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: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Aug 2019, 10:04

abc123 wrote:Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?


For short legged MCMs maybe not, but when replaced then I think Bahrain will be scaled back.
"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

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 29 Aug 2019, 10:41

Repulse wrote:jedibeeftrix, dangerous stuff posting fantasy fleets :silent:

Overall though agree with the balance of your fleet, assuming that in addition we would still have the B2 Rivers (which ultimately I’d say should come onto the same platform, but maybe not all the kit as the MHPC).

I do think the Leander is a closer match to the stated budget and could be a bigger export winner. Having said that if the budget is increased by about ballpark £200mn (to cover additional build and support costs) then I can accept the Arrowhead 140 and my view of reduced export chances, assuming the class is 12+ Vessels.



yes, keeping the batch 2 rivers.

if you assume a [real] for 5x a140 at £2.2b, would you still spend it on a140, or would you instead buy one extra T26 and spend the remaining on a cheap and cheerful leander based MHCp platform?

@abc - not too fussed whether bahrain or not, could be oman or s'pore. better to just read it as: based east of Med.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Aug 2019, 11:17

jedibeeftrix wrote:so to engage in fantasy fleets:
6x T45
9x T26
12x Leander MHCP


I not sure you could make Leander into a truly good MHPC ship there is a reason why the M & H come before the P. The River class could be made into a good multi-mission sloop as push around on this and other forums but if we are to truly move on then we need a clean sheet design like Venari. As I say I feel Type 31 will end up costing about 310 million pounds and for that we will end up getting a good global patrol ships for the next 25 years moving on past this for me we need to focus more on a balanced escort / multi-mission fleet. Now for me the escort road map ( putting T-31 to one side ) is straight forward in that we should be looking to build one T-26 and then move on and build 8 or more T-45 replacement based on a longer T-26 hull form however what I think we need for the MHPC is 10 to 12 ships like so

100 to 110 meters long by 16 meters beam
crew of 60 plus bunks for 60 more
speed 18 to 20 knots
a good 3D radar
good CMS
Helicopter Hangar and fight deck
a good sized garage and working deck for off board systems
armament of 1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm with LMM mounts , FFBNW phalanx / SeaRam

Off board systems
Unmanned MCM
Unmanned ASW ( for littoral )
Hydrographic
UAV's

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Aug 2019, 11:39

jedibeeftrix wrote:if you assume a [real] for 5x a140 at £2.2b, would you still spend it on a140, or would you instead buy one extra T26 and spend the remaining on a cheap and cheerful leander based MHCp platform?


Would personally go for more T26s and a cheap (River based) Leander MHPC design, but of additional funds are actually coming then an Arrowhead design is ok as a second choice - if they aren’t then this will be the next in a series of bad decisions that finally reduces the RN to a regional fleet status.
"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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Aug 2019, 11:42

Tempest414 wrote:we should be looking to build one T-26 and then move on and build 8 or more T-45 replacement based on a longer T-26 hull form


9 “T26s”, to replace the 8 T23 ASW and 6 T45s?
"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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2274
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 29 Aug 2019, 11:48

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?


For short legged MCMs maybe not, but when replaced then I think Bahrain will be scaled back.


Because, the purpose of MCM force there is Iran. If Iran does something it will be mining the Hormuz, not Bahrein and leaving Hormuz free. So, you have bottlenecked your own force within the Gulf on purpose, with any reinforcement and breaching that blockade of Hormuz coming from Arabian Sea anyway, with these four MCM ships in Gulf unable to anything significant anyway, and at the same time, reducing your own MCM force by four ships, because they are bottlenecked in the Gulf.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Aug 2019, 12:29

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:we should be looking to build one T-26 and then move on and build 8 or more T-45 replacement based on a longer T-26 hull form


9 “T26s”, to replace the 8 T23 ASW and 6 T45s?


No replacing 8 T23 ASW , 6 type 45 and then 5 type 31 with 9 x Type 26 & 8 or more Type 45 replacements

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Aug 2019, 13:18

Tempest414 wrote:No replacing 8 T23 ASW , 6 type 45 and then 5 type 31 with 9 x Type 26 & 8 or more Type 45 replacements


I could live with that, but I doubt the treasury could - the problem remains the more that the T31 is inflated to look like a real frigate on paper, the more attractive it will become to more expensive real frigates and Joe Public will not know the difference until it’s too late.
"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: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Aug 2019, 14:41

Tempest414 wrote:....there is a reason why the M & H come before the P.
Exactly, which is why the design of these MHC vessels, whatever iteration they finally take, will be dictated primarily by the systems they will deploy. In my opinion it is becoming increasingly likely that Venari at 16m may not be wide enough and a modest floodable well dock may also prove to be a necessity.

Tempest414 wrote:No replacing 8 T23 ASW , 6 type 45 and then 5 type 31 with 9 x Type 26 & 8 or more Type 45 replacements
Its an attractive option but likely wouldn't be realised before 2045-2050 at the earliest. All very well but how does that help RN grow in the 2020's?

Roders96
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 29 Aug 2019, 15:45

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:No replacing 8 T23 ASW , 6 type 45 and then 5 type 31 with 9 x Type 26 & 8 or more Type 45 replacements


I could live with that, but I doubt the treasury could - the problem remains the more that the T31 is inflated to look like a real frigate on paper, the more attractive it will become to more expensive real frigates and Joe Public will not know the difference until it’s too late.


I think your problem is that A140 is a real frigate. Every day of the week 4 Iver's would win against 1 T26 or T45.

Granted the A140 =/= an Iver Huidfelt, but for a £20m mid-life refit you can add 40 Mk41 cells.

If Babcock pull it off they'll set a rocket up the Clyde's arse.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Aug 2019, 16:43

Roders96 wrote:I think your problem is that A140 is a real frigate. Every day of the week 4 Iver's would win against 1 T26 or T45.


Interesting comparison - but I’d fancy a T45 against 4 ASuW missiles, than one ASuW missile versus a RN A140. Also, I’d fancy a T26 against a SSN/SSK, than 4 A140s against a SSN/SSK.

Roders96 wrote:Granted the A140 =/= an Iver Huidfelt, but for a £20m mid-life refit you can add 40 Mk41 cells.


If that’s all it takes I’ll take 6 now - for the T45s

Roders96 wrote:If Babcock pull it off they'll set a rocket up the Clyde's arse.


Maybe, or they’ll be bust in 5 years after under cutting BAE and find there are no follow on orders to make up the loss.
"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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Aug 2019, 16:55

Roders96 wrote:I think your problem is that A140 is a real frigate. Every day of the week 4 Iver's would win against 1 T26 or T45.
Sorry, disagree. 250M GBP average is only a corvette cost, or even cheaper. Zero chance A140 will be a "real frigate". Omani Al Khareef class's corvette, or Daman 10514 light-frigate/corvette, or Gowind-2500 class corvette's armaments are not so bad, but still far from those of high-end frigates. A140 will only have similar level of armaments, simply because of costs.

# It is typically, 1x 76 mm gun, 12x SeaMICA, 8x SSM, 4-6x AS torpedo and a Wildcat-class helo. Very similar to what is expected for T31e.
... but for a £20m mid-life refit you can add 40 Mk41 cells.
Of course not. You can buy Mk.41 cells, but you much more need money to
- physically integrate it and electrically wire it
- integrate in software with CMS
- and add dedicated front-end electronics for each missiles you select (such as TLAM control electronics, if it is TLAM),
All three of them is not cheap. Actually, the launcher hardware is one of the cheapest part of the program, if A140 ever to carry Mk.41 VLS system.

There is a reason why T26 is 1B GBP average. The same reason tells us, a "corvette-budget A140, with frigate-sized hull" will be "armed as a corvette or less". There is no free lunch.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 29 Aug 2019, 17:27

Tempest414 wrote:replacing 8 T23 ASW , 6 type 45 and then 5 type 31 with 9 x Type 26 & 8 or more Type 45 replacements

Seeing as the current plan is alleged to be 8 x T26, followed by 8 x T45 replacement, along with 5 x T31, all you are suggesting is that there is enough extra money for one additional T26.

If all we get out of the mini spending review is enough additional cash for a single extra T26 (say £800m), then, leaving aside the personnel issues (and at the risk of being burnt as a heretic), I would not order an additional T26. I would order an additional T31 (for 6 in total) and spend the balance (say £500m) on building two as the best ASW platform they can be and two as the best AAW platform that they can be, leaving two in the GP role. That way we effectively get an additional hull and four extra high-end vessels, rather than one ultra high-end.

If that proved impractical for technical reasons, then I would want three additional T31 (for eight total), leaving the top end vessels to concentrate on the CBG/ TAPS/ CASD, with the occasional one available for other tasks.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

serge750
Member
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 29 Aug 2019, 18:25

Now it would be good if we do get 8 x T45 replacements along with 8 x T26 ! along with the T31 and yes we might as well make it 8 :clap: at least the RN would have a better chance of protecting it's carrier group and other commitments, probably the minimum for the gov's global aspirations….

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 29 Aug 2019, 18:40

If these 5 vessels do get ordered for a fixed priced budget will the RN/mod resist the urge to tinker with the initial contract spec after it’s been agreed? What if 2 years down the line the program is going way over budget because the builder can’t meet the agreed price who will pay for the overrun?

You might say industry will but they could easily turn round and say sorry were bust program terminated, if you don’t stump up the cash you will have no ships. Is this a massive gamble by MOD and we will simply not know if it will work for several more years?.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 29 Aug 2019, 19:42

SW1 wrote:will the RN/mod resist the urge to tinker with the initial contract spec after it’s been agreed

That's one of the major points of the NSS. Once the contract is agreed, that's it - no changes. Tinkering with the spec has been identified as one of the major reasons for both cost and time overruns, so now the customer has to get it's spec right first time.
SW1 wrote:What if 2 years down the line the program is going way over budget because the builder can’t meet the agreed price who will pay for the overrun?

Another of the issues that the NSS seeks to address. The contract is fixed price. No extra money will be forthcoming. Part of due diligence when you sign up a company to a major contract, these days anyway, is that you first ascertain that they have the financial and technical wherewithall to satisfy the contract - that's why, despite the fact that they build some rather nice boats, you don't engage Sunseekers to build a frigate. If you want it, the contracting company has to open its books to you, to prove that it has the financial resources
SW1 wrote:they could easily turn round and say sorry were bust program terminated

That's when you hit them for the damages that they agreed to pay in the event that they did not complete the project. Those damages should pay for the cost of restarting the project with another contractor. If due diligence is done, then you won't have signed a contract with someone who can't prove that they are good for the damages. If necessary, they can insure themselves against the possibility of failure. The contractor will, of course recoup the insurance premium in the contract price.

In the past, the Government "self insured" - i.e. it took all the risk of a project failing, in return for a lower up-front cost. The NSS seeks to move the risk to the supplier, which is much safer for the Government, but adds cost up front. How much cost is dependent on the level of risk assumed by the supplier (so, in the case of the A140, a slightly modified existing design with examples already built and the original designers engaged to assist if needed, relatively low)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Aug 2019, 19:54

Caribbean wrote:...now the customer has to get it's spec right first time.
Another reason why ordering in modest batches of 2 or 3 hulls at a time is now preferred?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 29 Aug 2019, 20:42

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:will the RN/mod resist the urge to tinker with the initial contract spec after it’s been agreed

That's one of the major points of the NSS. Once the contract is agreed, that's it - no changes. Tinkering with the spec has been identified as one of the major reasons for both cost and time overruns, so now the customer has to get it's spec right first time.
SW1 wrote:What if 2 years down the line the program is going way over budget because the builder can’t meet the agreed price who will pay for the overrun?

Another of the issues that the NSS seeks to address. The contract is fixed price. No extra money will be forthcoming. Part of due diligence when you sign up a company to a major contract, these days anyway, is that you first ascertain that they have the financial and technical wherewithall to satisfy the contract - that's why, despite the fact that they build some rather nice boats, you don't engage Sunseekers to build a frigate. If you want it, the contracting company has to open its books to you, to prove that it has the financial resources
SW1 wrote:they could easily turn round and say sorry were bust program terminated

That's when you hit them for the damages that they agreed to pay in the event that they did not complete the project. Those damages should pay for the cost of restarting the project with another contractor. If due diligence is done, then you won't have signed a contract with someone who can't prove that they are good for the damages. If necessary, they can insure themselves against the possibility of failure. The contractor will, of course recoup the insurance premium in the contract price.

In the past, the Government "self insured" - i.e. it took all the risk of a project failing, in return for a lower up-front cost. The NSS seeks to move the risk to the supplier, which is much safer for the Government, but adds cost up front. How much cost is dependent on the level of risk assumed by the supplier (so, in the case of the A140, a slightly modified existing design with examples already built and the original designers engaged to assist if needed, relatively low)


I would agree with everything you’ve said. However none of its new it’s been repeated about programs for as long as I can remember. It’s a little like trust us it will be different this time.

I do very much hope it works because it could lead to a radical change in thinking. But you only need to look at the hundreds of comments here about it , almost all can’t resist adding something because it’s only a million here or there.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 29 Aug 2019, 20:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Caribbean wrote:...now the customer has to get it's spec right first time.
Another reason why ordering in modest batches of 2 or 3 hulls at a time is now preferred?


Small batches don’t work no one will invest in capital infrastructure expenditure to become more efficient if they don’t have a contract long enough to just payback. Small batches lead to make do and mend. There still building Arleigh Burke’s you can still do production cut in for modifications but that doesn’t stop a long term production decision and were terrible at doing that and small batch orders exemplifies it.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Aug 2019, 21:46

SW1 wrote:Small batches don’t work no one will invest in capital infrastructure expenditure to become more efficient if they don’t have a contract long enough to just payback. Small batches lead to make do and mend. There still building Arleigh Burke’s you can still do production cut in for modifications but that doesn’t stop a long term production decision and were terrible at doing that and small batch orders exemplifies it.
I understand your point but I think ordering small batches within a larger procurement programme makes complete sense. It's only natural that any class of vessel will evolve over the construction period as the design matures, lessons are learned and the customer is tempted to tinker and fiddle which results in escalating costs and delayed completion dates.

With the T31 programme in particular, given the low expected specification of at least the initial vessels surely it would be sensible to also provide the costs of the upgrades that Caribbean lists above right from the outset.

The full blown Iver Huitfeldt version is an obvious option as is an RN optimised Absalon. The most interesting variant could be an ASW optimised A140 with hybrid propulsion installed along with maximum sound reduction measures and 2150/2087. Add a Mk45, 16-24 Mk41's full of CAMM and ASROC together with twin Merlin hangers and the guys on the Clyde really will start sweating.

By setting out the prices for each variant early on, RN and HMG can build modest batches within a larger programme minimising any nasty surprises down the line.

The big unknown is whether RN will risk a dedicated ASW A140 variant before all 8 Type 26's are firmly in the bag. It might just prove to be too much of a risk as the temptation for political meddling would massive.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Aug 2019, 21:54

AS we are building forward deployment stations in Bahrain and Singapore in order to establish a forward presence in these areas, would it be an idea to actually build the T-31e as a true Corvette rather than a wanabe Frigate? Can we build a decent Corvette for the budget allocated to the T-31e? I don't like the idea of having us aspire to be a global presence until we are ready and have the assets, but building four or five decent Corvettes (with good resale values) to deploy forward, effectively operate with allies and bringing proper warfighting capabilities maybe a way forward. Later on with an enlarged Royal Navy these could be replaced by true Escorts and sold on.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 29 Aug 2019, 21:55

So let’s have 18 x T26 then and 6 x “batch 2” T45. Oh, but because we only order in small numbers they use a unit cost based on that. The paymasters then say “we can’t afford that many and downsize the order. A self generating race to the bottom with not enough vessels being built. The number of Ratings & Officers reduced to only those needed for the smaller fleet with the result: Inadequate materiel & manpower for Defence.
When the next vessels are designed & ordered, the whole process restarts. Keep going this way and we will be lucky to end up with just 1 x Escort. It may be nice to look at, but of no practical use whatsoever. :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11059
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Aug 2019, 22:18

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?


For short legged MCMs maybe not, but when replaced then I think Bahrain will be scaled back.

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?


For short legged MCMs maybe not, but when replaced then I think Bahrain will be scaled back.


Keep it open, until shooting starts. Bust it open, once it has started; shimmples?
- having options... and mot keeping all of the navy out there, all of the time (even the Yankees don't :) )

SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Caribbean wrote:...now the customer has to get it's spec right first time.
Another reason why ordering in modest batches of 2 or 3 hulls at a time is now preferred?


Small batches don’t work

... batches of the same "frame", specced for different "applications"? As the needs evolve

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 29 Aug 2019, 22:31

Poiuytrewq wrote:I understand your point but I think ordering small batches within a larger procurement programme makes complete sense. It's only natural that any class of vessel will evolve over the construction period as the design matures, lessons are learned and the customer is tempted to tinker and fiddle which results in escalating costs and delayed completion dates.


Not if you have form for failing to order any further batches, and not if you need major capital infrastructure investment. Any production run evolves a design and and cuts in changes as it goes. You just need to get the base design right and stop chopping and changing. You could say I’m buying 16 damage tolerant hulls capable of operating at sea. No radar, no vls of any kind installed, possibly even no combat management system installed perhaps the only installed system is the gun at the front. No a million miles how type 23 was initially delivered.

Things can be added at refit as budget allows. That is ultimately what stanflex and modularity is about. Not that you sail into port and swap a module and sail out but that it allows ease of maintenance and upgrade by adopting common interfaces. You separate the cost of the weapon system from the cost of the platform and avoid some of the obsolescence issues.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 29 Aug 2019, 23:11

Poiuytrewq wrote:Another reason why ordering in modest batches of 2 or 3 hulls at a time is now preferred?

Between batches is the right time to "tinker". I think the point is that you should think incrementally, with each batch including improvements as their need becomes obvious
SW1 wrote:Small batches don’t work no one will invest in capital infrastructure expenditure to become more efficient

+
SW1 wrote:Not if you have form for failing to order any further batches

And, in a nutshell, that's the other side of the deal. Continuity of programs. The understanding that there is an overall program of work so that, as one batch is completed, more work is always going to be available. Yards will naturally want to specialise if they can, but if we add in the RFAs and minor warships, there should never be a point at which the remaining yards can complain about "no orders". The trick is to get the sequencing right, so that there is always something that is in need of replacing
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shaunco and 16 guests