shipbuilding and the new aviation programs will be in sustainment less JSF. The reason the navy is spending $14Billlion+ on the Ford class is to supposedly cut cost in manpower over the Nimitz Class. Battleships are manpower intensive. The Iowa's are not suitable for refit for a number of reasons. Money and the "they do not fit in modern warfare" are two.
Technically the Iowas can be reactivated no problem. Otherwise, I agree 100% of course. There is no currently running requirement for the BBs, because people want to do things the hard way. However, not a lot of people are aware of the ability to throw 16" or 11" projectiles out to 100nm, which means you don't have to use Tomahawks...saving hundreds of millions of dollars and perform as a massive force-multiplier to any engagement with in 100nm of the coast. If they were, they would likely entertain the idea of BB reactivation. Iowa reactivation and modernization with approx. an 800 man crew is still about 1/3 the cost of a new DDG-51 and over 1,500 fewer people than a Ford CVN's base crew. If counting the air wing, over 3,500 fewer people.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
Quote:
Battleships are manpower intensive.


And carriers aren't? BS! :mad_1:

Quote:
Money and the "they do not fit in modern warfare" are two.


Let's see, we can spend BILLIONS of dollars for stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters, and BILLIONS of dollars for new AC carriers, but not spend money for BB's?

@anj4de: Where did you get those photoetch VLS hatches? Are they 1/700 or 1/350?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
EJM wrote:
Quote:
Battleships are manpower intensive.


And carriers aren't? BS! :mad_1:
Again, modernized, they would be crewed by approximately 850 personnel.

EJM wrote:
Quote:
Money and the "they do not fit in modern warfare" are two.


Let's see, we can spend BILLIONS of dollars for stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters, and BILLIONS of dollars for new AC carriers, but not spend money for BB's?
As you know, EJM, these are all arguments that have been refuted and neutralized earlier in this several year running thread :thumbs_up_1: As we know, it has already been established that, the Blue Ridge-class LCCs are as manpower intensive, far less useful, and have far less life left in them than the Iowa-class BBs.

EJM wrote:
@anj4de: Where did you get those photoetch VLS hatches? Are they 1/700 or 1/350?
Great question! I think they're 1/700 by LionRoar, perhaps!

BTW, I am working on a short story about how an Iowa or Montana BBSG would operate in a conflict with the PRC.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
anj4de wrote:
1. 2x32 forward of the funnel infront of the CIWS deck, 2x64 aft of the funnel. CIWS deck as it already is...more or less.
2. 1x64 and 2x32 forward of the funnel, delete the CIWS deck there and split in half, mount where Harpoon launchers were left and right of funnel. Additionally 2x64VLS on the rear deck as above. 2x2 Harpoon launchers left and right of the rangefinder tower for the 16" turret. This option would not leave too much space for the rear mast though.
Keep in mind, "what is the mission of the ship," and "how many missiles do we have on hand? Is it worth putting 15% of our entire TLAM inventory on a single BB?" The answer is, "no". While I know how many Mk41 VLS can physically be installed in the Iowa-class superstructure, 128 is about as many as should be considered to be honest.

anj4de wrote:
Here are a couple of pics of where I am so far...

Image
Image
Image
Image
NEAT! However, even though your PE appears to fit, the aft super structure cannot fit a full B-sized module in real-life.

anj4de wrote:
An additinal question...the latest version of the CIWS, 1b I think, in a lot of cases sits in a mount that looks a bit like a living room chair...Dave has this on his 1/350 version as well on th efwd structure. What is this and is it required for the CIWS now? I know the AB class destroers have it as well.

The "chair" is referred to as the "Dog House", and it is a weather enclosure for the base of the unit (where the FC computers are. The Burkes have them, because they are very close to the water line so they get a lot of sea spray, and the houses also reduce the CIWS's radar reflection. Regardless, it's up to you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Stay tuned for a modern Montana-class USS New Hampshire (BB-70) model to go along with LCS-1 FlightII and Iowa. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
navydavesof wrote:
Stay tuned for a modern Montana-class USS New Hampshire (BB-70) model to go along with LCS-1 FlightII and Iowa. :thumbs_up_1:


Looking forward to it. :big_grin:

Just curious, but if an IOWA BB were reactivated and modernised again, I'd like to know how survivable it would be against current Russian and Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles? Can the Iowa BB armor stop a cruise missile or not? How many cruise missiles would it take to sink a BB? How big would the warheads have to be? I'd be curious to read any info. that is available.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
EJM wrote:
navydavesof wrote:
Stay tuned for a modern Montana-class USS New Hampshire (BB-70) model to go along with LCS-1 FlightII and Iowa. :thumbs_up_1:


Looking forward to it. :big_grin:

Just curious, but if an IOWA BB were reactivated and modernised again, I'd like to know how survivable it would be against current Russian and Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles? Can the Iowa BB armor stop a cruise missile or not? How many cruise missiles would it take to sink a BB? How big would the warheads have to be? I'd be curious to read any info. that is available.

Yes, I have done the research and are purvey to the weapons equivalencies between WWII weapons and modern weapons. The biggest, badest, and heaviest Russian ASCM, the SS-N-19 delivers the same penetration capacity as a 14"AP round fired at 10,000 yards. The second-order affects are overpressure from the warhead detonation, which would have more collateral damage than just the AP round. So, inside a soft target it would be more damaging than a 14" AP round that would punch through a "modern" ship whereas the missile would detonate inside the soft ship. However, against BB armor, it would strike, detonate, and the hull would defeat the missile.

Would the BB be damaged? Yes, of course. Would it be badly damaged? No, not at all. The main deck would be damaged, but the heavily armored 2nd deck would not be penetrated, but if there were any sensitive electronics close by, they would be damaged to a degree.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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