UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 25 May 2019, 15:03

Caribbean wrote:Maybe they know more than you about what the standards are and what they need out of their ships.


I’m sure they do, but maybe they are playing politics believing the government will stump up the cash in the end to buy five fully kitted Frigates for fear of political backlash of numbers falling below 19. Given spending pressures in other departments and likely overruns on the future SSBNs and F35Bs it’s not going to happen I’m afraid.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 25 May 2019, 15:50

With a new PM & CoE, I wonder if the crappy NSS, & the Type 31 that it spawned, will survive. My guess is that this board would overwhelmingly vote in favor of their demise. Babcocks & CL shareholders not so much.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 25 May 2019, 16:00

donald_of_tokyo wrote:This follows the T31e RFI.

Hi Donald-san. The RFI actually specifies Lloyds Naval Ship Rules. ANEP 77 is a goal-based NATO-specified set of Naval Ship rules (used by the Australian, Canadian, Danish, French, Italian, Netherlands, Norwegian, Singapore, South African, Swedish and Royal Navy).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:RN version of Arrowhead 140 never had Mk.41, nor phalanx in any image.

Firstly, a point that needs to be made repeatedly. There is no "RN version" of the T31. YET. Only what people assume is possible within the budget. Basically guesswork, without any knowledge of the real costs. I think many forget that the whole ship is intended to use as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible, whereas the T26 and T45 were almost entirely at the "bleeding edge" of technology.
Secondly, the RFI states "Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) + Sensors or Close in Weapon System + FTR PDMS to survive attacks as expected in constabulary operations"
I read that as PDMS, or CIWS plus the ability to add a PDMS later
Since the RN doesn't have a PDMS system in use, I would be very surprised if there was no provision for Phalanx in an RN version.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:There was no Mk.41 requirement in T31e RFI.

There is no specific hardware mentioned at any point in the RFI, but there is a requirement to allow for specific capabilities both at launch and in the future. Mk. 41 meets the future ability to deploy anti-ship missiles and has been shown on both Leander and A140 renderings and videos.
We don't know yet which capabilities the RN are going to want or be able to afford, yet, only what the Government thinks are the range of options that would make it attractive "to the market". That is clearly indicated by the actual title of the RFI, which is "Request For Information (RFI) to support Type 31e (T31e) Market Testing".

Repulse wrote:but maybe they are playing politics believing the government will stump up the cash in the end to buy five fully kitted Frigates

Or maybe they aren't stupid and are fully aware that that isn't going to happen, so they've raided the 1SL's "tea and biscuits" budget for the extra cash. It's also often overlooked that, in recent years, Govt. Departments have been given greater freedom in how they manage cashflow (to avoid the highly wasteful end-of-year "spend it or lose it" mindset that the previous rules engendered). This allows greater flexibility when it comes to re-deploying under-spends both within and across financial years.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1208
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 May 2019, 16:56

donald_of_tokyo wrote:No objection, but there will be no additional money.


I think there will be extra money and HMT have proven over the last 2 years they will put there hands in there pockets when needed

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 25 May 2019, 17:24

Caribbean wrote:How do you know, since no formal spec has yet been produced?
That is part of the problem with the T31 programme. The goalposts have shifted already and I think they will continue to shift.

My concern is that if the T31 unit price exceeds £300m to £350m we have probably started with the wrong base hulls. We should be looking to innovate with a fully British design that has a modern hybrid propulsion setup and the ability to intergrate and deploy the off-board systems of the future.

I don't mind the A140 but I think we could do better. Why not use the A140 as the basis for something really innovative and exportable by making the most of OMT's experience and expertise.

serge750
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 25 May 2019, 18:29

As time goes by I'm more in the build batch 3 rivers (ie extended for hanger) camp, build & crew them as cheap as possible to save costs including manpower in the shorter term, just use them for local duties,med,flag waving,fleet ready escort etc,

After the initial first batch of T26, decrease the build time & maybe order two more, then after the 8 or 10? have been built, go for a more air defence focussed version in the long term, 8 (or more) would be preferable, 18 first rate escorts in the long term,

Atleast December isn't that far away to wait for a decision......

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 May 2019, 20:04

Repulse wrote: likely overruns on the future SSBNs and F35Bs


As you will have seen in 2018, the SSBN overrun was not an issue (not saying anything about embarrassment) as they have a comfortable £10 bn contingency
... to hide that fact, the generous Treasury handout for the A-boat 7 was baked into the same news pieces

The F-35 thing will be managed through the rate of Sqdrn conversion

As @Caribbean says, we don't know what the T-31 RN spec will be so folks inserting money into the prgrm, taking some away for something else (and many cancelling the prgrm altogether)... all wasted froth like for a capucchino that for one or another reason did not get served

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 25 May 2019, 20:05

serge750 wrote:As time goes by I'm more in the build batch 3 rivers (ie extended for hanger) camp, build & crew them as cheap as possible to save costs including manpower in the shorter term, just use them for local duties,med,flag waving,fleet ready escort etc,
I agree with the main thrust of you argument but I feel 105m Leanders would be better than 105m Rivers. We simply don't need any more OPV's or the balance of the fleet is going to be drastically tilted towards RN becoming the world's coastguard.

Leander is built to fight and win (if properly configured) and the Rivers aren't. I think that's an important distinction especially if they are to be forward based east of Suez.

At 117m I think the Leander is a stretch too far but to hit the 24 escort target, Corvette sized Leanders could have a role to play allowing HMG a bit more time to fund a credible 12 or 13 frigate programme.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 25 May 2019, 22:16

Poiuytrewq wrote:Corvette sized Leanders


Then build 3 Al Khareefs with RN systems.

I’m thinking BAE should reopen it’s Portsmouth yard to assemble “Sloop” sections built elsewhere.

The RN does have big choices to make, I’d say it should probably go for optimally for a fleet of 30 major and minor (with increased self defence) warships coupled with a number of more commercial platforms for motherships.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 May 2019, 08:37

Repulse wrote:warships coupled with a number of more commercial platforms for motherships.

The latest (May issue) Navy News has more details on the ten day exercise with Mounts Bay itself as a mine hunter, rather than a mothership for vessels that due to their size can only sustain ops if support (mothership) is "in tow".
- Mounts Bay having been built to commercial stds as opposed to the Albions that have warship stds

An integrated team of 120 Americans took 3 days to settle in with their gear, and then the exercise began:
-helicopters with penetrating lasers and Seafox-like airdroppable munitions for "finishing" the job
-USN EODMU2 (MU for mobile unit) with RIBs and more "Seafox-related" like units that can be launched fro RHIBs to scan the seabed
-and a Textron USV capable of autonomous operation over hundreds of miles that was making one of its first outings to the sea, being operated from a ship.

So as they say in the article "full kit and caboodle" to test whether any ship, American or not, that is available in the area of interest could receive the integrated team
- "any ship" slightly stretching it as helos and use of welldock were major parts of the exercise
- FLSS is unlikely to have the latter, but the Points do have a make-shift "steel beach"

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 May 2019, 09:26

Caribbean wrote: The RFI actually specifies Lloyds Naval Ship Rules. ANEP 77 is a goal-based NATO-specified set of Naval Ship rules (used by the Australian, Canadian, Danish, French, Italian, Netherlands, Norwegian, Singapore, South African, Swedish and Royal Navy).
Thanks.
There is no "RN version" of the T31.
I do not think so. Both Leander and Arrowhead teams says "RN version do not include ....", so they have "RN version" in their mind. But, their specification is not clear for us, I agree. That's why I am referring to T31e RFI and its 1-page PDF document, in which RN version is clearly stated as "requirement" to meet the 1.25B GBP cost. It is not just guess work.
I think many forget that the whole ship is intended to use as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible,
I think many knows it. This is why we are talking about 57 mm Mk110 gun or 76 mm OTO Breda guns. This is why Arrowhead140 is using TACTICOS, not using Artisan 3D radar, and even proposing their 35mm close-in-defense guns.
Secondly, the RFI states "Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) + Sensors or Close in Weapon System + FTR PDMS to survive attacks as expected in constabulary operations".
I read that as PDMS, or CIWS plus the ability to add a PDMS later
Since the RN doesn't have a PDMS system in use, I would be very surprised if there was no provision for Phalanx in an RN version.
I read the same. But, I think PDMS means 12 or 24 CAMM. I see no trouble here.
That is clearly indicated by the actual title of the RFI, which is "Request For Information (RFI) to support Type 31e (T31e) Market Testing".
Yes, that is why we see Mk.41 and other assets for "export version", which is not "required" in RFI. Of course, export version is NOT restricted to 1.25B GBP cost, so anything can be done.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 26 May 2019, 09:54

ArmChairCivvy, thanks for the info. It feels that the RN is right not to rush into a MHC replacement at this stage. What seems to be clear that the thought of just lowering a few MCM UUVs from a stern crane is too simplistic and an integrated UUV, surface and air package is likely to be the future. This means that any operation outside of UK/friendly land support would require a larger ship.

Fantasy time but (outside of the CVFs/possible future LHD/small patrol craft) could a future RN surface mix follow something like:
- 15 first rate escorts (T45 and T26)
- 15 multi role Sloops (lower end T31 upper end OPV)
- 6 multi role LSDs (with aviation facilities)
- 6 SD Victoria type ships for UK / BOT waters
- 3 Survey ships (Echo and Scott replacements)
- 1 Ice Patrol ship
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 May 2019, 10:48

Repulse wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Corvette sized Leanders

Then build 3 Al Khareefs with RN systems.
I think the 99m Khareef is a bit tight for space and the range and endurance figures are on the low side.
image.jpeg
Those 6m on a 105m Leander might make all the difference.
image.png

Realistically we are comparing apples with apples. They are basically the same vessels with Leander perhaps benefiting from lessons learned from Khareefs performance over the last decade.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1208
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 26 May 2019, 11:04

Repulse wrote:Fantasy time but (outside of the CVFs/possible future LHD/small patrol craft) could a future RN surface mix follow something like:
- 15 first rate escorts (T45 and T26)
- 15 multi role Sloops (lower end T31 upper end OPV)
- 6 multi role LSDs (with aviation facilities)
- 6 SD Victoria type ships for UK / BOT waters
- 3 Survey ships (Echo and Scott replacements)
- 1 Ice Patrol ship


If I was looking to move forward for balanced fleet I would look for a mix like so

RN
- 2 Carriers
- 1 210 m Enforcer LHD
- 8 Type 45 Replacements
- 10 Type 26
- 10 Venari 100 Multi mission sloops
- 8 90 m PSV type MHC
-1 Ice patrol ship

RFA
- 5 Tide tankers
- 4 200 m Enforcer LPDs
- 3 SSS
- 4 Point class

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 May 2019, 12:07

Repulse wrote: means that any operation outside of UK/friendly land support would require a larger ship.

I agree with your conclusion
- and also that making haste when so much in that specialised field is changing/ advancing is not a good idea

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 26 May 2019, 12:15

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Both Leander and Arrowhead teams says "RN version do not include ...."

I've not heard either of those teams actually use that phrase. The Leander presentation on their website clearly shows both an 8-cell VLS that appears to be a Mk. 41, as well as Phalanx on the top of the hangar. The current model for Arrowhead has an option for CAMM silos only, true, but as we know, the base design is Mk. 41 capable, and in light of the change in budget rules, there may well be room implement the earlier design proposal that included a Mk 41 in addition to the CAMM silos. The Arrowhead also has three in-line gun mount positions, in addition to the secondary gun positions. In RN service, I would see one or two of those as being Phalanx-equipped.

Since the Phalanx themselves come out of an existing pool of weapons systems, the gun positions will be wired and piped for mounting of a turret and as it has already been stated that the T31 will be forward-deployed to the Gulf, I see this, frankly, as a no-brainer, sorry.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 May 2019, 01:08

On the "Broad-beamed-Leander", discussed in T31 News thread.

The Leander in 1960-70 did "broad beaming" among their build, from 12.5 m wide to 13.1m wide (5% wider). Thus, broadening 14.6 m wide Khareef design to 15.3 m (+5%) wide "Broad-beamed-Leander" would be relatively easy, I guess. If make it broader, I'm afraid Leander will lose one of its two figure-of-merits (FoM) = already Khareef exists which make detailed design easy and program risk smaller.

"Broad-beamed-Leander" will need more power to achieve the same speed. The Khareef is using two MTU 20V 8000 M91, rated at 9.1MW each. "2 Diesel drive with electric motor support in slow-end" is one of the most cost effective solutions MTU are proposing. So, it is another FoM of the BAE design. Replacing the main diesel to "M91L", rated with 10% more power 10MW, can slightly relax the situation. But, I'm not sure 10% more power is enough for 5% more beam.

On the other hand, Khareef is rated "26 knots top speed (MTU doc)", with 99m length. If Leander is 117m long, the top speed will increase because of L/V ratio improvement (ref. T42 Batch 3 vs Batch 1 and 2). Yet, the original Leander proposal only states "25+ knots". May be the environment differs (sea state, full-load or mid, continuous or dash, etc..).

Sorry for many guess work, but I think 5% wider with 10% more power is not that bad.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 May 2019, 01:50

Caribbean wrote:I've not heard either of those teams actually use that phrase. The Leander presentation on their website clearly shows both an 8-cell VLS that appears to be a Mk. 41, as well as Phalanx on the top of the hangar.
I'm referring to Arrowhead movie's "more maritime security aimed" version (with 32 CAMM+boat bays) compared to "any customer requirements" (with Mk.41 etc), which I understand as, RN version and export version, respectively. Also, Leander CGs has ship torpedo defense system, SSMs, as well as Mk.41 VLS. ALL of them are NOT required in T31e RFI, but stated as "Adaptable" or "FTR".

- SAM: Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) + Sensors or Close in Weapon System + FTR PDMS to survive attacks as expected in constabulary operations.
- ASM: Not fitted - see Adaptability
- FTR hull mounted sonar
- FTR Surface Ship Torpedo Defence
...
Evolution paths identified for:
- Consort Defence
- Entry-level ASW
...
- ASuW (SSM)
...


I understand "core" is RN version (including FTR), and "adaptable" is for export, and/or in RN future if there turned out to be more money. (I personally think, FTR is,"RN will do it out of the 1.25B GBP, but please secure a space", and adoptable is "as NSS is for export, these equipments will be needed, as MOD think", also out of the 1.25B GBP. )


On the Phalanx CIWS, I have no objection to you. My point is, Arrowhead team not mentioning it is, I guess, it is up to RN = NOT included in their proposal which is restricted for 1.25B GBP. "Please do it outside our control", may be?

I'm afraid it is just "how we read it", rather than how it is written. So, let's see how it comes out at last?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 May 2019, 10:56

donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the "Broad-beamed-Leander", discussed in T31 News thread.
In my opinion a broad beamed Leander (16m+) could be just what RN needs to cost effectively bulk up the Frigate numbers. British designed and built it could have been a real winner both for RN and export but the £250m fixed unit cost of the T31 programme has ensured it is unachievable.

It's appears BAE have produced a viable £250m option for the T31 competition with the 14.6mX117m Leander. Is Arrowhead 140 really a viable £250m option or are the goalposts just going to be moved to accommodate it?

If the T31 budget had of been set at a more realistic £1.75bn from the outset BAE might have proposed something a bit more ambitious such as a 16.5mX135m modified Leander with a modern hybrid propulsion setup. A vessel such as this would have been perfect for foward basing EoS and possibly also do well on the export market.

I think it's time to hit the reset button on the T31 programme and give RN what it really needs.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 27 May 2019, 18:40

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

On the Phalanx CIWS, I have no objection to you. My point is, Arrowhead team not mentioning it is, I guess, it is up to RN = NOT included in their proposal which is restricted for 1.25B GBP. "Please do it outside our control", may be?

I'm afraid it is just "how we read it", rather than how it is written. So, let's see how it comes out at last?


Whilst Team 31 don't mention Phalanx it is clearly visible on the model in the video, two systems mounted port and starboard abaft the hanger at 3.36 so the option is clearly there . Perhaps they are influenced by the fact that as currently configured the Type 23 's aren't fitted with a CIWS the perceived wisdom being that 32 CAMM plus the DS30M's are sufficient for the task. Clearly cost comes into play, but personally I would prefer to hedge my bets.

Just got off Joint Warrior and the first time I had the chance to get a look at a Phalanx consul up close and have a play. Fantastic bit of kit, not just the weapon which is good in itself but the surveillance capability and situational awareness that it gives you is awesome. On the Block 1B the search radar gives you full cover out to the horizon and it is a simple job to zoom in and interrogate anything suspect using TI and EOS which are integral to the mount. A real game changer, perhaps not so much for a frigate which has loads of other sensors but certainly for an RFA.

Interestingly I haven't seen any models or CGI of Leander that don't include Phalanx and whilst we wouldn't dream of sending an RFA to the Gulf without being fitted , why would we forward base a Type 31 as appears to be the intent if not similarly armed and equipped - particularly if only armed with mushroom tubs and a max 12 CAMM ?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 27 May 2019, 23:13

Don't say too much!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 May 2019, 15:56

MAD-FIRE 57 mm rounds to counter "multiple incoming ASM". Interesting asset, making 57mm gun a CIWS.


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 May 2019, 16:00

Caribbean wrote:Don't say too much!
Uhhmmm. May be. But, also don't hope too much!

We learned from T45 and T26; all are "said" to be with fancy kits, but in reality it came as really "fulfilling minimum requirement" type of design. I do not think, thinking T31e will follow the same way is wrong. (Especially with the very tight 1.25B GBP budget, the first bid failure, and recent official announcement that "now GFE shifted from inside 1.25B, to outside" so that the budget was too tight.

I think it is just a common sense, not "saying too much". But, time will tell.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1208
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 28 May 2019, 18:10

donald_of_tokyo wrote:MAD-FIRE 57 mm rounds to counter "multiple incoming ASM". Interesting asset, making 57mm gun a CIWS.



The big thing for me was the 360 C&C room which can do all tasks

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 May 2019, 02:03

Poiuytrewq wrote: are the goalposts just going to be moved to accommodate it?

missions- threats -force mix (what kind of ships, fitted with what... and how many of them, within the budget and crewing constraints); that's all that matters
- but I guess you said so, too, in your concluding sentence?
Pongoglo wrote: as currently configured the Type 23 's aren't fitted with a CIWS the perceived wisdom being that 32 CAMM plus the DS30M's are sufficient for the task. Clearly cost comes into play, but personally I would prefer to hedge my bets.

Anti-air and anti-boat
... how could is CAMM in shooting down an incoming missile?
Pongoglo wrote:A real game changer, perhaps not so much for a frigate which has loads of other sensors but certainly for an RFA.

An RFA would not only be short of sensors, but Phalanx would be the only weapon... and lacking in range.
- a 57 (we know who makes them) has always been a CIWS, but it is also dual use, so a bit of overkill for an RFA
- whereas watch the French: I bet they will pick 40 mm from the same 'stable'. And we should have moved the Goalkeepers to our RFA vessels


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests