Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:More good news!

From the Telegraph:

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin is expected to be formally announced as the new defence chief on Thursday
The First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff has been selected by the Prime Minister as the next head of the Armed Forces, The Telegraph can reveal.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin will take over from General Sir Nick Carter as Chief of the Defence Staff, making him the first military chief to come from the Navy since Admiral Sir Michael Boyce in 2001.

Sources close to General Sir Patrick Sanders, who was seen as the First Sea Lord’s biggest threat to securing the role and believed to be the Ministry of Defence’s recommendation for the position, confirmed he had not been successful in the race.

They added that he was “relaxed” about the decision.

Downing Street is expected on Thursday to formally announce Boris Johnson's choice of defence chief.

It is understood that Vice-Admiral Sir Ben Key, who led the Afghanistan evacuation and is in charge of all overseas military operations, will be promoted to Admiral and replace Sir Tony as First Sea Lord.


The contest for the new head of the Armed Forces has long been considered a two-horse race between Sir Tony, for his knowledge of the seas and Sir Patrick, owing to his deep understanding of how to integrate cyber capabilities into the Armed Forces.

However, others in the mix to clinch the post included General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the former head of Britain’s special forces and a personal friend of Mr Johnson.

Under Sir Tony, the UK has seen two new aircraft carriers brought into service. He also oversaw the deployment of one, HMS Queen Elizabeth, including escort ships and a hunter-killer submarine, to the Indo-Pacific region. As a result the Royal Navy is seen as embodying the Government’s Global Britain agenda.

Meanwhile sources have said that the recent Aukus deal with the US and Australia over the future provision of nuclear submarine capability reflected well on the First Sea Lord.

Earlier this year The Telegraph revealed that Sir Nick, 62, who was in his third year as Chief of the Defence Staff and was due to retire, would remain in post until the end of the year so that he could lead the transformation of the military following the Integrated Defence Review.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ed-forces/
I wonder how many hours until the Ajax project cancellation notice is issued? (hides under desk...)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: Personally I think the Govan at least is going to close anyway because T83 will simply be too large for it.
How big to you think the T83 will be? Govan built HMS Ocean and they built Chemical and LPG tankers when owned by Kvaerner. They were up to 236m x 32m.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:I wonder how many hours until the Ajax project cancellation notice is issued? (hides under desk...)
Not his job, some CS was just given it. Marsh?

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

tomuk wrote:
SD67 wrote:
How big to you think the T83 will be? Govan built HMS Ocean and they built Chemical and LPG tankers when owned by Kvaerner. They were up to 236m x 32m.
I’d expect the T83 to be broadly comparable with the larger American, Japanese, and South Korean destroyers which I think is well within the size outlined above. They will be a big project that’s for sure.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

It's too big for undercover assembly at Govan, which is the modern benchmark - Option 1 below build a big assembly Hall at Scotsdoun :

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/featur ... facilities

2 miles from the centre CBD of the UK's number two city, is not exactly the ideal location for a shipyard IMHO

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Argyle+ ... 615833!3e2

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote:It's too big for undercover assembly at Govan, which is the modern benchmark - Option 1 below build a big assembly Hall at Scotsdoun :
Most things are too big for undercover assembly at Govan even the River B2s were built with the doors of the SBOH open.
A new frgate factory at Scotstoun would be the best option (on the Clyde) but it is politically impossible to close Govan, it should have closed 60 odd years ago but like a cockroach it can't be killed.
SD67 wrote: 2 miles from the centre CBD of the UK's number two city, is not exactly the ideal location for a shipyard IMHO
Glasgow isn't the UKs number two city thats Birmingham or Manchester. Glasgow is 7th by size. Having shipyards close to the CBD isn't a problem in Yokohama.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Actually, the city of Birmingham is the UK's largest city by population. The urban sprawl we generally call "London" isn't a city, it's officially a metropolitan region and ceremonial county called Greater London, with a tiny separate official City Of London in the centre which has a population of only 10,000!

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

tomuk wrote: A new frgate factory at Scotstoun would be the best option (on the Clyde) but it is politically impossible to close Govan, it should have closed 60 odd years ago but like a cockroach it can't be killed.
BAE have demolished at Scotstoun (and vacated at Portsmouth) better facilities than could ever be built at Govan...

Image
Image

I wonder if it would have been more politically palatable to go ahead with the Scotstoun assembly hall, and fabrication sheds, whilst retaining some block building at Govan (or smaller vessels). Then over time, in the presumed absence of work slowly shift over the remaining workforce and capital.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Not often you get a DS30M Mk.2 in action with a clear view of the target...and close up of effect. Taken at the Bushmaster User Conference held at Big Sandy range in the US.

This is the mount that the USN and USCG appear to have chosen as the Mk.38 Mod 4. Will be going on all new build US vessels. Quite a win for MSI and shows the confidence in the mount.



And just for fun...there's a 40mm Bushmaster firing Super40 rounds from a Samson RCT on a UGV...remember the DS30M mount can be upgraded to this...apparently in under an hour...


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:remember the DS30M mount can be upgraded to this...apparently in under an hour...
In the RN that would be after 10 years of business cases, health and safety reviews, Treasury "analysis" and a couple of government defense reviews. And then only half of the upgrade kits would be ordered. :lol:

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SKB wrote:Actually, the city of Birmingham is the UK's largest city by population. The urban sprawl we generally call "London" isn't a city, it's officially a metropolitan region and ceremonial county called Greater London, with a tiny separate official City Of London in the centre which has a population of only 10,000!
Yes that’s an interesting pub debate. Personally I class a city as somewhere with a clear cbd plus suburbs, preferably a river running through the middle, an old university etc. Just personal preference.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote:
SD67 wrote:It's too big for undercover assembly at Govan, which is the modern benchmark - Option 1 below build a big assembly Hall at Scotsdoun :
Most things are too big for undercover assembly at Govan even the River B2s were built with the doors of the SBOH open.
A new frgate factory at Scotstoun would be the best option (on the Clyde) but it is politically impossible to close Govan, it should have closed 60 odd years ago but like a cockroach it can't be killed.
SD67 wrote: 2 miles from the centre CBD of the UK's number two city, is not exactly the ideal location for a shipyard IMHO
Glasgow isn't the UKs number two city thats Birmingham or Manchester. Glasgow is 7th by size. Having shipyards close to the CBD isn't a problem in Yokohama.
Yokohama isn’t exactly at the cutting edge of gentrification. A better comparison is maybe Williamstown in Melbourne - ironically also a BAE site, the Aussies have been sensible and gone greenfield

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:Not often you get a DS30M Mk.2 in action with a clear view of the target...and close up of effect. Taken at the Bushmaster User Conference held at Big Sandy range in the US.

This is the mount that the USN and USCG appear to have chosen as the Mk.38 Mod 4. Will be going on all new build US vessels. Quite a win for MSI and shows the confidence in the mount.
Triggered by your post, I made a quick check of the MSI 30mm turret status.

1: MSI 30mm turret looks like selected for US Navy (and USCG?) replacement for their 25mm gun. Named Mk.38 Mod 4. Great!
2: The 30x172 mm Ammo has "air-burst" rounds already there, and
3: "proximity fuse" rounds is coming quite soon.
These two types of ammo will be a great addition to counter drones in cheap

RN is buying 10 (2 each for 5 hulls) Bofors 40mm gun for the Type-31 frigates. It can handle 3P rounds, which is "Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused". In other words, a single 3P round can do, air-burst mode, proximity mode, and time-gated proximity mode. It is good to counter drones, as well, but with improving 30x172mm rounds, the original MSI turret keeps its merit.

I once though the RN shall go with 20 mm gun + 40 mm gun pair in near future, disbanding the 30 mm turrets. But now, the 30 mm gun looks to have very promising future. Commonality with US Navy/USCG is a very very great thing.

Bofors 57mm is OK, it can carry guided rounds (40mm cannot), and it also has a commonality with US Navy and USCG. But, Bofors 40 mm rounds... Are there big future in RN? In extreme, shall we even rip them off and sell it for export, after the initial trials of T31? Or, shall RN go along with having all 20mm (CIWS), 30mm (MSI), 40mm (Mk.4), in addition to 57mm (Mk.110)?

ref:
Good summary by Chuck Hill https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2021/09/24 ... mk38-mod4/
Information on 30mm Proximity ammo, by Chuck Hill. Northrop Grumman is developing it. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2020/01/17 ... 38-mounts/
30x172 mm Ammo. There are "air-burst" round, HEAB-T (programmable time to target with tracer) https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploa ... -Suite.pdf

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:RN is buying 10 (2 each for 5 hulls) Bofors 40mm gun for the Type-31 frigates. It can handle 3P rounds, which is "Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused". In other words, a single 3P round can do, air-burst mode, proximity mode, and time-gated proximity mode. It is good to counter drones, as well, but with improving 30x172mm rounds, the original MSI turret keeps its merit.
Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds...switch the gun out on a DS30M and you're approaching 40mm Bofor's capability, add in a pannier of Martlet on the side and you're exceeding it...Quite why the RN is buying Bofors 40mm I have no idea, its not as if its a new system to the RN..we had them for 70 years..

I have to say I'm a little sceptical of a 30mm airburst, even with minituarization the complex fusing will take up a lot of space. Airburst is all about bursting charge and fragments, whilst it appears you can do that with a 30mm round the question should be is it advisable? There's just way more space in a 40mm round.

As for 57mm I'm sure its a good gun, but again it has a competitor, 76mm. Again bigger round, bigger airburst and easier to integrate guuidance (which already exists in the real world, ulike MADFIRES). A 76mm can also stop a ship..., but despite Leonardo marketing I remain entirely unconvinced about its capabilty at NGFS...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds...switch the gun out on a DS30M and you're approaching 40mm Bofor's capability, add in a pannier of Martlet on the side and you're exceeding it...Quite why the RN is buying Bofors 40mm I have no idea, its not as if its a new system to the RN..we had them for 70 years..
But still, US Navy selected 30mm version of MSI turret. So, presumably, its cost difference is significant, I guess? These turrets are for general use, to be shot frequently. AAW is a small fraction of their task. Everyday cheapness with normal "dull" ammo prevails everything in this kind of weapons, because the turret is ubiquitously equipped from RFA vessels to QECVs (and US Navy ships to USCG cutters, in near future).

The Bofors/Bushmaster-IV's 40x365mm rounds are significantly larger than 30x178mm rounds (very different from 40x180mm rounds for Bushmaster-II's 40mm-option). Their "dull" rounds must cost very different. For the 30x178mm rounds, US involvement will make its ammo-cost significantly cheaper, as well.

Surely the charge within the air-burst shells differs a lot between 30x178mm and 40x365mm, may be by a factor of 4? But, I do not think its control timer shares a large space, its quite simple system. If the 30x178mm air-burst rounds are 4-times cheaper than Bofors 3P (which is likely because the latter has also proximity fuses), just shoot 4 times more rounds. You can do it, because the 30x178mm rounds are cheaper.

[EDIT] Not directly related to this discussion (MSI SeaHawk 30mm vs Bofors 40mm Mk.4 turrets), but, can MSI SeaHawk turret handle Bushmaster IV 40 mm cannon? It is much larger (in recoil) than Bushmaster II 40mm option. Are there any info?
As for 57mm I'm sure its a good gun, but again it has a competitor, 76mm. Again bigger round, bigger airburst and easier to integrate guuidance (which already exists in the real world, ulike MADFIRES). A 76mm can also stop a ship..., but despite Leonardo marketing I remain entirely unconvinced about its capabilty at NGFS...
No big objection, but I do think 57mm has some clear merit against 76 mm. If not, there is no reason why US Navy moved out from 76mm to 57 mm recently. 76mm DARTS rounds are interesting, but looking the movies of its guidance, its just a laser CLOS system. The shell needs to go strait, cannot be in ballistic trajectory, which means significant air drag is always there for control. Not saying it is bad, but just saying a gun-based guided ammo will not be good against highly maneuverable ASMs. And, CAMM is there for it. Thus, for me, DARTS rounds are within the "nice to have" regime.

Again, not saying 76mm is bad. Just saying I see no big merit against 57 mm, and there is no surprise that US and UK selected the 57mm gun. Good rival, but neither prevails.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.
Complete nonsense. :crazy: Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.
I agree that in 2019 when they were trying to win the contract, they placed huge emphasis on the T31 being a "proven" design that required a tiny bit of change. Hence being the low risk option. I wasn't the only one to raise questions about the huge risk inherent in their total lack of any relevant experience in designing and building frigates at a site where they hadn't built a ship from scratch before. They also said that Rosyth would mainly be assembly of blocks built elsewhere i.e. at experienced shipyards. That didn't happen either.

Nowadays (after winning the contract) they say that seeing the design is mostly theirs: a) it's up the RN standards, b) they can easily modify to meet other requirements and c) they're the best folks to advise on local build. Notice how they shouldered out the Danes to get the Indonesia contract.

Let me quote what a RN guy close to the project wrote last month in response to someone saying the T31 is mostly a Danish design:
Incorrect, hull was a preexisting design, but the T31 version, internal & topside arrangements, systems, weapons, etc. are a British design.
The T31 is Iver Huitfeldt with minor modifications. Widened bridge wings, straightened funnels, APAR removed from foremast, aft radar mast reduced to stub, weapons deck moved up a deck to fit boat bay (it is already an empty void on IH). Internally some mods have been made to meet updated/RN standards and replace obsolete equipment. I understand these are extra bulkhead in the workshop between the two engine rooms. Now it does have a completely different CMS\Radar\Weapons fit to the IH but these are Dutch\Swedish design.

Overall I would say the T31 is a British variant of the IH but it is in no way a British design. Now in comparison the Constellation class version of the FREMM is vastly different to both the Italian and French versions.
It would be interesting how much of the Indonesian money gets passed forward to the Danes. I'm guessing very little.

Interesting question did the Danes get a one of upfront license fee or a cut of future sales or a combination of both?

Do you remember these article from last year about a deal between the Indonesians and OMT?
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... nt-frigate

How does that fit with Babcock? What a tangled web.
Yes I remember which is why I mentioned it in my comment :roll:

PS most unlikely that either side would just settle for a fixed one time license fee. Most likely would be a license for the RN's T31's and a cut of any T31 export deals based on amount of UK vs Danish content. Hence my comment.
Babcock official statement after the Indon deal says they pay OMT a small design royalty on each T31 sold and OMT are happy with the arrangement. Sounds similar to the Bren Gun

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds.
Are you sure?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not directly related to this discussion (MSI SeaHawk 30mm vs Bofors 40mm Mk.4 turrets), but, can MSI SeaHawk turret handle Bushmaster IV 40 mm cannon?
I do not think so. MSI hasn't ever announced it to the best of my knowledge.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Showing the MSI mount in its new US Mk38 Mod 4 colours firing the Northrop Grumman Bushmaster 30mm single barrel variant with relatively low 200rpm, four rounds fired with its new 30 x 173 HEP round for shooting drone, didn't recognise the fire control used, optical or IR? Normally non water cooled Bushmaster single barrel seem to fire 10 to 15 rounds before having to cease fire to allow barrel to cool down. (The 1979 Goalkeeper with its Gatling 7 barrel fired its 30 x 173 rounds at 3.900 rpm)



Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

500 land versions, fitted in RWS or Turrets for teh British Army please! The Navy can go fish for a decade or so. :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:Showing the MSI mount in its new US Mk38 Mod 4 colours firing the Northrop Grumman Bushmaster 30mm single barrel variant with relatively low 200rpm, four rounds fired with its new 30 x 173 HEP round for shooting drone, didn't recognise the fire control used, optical or IR? Normally non water cooled Bushmaster single barrel seem to fire 10 to 15 rounds before having to cease fire to allow barrel to cool down. (The 1979 Goalkeeper with its Gatling 7 barrel fired its 30 x 173 rounds at 3.900 rpm)
Thanks a lot! Very interesting movie.

At 0:45, we can compare the shell size (diameter 30 mm) with the "blast donuts" size. For me, it looks like the "donuts" diameter is something like 50 cm. The shell with proxy fuse detonates around 50-100 cm before the target drone, and generating 50 cm diameter kill zone.

However, this kill zone will be only for very light airvehicles, such as drones. I do not think this round is effective against any real manned military aircraft, nor any ASM. This is very different from Bofors 40 mm 3P, which was originally designed against ASM and military aircrafts. But this 30 mm proximity fuse rounds will work against these cheap and light drones. Important thing is that the rounds must be cheap. Cheap kill against cheap drones are the best match.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Thanks a lot! Very interesting movie.

At 0:45, we can compare the shell size (diameter 30 mm) with the "blast donuts" size. For me, it looks like the "donuts" diameter is something like 50 cm. The shell with proxy fuse detonates around 50-100 cm before the target drone, and generating 50 cm diameter kill zone.

However, this kill zone will be only for very light airvehicles, such as drones. I do not think this round is effective against any real manned military aircraft, nor any ASM. This is very different from Bofors 40 mm 3P, which was originally designed against ASM and military aircrafts. But this 30 mm proximity fuse rounds will work against these cheap and light drones. Important thing is that the rounds must be cheap. Cheap kill against cheap drones are the best match.
Agree with your view that 30mm Mk38 Mod 4 kill capability limited to slow speed drones with its ~0.7 kg 30 x 173 round, though as mentioned before the 40mm round at nearly four times the weight at ~ 2.5 kg didn't have the explosive firepower to overcome the kinetic energy of the Kamikaze a/c impacting. Expect current day ASMs will have similar kinetic energy if not more eg BrahMos, so think 40mm Bofors Pk will be limited in capability for countering some of the heavier and faster ASMs.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/b ... al-systems

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off :roll:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Going down the BAe route basically leads to a clone of the RAM systems that is already in service, has e future development path in place and is definitely mature with zero risk. If we by some slim chance went down BAE's route we would end up using a CVR-7 rocket as the base that is actually superior to the Hydra. I actually believe we should adopt a AKPWS type weapon based on the CVR-7, but for the AAC's AH-64E Apache Guardians, not shipborne use.

Post Reply