Thanks Thanks:  639
Likes Likes:  1,353
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 35 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 2221
  1. #851
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    I Don't like the big hole in the middle. she is too LPD for our overall needs. I think we are getting confused and are beginning to PUSH the PULL doors. The HOLE accounts for the very high freeboard. I think the Nordkapp, Absalon, type configuration rather than ships with large docks are more adaptable to our needs.

  2. Thanks Turkey, pym thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmití, ias liked this post
  3. #852
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with the far more experienced ancientmariner. We are looking at a requirement for a Truck with a crew cab and are coming back with a 44 seater bus towing a trailer.
    From the outset, the concept has been about using the empty space in a larger patrol vessel for other purposes. Those other purposes being carrying vehicles or equipment overseas. Not an LHD or LPD. The ship will spend the majority of its life on the normal Fishery Protection duties that the other ships do, perhaps further away than the current fleet.
    The Canterbury of NZ comes closest to what is required. However while we want an EEZ patrol vessel that can carry vehicles and equipment overseas, they wanted a vessel to carry troops and equipment overseas that could also patrol its EEZ.
    Canterbury, failed concept that it is, is the opposite of what we needed. Absalon has always been closer to the requirement, from the outset, and many years ago the NS spent lots of time sending people to Denmark to see exactly how the Absalon concept worked. Canada had proposed replacing the Iroquois class with modified Absalon type ships.
    But given how the MRV/EPV, internationally as a concept seems to have lost favour, would it not be better to just attach ourselves to some other European navy currently building Small frigate sized ships and include an order for 2 in their order? Like the Italian FREMM type currently being built? Better yet, lease them! (They cost 470m each) while coming up with a Irish specific layout that would be built later.
    At this stage the priority is Hulls in the water.

  4. Thanks Turkey, pym thanked for this post
    Likes Boreas liked this post
  5. #853
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit View Post
    I agree with the far more experienced ancientmariner. We are looking at a requirement for a Truck with a crew cab and are coming back with a 44 seater bus towing a trailer.
    From the outset, the concept has been about using the empty space in a larger patrol vessel for other purposes. Those other purposes being carrying vehicles or equipment overseas. Not an LHD or LPD. The ship will spend the majority of its life on the normal Fishery Protection duties that the other ships do, perhaps further away than the current fleet.
    The Canterbury of NZ comes closest to what is required. However while we want an EEZ patrol vessel that can carry vehicles and equipment overseas, they wanted a vessel to carry troops and equipment overseas that could also patrol its EEZ.
    Canterbury, failed concept that it is, is the opposite of what we needed. Absalon has always been closer to the requirement, from the outset, and many years ago the NS spent lots of time sending people to Denmark to see exactly how the Absalon concept worked. Canada had proposed replacing the Iroquois class with modified Absalon type ships.
    But given how the MRV/EPV, internationally as a concept seems to have lost favour, would it not be better to just attach ourselves to some other European navy currently building Small frigate sized ships and include an order for 2 in their order? Like the Italian FREMM type currently being built? Better yet, lease them! (They cost 470m each) while coming up with a Irish specific layout that would be built later.
    At this stage the priority is Hulls in the water.
    Hold on, why would we go for a FREMM? I mean they are pretty much the high end of Eurofrigates, I mean the 470 million is for the Moroccan one, with the French/Italian ones coming in north of 500 million and doesn't buy us any of that type of lift capability.
    If we wanted something upsized from current OPV's but nothing major just go for Holland class OPVs.

  6. Likes Galloglass, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  7. #854
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like your thinking. However my point on the FREMM is the amount (a) in service at present (b) entering service shortly, and the option, as Egypt did, to lease a recently completed one, while theirs was under construction, before taking delivery of their own specific ship, with fully familiar crew already trained.

  8. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  9. #855
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit View Post
    I like your thinking. However my point on the FREMM is the amount (a) in service at present (b) entering service shortly, and the option, as Egypt did, to lease a recently completed one, while theirs was under construction, before taking delivery of their own specific ship, with fully familiar crew already trained.
    But what the hell would we use it for? I mean in this thread we've talked about stripping equipment from an Absalon to cut costs. A FREMM is a full up Frigate, of much more combat potential than even an Absalon, if a micro LHD/LPD is too much of a ship for what duties we'll give her, a FREMM is even more so more ship than what we need (and drops the capability to do any significant sea lift) and requires huge supports that we aren't going to support (from crew size to combat systems). If we are dropping Sea Lift, then just go for a three set of Hollands and use them further out with a rated helicopter.

  10. Likes DeV, Spark23 liked this post
  11. #856
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    From the outset, sealift was only ever a secondary function. The primary role was always going to be EEZ patrol.
    Why would we not support combat systems? In the mid 80s we went from crew served main weapons to completely self contained and remotely operated systems, aimed by EOS.
    In the 1950s, the NS were equipped with Anti Submarine warships that would have been on a par with a USN Perry class or RN Type 23 today.
    We shouldn't rule out a capability just because we never had it before.

  12. #857
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit View Post
    From the outset, sealift was only ever a secondary function. The primary role was always going to be EEZ patrol.
    Why would we not support combat systems? In the mid 80s we went from crew served main weapons to completely self contained and remotely operated systems, aimed by EOS.
    In the 1950s, the NS were equipped with Anti Submarine warships that would have been on a par with a USN Perry class or RN Type 23 today.
    We shouldn't rule out a capability just because we never had it before.
    Too much money wasted on systems we would never us in a Frigate and modern sub hunting requires dedicated helos.

    If we do decide to ho down the antisubmarine type frigate we need to look at helicopters and how we would operate them.

    What ever we do eventually settle on I think the ability to integrate with foreign units and to be deployed out of home waters should be a primary consideration and FP should become a secondary role.The NS role would change big time and would have to move out from under the armies control.
    Time for another break I think......

  13. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  14. #858
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit View Post
    From the outset, sealift was only ever a secondary function. The primary role was always going to be EEZ patrol.
    Why would we not support combat systems? In the mid 80s we went from crew served main weapons to completely self contained and remotely operated systems, aimed by EOS.
    In the 1950s, the NS were equipped with Anti Submarine warships that would have been on a par with a USN Perry class or RN Type 23 today.
    We shouldn't rule out a capability just because we never had it before.
    So you think we need to go from a basic 76mm to Aster 15 VLS systems? How much investment would the Base need for maintenance/training/storage of the missiles? How much support work would have to be done abroad (radar sets, VLS system) or would we generate all that for one ship as well? Do we strip out the Anti-ship missile systems, or the Torpedo tubes or build that up as well? Again if a bare bones Absalon is "too pricey" an all up FREMM is beyond even looking at.

    As to the Corvettes, no disrespect to them or their crews, but I hardly think 3 WW2 survivors (of an emergency plan no less) could be considered peer level anti submarine ships compared to other 1950's designs, I mean look at how quickly the RN and others paid off the Flowers and replaced them with more capable Frigates (River class onwards) In terms of the 50's onwards for the Royal Navy you had the Type 12's and 14's or the Leander's from '59 onwards. To me if you were to try to compare a Flower to a modern class you'd have something like the light Frigates, certainly nothing like the 23's or the Perry's.
    Last edited by Sparky42; 7th February 2016 at 19:59.

  15. #859
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Too much money wasted on systems we would never us in a Frigate and modern sub hunting requires dedicated helos.

    If we do decide to ho down the antisubmarine type frigate we need to look at helicopters and how we would operate them.

    What ever we do eventually settle on I think the ability to integrate with foreign units and to be deployed out of home waters should be a primary consideration and FP should become a secondary role.The NS role would change big time and would have to move out from under the armies control.
    If we were to give wait to international operations and integration with foreign forces, honestly something like a micro LPD/LHD would make more sense to me honestly. I mean if you look at the Nordic Battlegroup it would have an organic sea lift that none of the others provide. Amphibs have proven themselves multi functional from rescue operations in the med to pirate patrols off Africa to disaster relief operations globally.

    As we all agree there's no design out there that checks all the boxes, and we still have the whole issue of what exactly we want (as shown just in this thread), but a full up top of the line Frigate isn't it, IMO.

  16. Likes Spark23, hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #860
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Missiles would probably be stored where all our other missiles are stored when not in use. It isn't a huge issue.
    To me it is not that Absalon is too pricey, it is just too big. Both ships are huge.

    Seen alongside the WW2 Cruiser HMS Belfast for scale.

    Alongside Columbian OPV, which are similar in size to our OPVs.


    The NS has proved, time and again that they are up to whatever challenge is put to them. As HPT well knows, Naval Air Ops did not fail because of the NS. Naval aviation, in whatever form must be part of the future NS and it must be under complete control of the NS.

  18. Likes Boreas, hptmurphy liked this post
  19. #861
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    You are aware that the FREMM's are just as big right? So what you think we should just stick with OPV's like the Holland? If we go any larger we aren't going to get something that's a modern design in service with other nations unless we jump to something around the 6000 ton as far as I can see. What's in the 4000 ton bracket that could meet are requirements? Maybe the planned light units that the Italians/French/RN have penciled in, but they are still on the drawing board from memory and won't be built in the next 5 years, the Italian PPA's for example http://www.occar.int/327

  20. #862
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    As you say we are not going to get a 6000T OPV. A 6000T Frigate would make more economic sense. (Bang for Buck etc) Not that either are suitable. The Holland are quite a package, and fit most of our dimension requirements, but not all.

    But the real question is, should we wait around for someone to design something that suits our requirements to the letter, or should we buy new naval capability, off the shelf, from Blohm & Voss, or Fincantieri?

  21. #863
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,854
    Post Thanks / Like
    given the profusion of 'proper' amphibious landing ships in Europe and 'proper' fighty frigates in Europe , i see no point whatsoever in buying something that pretends to be one or the other but doesn't do the job as well.

    if proper fighty escorts are required then someone will send a Horizon or a Type 23/26 - unless its proposed that an NS vessel built along the OPV+/Corvette/Light Frigate line is going to match those in combat power then they will add nothing to the group and will infact just get in the way. if something much more MRV is being touted, then unless it can unload a Mech Inf Coy and all its logs at a beach/completely broken port with no facilities, then the contributing countries will just say no thanks and use an Albion class LPD type-thing.

    a vessel that can unload a Mech Inf Coy at a location with no port facilities looks, and is, very different to vessel that can do 30kts+ while fighting surface, sub-surface and air threats in monsterous sea states. trying to get one vessel to do both tasks is begging for a vessel that will be crap at both.

    quite simply, i do not see any Irish government deciding to either buy, and certainly not use, a proper fighty ship, or a proper amphibious ship.

    imv, talk of either is a red herring - a far better approach would be to extend the current competancies with an OPV+: a constabulary ship, larger than the current OPV's for both sea-keeping and endurance, a weapons fit suited to the task with a self-defence, anti-missile/anti-drone capability, accomodation space for non-combatant evacuations, fast, armed daughter craft and a GBFO flight deck both for operating as part of a multi-national group and for its own UAV's.

  22. Thanks na grohmití, pym, Turkey thanked for this post
  23. #864
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    On sub-hunting:
    - if you are having to go into that business (as in you are looking at serious deterrent your going to need 1 than 1 vessel and have helos. Your also going to need a means to engage them. Realistically you need a frigate / a ASW heli platform (ie probably at least min 3 operational helos on it.

    Deployment outside of "home" waters (much of the North Atlantic), in a lot of cases means that your going have have to use the triple lock and probably fund it ourselves. Your also going to have to rotate crews to it (and support it) as there will be only 1 vessel.

    Like it or not, FP and ops in "home waters" are what the NS will send 90% of their time doing. A new MRV may reduce that but it will still be required.

    Bear in mind that the likes of a LPD is designed to be travelling loaded, not empty as an large OPV (look at HNZS Canturbury).

    Absalon and the Holland classes actually aren't far off the EPV dims (the Holland class are smaller and Absalon is within them (for length and beam)).

  24. #865
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    An Irish contingent doesn't necessarily have to brought to a SPOD in the AO. It would be a lot more flexible if it could but.... land the kit at a nearby friendly country with a operable port and drive into the AO (or a suitable vessel that landed the first wave could pick them up from there). It wouldn't be ideal but it is doable. But if it was a land locked AO it would land outside the AO anyway.

    Put a load of MOWAGs and LTAVs on deck and you could well have issues with sea water.

    Of course if you want the stores carrying capability of say the Holland class, then your talking about filling the hanger with a couple of vehicles (max) and covering the flight deck with TEUs. And you still need port facilities.

  25. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  26. #866
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,997
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    imv, talk of either is a red herring - a far better approach would be to extend the current competancies with an OPV+: a constabulary ship, larger than the current OPV's for both sea-keeping and endurance, a weapons fit suited to the task with a self-defence, anti-missile/anti-drone capability, accomodation space for non-combatant evacuations, fast, armed daughter craft and a GBFO flight deck both for operating as part of a multi-national group and for its own UAV's.
    That leaves us looking squarely at Sparky's Holland Class. Although probably chopping the integrated mast off to save money. They run for 134 Million with that very bling mast.

    In my own head, I thought a one off flagship MRV would be acceptable. It would offer a massive capability leap for the NS & DF as a whole.

    But if we're deciding on an OPV+, I'd like to think we could get two of the things - but sure as hell not at that price.
    Last edited by pym; 8th February 2016 at 01:25.

  27. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42, Turkey liked this post
  28. #867
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Holland class is slower and doesn't have the legs of the P60 class

  29. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  30. #868
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    EPV Options

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    given the profusion of 'proper' amphibious landing ships in Europe and 'proper' fighty frigates in Europe , i see no point whatsoever in buying something that pretends to be one or the other but doesn't do the job as well.

    if proper fighty escorts are required then someone will send a Horizon or a Type 23/26 - unless its proposed that an NS vessel built along the OPV+/Corvette/Light Frigate line is going to match those in combat power then they will add nothing to the group and will infact just get in the way. if something much more MRV is being touted, then unless it can unload a Mech Inf Coy and all its logs at a beach/completely broken port with no facilities, then the contributing countries will just say no thanks and use an Albion class LPD type-thing.

    a vessel that can unload a Mech Inf Coy at a location with no port facilities looks, and is, very different to vessel that can do 30kts+ while fighting surface, sub-surface and air threats in monsterous sea states. trying to get one vessel to do both tasks is begging for a vessel that will be crap at both.

    quite simply, i do not see any Irish government deciding to either buy, and certainly not use, a proper fighty ship, or a proper amphibious ship.

    imv, talk of either is a red herring - a far better approach would be to extend the current competancies with an OPV+: a constabulary ship, larger than the current OPV's for both sea-keeping and endurance, a weapons fit suited to the task with a self-defence, anti-missile/anti-drone capability, accomodation space for non-combatant evacuations, fast, armed daughter craft and a GBFO flight deck both for operating as part of a multi-national group and for its own UAV's.
    Our choices are a request for proposals from building yards in which we outline our General requirements as an amendable list but including basic requirements such as size, speed, endurance, replenishment facilities, and ballast system to substitute for absent loads (Light Ship) OR buy nearly new from a class already in production but also pay attention to deadweight/unloaded problems. I dont like the term Constabulary ship as it may curtail level of armament and make it useless to act in Naval Groups or actions.Ropebag's last proposal has some merit.

  31. Thanks Turkey, pym, DeV, Sarsfield thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey, DeV liked this post
  32. #869
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    For a New Zealand perspective:

    http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-p.../contents.html
    Have a look between requirements and fleet composition

    http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/arch...land-force.pdf
    How they ended up with the MRV

    The issues with their MRV:
    http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-p...anterbury.html
    http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-p...tionality.html

  33. #870
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    On sub-hunting:
    - if you are having to go into that business (as in you are looking at serious deterrent your going to need 1 than 1 vessel and have helos. Your also going to need a means to engage them. Realistically you need a frigate / a ASW heli platform (ie probably at least min 3 operational helos on it.

    Deployment outside of "home" waters (much of the North Atlantic), in a lot of cases means that your going have have to use the triple lock and probably fund it ourselves. Your also going to have to rotate crews to it (and support it) as there will be only 1 vessel.

    Like it or not, FP and ops in "home waters" are what the NS will send 90% of their time doing. A new MRV may reduce that but it will still be required.

    Bear in mind that the likes of a LPD is designed to be travelling loaded, not empty as an large OPV (look at HNZS Canturbury).

    Absalon and the Holland classes actually aren't far off the EPV dims (the Holland class are smaller and Absalon is within them (for length and beam)).
    Like it or not, FP and ops in "home waters" are what the NS will send 90% of their time doing. A new MRV may reduce that but it will still be required.
    Don't need a frigate to do that, huge overkill.

    Deployment outside of "home" waters (much of the North Atlantic), in a lot of cases means that your going have have to use the triple lock and probably fund it ourselves. Your also going to have to rotate crews to it (and support it) as there will be only 1 vessel.
    It would indeed be a game changer ,but without making a huge leap of faith the NS will be doing the same job in 20 years time, with the same ships.

    So..OPVs it is.....We don't need to compete with other European navies to justify the existence of the NS, still have plenty of work to do at home, with a couple more OPVs
    Time for another break I think......

  34. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey, Galloglass liked this post
  35. #871
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure what you mean when you say huge overkill (do you agree or disagree)

    It would be a sea change (pun intended) in Irish foreign policy
    Last edited by DeV; 8th February 2016 at 22:07.

  36. #872
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    RFT published for RoRo or similar merchant vessel to bring Irish elements of EUBG to Germany
    Leaving from Dublin Port for a change. East must be lead this time.
    2x Scania DROPS
    10x MOWAG APC
    16x Pajero
    2x Scania 6x6
    10x LTAV
    1x 8x8 Recovery
    2x Trailer DROPS
    6x Trailer for Pajero
    1x 20 foot Fuel Pod
    1x DURO 4x4
    2x Transit Mini Bus
    1x Merlo Telehandler.

    in addition to 20x TEU.

    Typical Load for overseas excursion by the looks of it.
    Total Weight in the region of 700Tonnes between freight and vehicles. Lane Metres required in the region of 315m plus 20 TEU spots.

    You won't fit that in an OPV. You would however easily fit it in a vessel such as HMNZS Canterbury, with all her flaws. (403LM & 33 TEU).

  37. Likes morpheus, ias liked this post
  38. #873
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit View Post
    Leaving from Dublin Port for a change. East must be lead this time.
    2x Scania DROPS
    10x MOWAG APC
    16x Pajero
    2x Scania 6x6
    10x LTAV
    1x 8x8 Recovery
    2x Trailer DROPS
    6x Trailer for Pajero
    1x 20 foot Fuel Pod
    1x DURO 4x4
    2x Transit Mini Bus
    1x Merlo Telehandler.

    in addition to 20x TEU.

    Typical Load for overseas excursion by the looks of it.
    Total Weight in the region of 700Tonnes between freight and vehicles. Lane Metres required in the region of 315m plus 20 TEU spots.

    You won't fit that in an OPV. You would however easily fit it in a vessel such as HMNZS Canterbury, with all her flaws. (403LM & 33 TEU).
    Any idea if Absalon or Damen XO could handle that load?

  39. #874
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,562
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just an idle thought here, would there be any advantage in having a fleet replenishment vessel converted from a redundent RO-RO, which could carry out a transport role, ok, it would be a job to put a pop gun on the foredeck, but as I say just an idle thought?
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  40. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  41. #875
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Any idea if Absalon or Damen XO could handle that load?"

    I actually was thinking the same thing myself and had a look at the Absalon wiki page. The answer is it's not immediately clear. For example lane metres are not provided although it does say it can embark an infantry company and support vehicles. I found more detailed info on Naval technlogy.com

    Which states "A roll-on roll-off ramp installed at the stern of the ship accesses the flex deck (flexible deck). The flex deck, providing 915m, and 250m of parking lanes, is about 90m long. The reinforced deck can embark vehicles up to 62t such as the Leopard II main battle tank."

    It also goes on to say re accomodation "The Absalon class has a crew of 100. Permanent accommodation is also included for up to 70 additional personnel such as combined or joint task force headquarters staff. Container accommodation for an additional 130 forces personnel can be installed on the flex deck. The ship has galley and personnel facilities for up to 300 embarked passengers and crew."

    so clear as mud as far as I can see! :-)

    Bottom line is probably not all of the vehicles outlined above but probably quite close. Especially it it's just the vehicles as I get the impression that the above mentioned container units for accomodating troops get stored on the Ro-Ro deck (but I could be wrong)

    I'll leave someone with proper naval experience and or knowledge provide a more comprehensive rpely.

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/

    interesting page, an Absalon would be great for the NS but probably a little overkill in terms of it's warfighting capability.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 14:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 23:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 01:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •