Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 17:11
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 16:32
new guy wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 14:34So do T32? great incite. And who said it would cost £2.5bn plus?? T31 has a budget of £2bn and will only (hopefully, and is on course to) take up £1.35bn.
I do not think so. 5 T31 as is needs £2Bn. No contingency. That's it, to my understanding.
But each ship has £250M going to babcock, and 18m each for GFE (my understanding).
"for an average production cost of £250 million per ship and an overall programme cost set to be £2 billion with £1.25 billion value to Babcock".
where is the other £650M / £130m per ship going?
hole program costs including the competition and first and second design rounds for 3 teams costs

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 14:34 …who said it would cost £2.5bn plus??
I did.

BAE has said the basic hull cost for the ASF is £250m to £300m. That’s before any weapons or sensors are added plus the propulsion setup could be one of a number of things.

Based on that £500m per unit is extremely plausible.

T31 has a budget of £2bn and will only (hopefully, and is on course to) take up £1.35bn.
Nope, not even close.

We haven’t even seen a completed hull yet and Babcock has already enacted the dispute mechanism to recover an extra £100m.

It will be a miracle if HMG can keep the total programme cost below £1.7bn but £2bn seems more realistic.

If that delivers a Frigate with NS110, three guns and 12 CAMM they won’t look very cheap or capable.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
RepulsezanahoriaJensy

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 15:17 And there's the not insignificant problem of making the Type 31 meet the Type 32 requirements. That might cause such a design change it wouldn't be much different from designing a brand new warship.
before we get too excited about continueing the T31 production run with an 'improved' version. ^this^

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Nobody knows a anything about what the T32 requirements will be. Hopefully RN will tell us in the next review
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixdonald_of_tokyo

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 01 May 2023, 09:42
Ron5 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 15:17 And there's the not insignificant problem of making the Type 31 meet the Type 32 requirements. That might cause such a design change it wouldn't be much different from designing a brand new warship.
before we get too excited about continueing the T31 production run with an 'improved' version. ^this^
Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:38 Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.
Why on earth would we need more oversized and under equipped constabulary frigates? Especially that provide very little in terms of adding to MHC and amphibious capabilities.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Jake1992 »

My I self I believe the T32s should be based off of the Damen Crossover 139 fitted with 1 x 5”, 2 x 40mm, 1 Phalanx / Drangonfire, 6 ExSL for 24 CAMM and 16 MK41. This type of ship can operate as a standard GP frigate but it’s flexible design would allow it to operate small RM raids or contribute to a large amphibious force or even operate unmanned systems off most kinds with its ability to offer the following -

2 divedens for anything up to size of an LCVP
A rear ramp for rihb sized systems
A twin merlin sized hanger
A chinook sized flight deck
A RORO vehicle deck for up to 6 Viking size vehicles
Capacity for up to 100 personal above crewing

With the future pushing more to unmanned off board systems this type of vessels offers a lot more than the current T31s which are limited by the size and lay out the boat bays.

I’d go for the above as the T32 design and eventually sell off the T31s half way through their life ( Brazil and chilli to replace their T23s and T22s could work ) and replace them with 5 more T32s.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:51
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:38 Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.
Why on earth would we need more oversized and under equipped constabulary frigates? Especially that provide very little in terms of adding to MHC and amphibious capabilities.
Because we need more frigates. However we could build 5 Absalon's fitted with the Palfingre slipway more than capable of doing frigate class constabulary work MCM and Company level Amphib role

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

No argument on the Absalon as an option, more T31s in their current configuration makes no sense. No point having paper frigates just to look good on wall charts
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

😀
please select different variants at please.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/
also
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 0-frigate/
On cube / pods side of things, Bae has no advantage

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:51
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:38 Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.
Why on earth would we need more oversized and under equipped constabulary frigates? Especially that provide very little in terms of adding to MHC and amphibious capabilities.
You yourself state we are only doing amphibious operations if a carrier is there, so in essence our capability is purely centred around the carrier much like a U.S. expeditionary strike group.

The principal role of the navy outside of the carrier group is maritime security and escort particularly fwd deployed, and for that role type 31 is well suited, long legged, reliable with good habitability and appropriately armed and equipped especially if nsm is added.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 13:44
Repulse wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:51
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:38 Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.
Why on earth would we need more oversized and under equipped constabulary frigates? Especially that provide very little in terms of adding to MHC and amphibious capabilities.
You yourself state we are only doing amphibious operations if a carrier is there, so in essence our capability is purely centred around the carrier much like a U.S. expeditionary strike group.

The principal role of the navy outside of the carrier group is maritime security and escort particularly fwd deployed, and for that role type 31 is well suited, long legged, reliable with good habitability and appropriately armed and equipped especially if nsm is added.
The T31 as stated in the requirements is a low threat constabulary frigate. Designed with enough sensors / weaponary to survive a withdrawal from a tricky situation. IF, it was armed with more than 24 CAMM to cope with swarm attacks, NSM to keep surface ships at distance and a TAS to keep threats also at distance then maybe. However, it’s not and there are better designs that can do this and more. And to be clear adding this additional kit will mean that if they are forward based they would still need to come back to the UK every few years for maintenance.

Five possibly six upgraded T31s could be useful, beyond that then it’s taking money that is better used elsewhere.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 01 May 2023, 14:45
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 13:44
Repulse wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:51
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:38 Not much needs changed if you just order a few more almost identical to the ones currently on order.
Why on earth would we need more oversized and under equipped constabulary frigates? Especially that provide very little in terms of adding to MHC and amphibious capabilities.
You yourself state we are only doing amphibious operations if a carrier is there, so in essence our capability is purely centred around the carrier much like a U.S. expeditionary strike group.

The principal role of the navy outside of the carrier group is maritime security and escort particularly fwd deployed, and for that role type 31 is well suited, long legged, reliable with good habitability and appropriately armed and equipped especially if nsm is added.
The T31 as stated in the requirements is a low threat constabulary frigate. Designed with enough sensors / weaponary to survive a withdrawal from a tricky situation. IF, it was armed with more than 24 CAMM to cope with swarm attacks, NSM to keep surface ships at distance and a TAS to keep threats also at distance then maybe. However, it’s not and there are better designs that can do this and more. And to be clear adding this additional kit will mean that if they are forward based they would still need to come back to the UK every few years for maintenance.

Five possibly six upgraded T31s could be useful, beyond that then it’s taking money that is better used elsewhere.
No it isn’t and this has been repeatedly stated by both the first sea lord and the now current chief of defence staff. As currently equipped it will go everywhere the type 23 frigates they are replacing goes and as he said that includes going into harms way. Its current armament is perfectly adequate for dealing with a swarm attack.

If it’s in a v high threat area it is part of a task group. The addition of the nsm is the only missing element that is easily added for the role but as a ship class it is no different to any other ship class in the navy in this regard.

Fwd located maintenance facilities in Gibraltar and in BIOT or the like can preform any maintenance required provided appropriate support contracts are in place. It maybe cheaper for very major overhauls to return to uk. Though I suspect the turnover with these ships maybe shorter than historically is the case which may be of benefit to not only reducing support costs but helping build rates.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
SD67

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 15:25 Its current armament is perfectly adequate for dealing with a swarm attack.
If it’s a sub-surface swarm it’s totally inadequate.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 May 2023, 20:00
SW1 wrote: 01 May 2023, 15:25 Its current armament is perfectly adequate for dealing with a swarm attack.
If it’s a sub-surface swarm it’s totally inadequate.
With the torpedo defence system it has what more can it do against such a thing if there is such a thing?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

With OMTs involvement could this be the basis for the T32?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... n-details/

A bit more here: https://www.janes.com/amp/imdex-2023-si ... Fp1cVMwPQ2

At 130m it should be around 5000t.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyonew guyserge750

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

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Further info, thanks to Xavier-san

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqserge750

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 May 2023, 15:56 With OMTs involvement could this be the basis for the T32?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... n-details/
My thoughts exactly. Both still a warship and an autonomous platform.

"The Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) has lifted the curtains on its Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) design, sharing that it will be the first of its kind to be an ‘unmanned systems mothership’. "

"It has engaged Saab Kockums and Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) to provide the basic design by the end of 2023, before ST Engineering dives into detail in work 2024 as well as the construction phase.

The MRCV will replace six Victory-class missile corvettes, with the first vessel due for 2028 delivery."

So, They essentially have started now, Start construction next year and are going to be delivered in the same year as our first T26 & T31? Impressive.

"OMT is part of the team that presented the design for the Type 31 frigate, and is also responsible for the Danish Navy’s Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates, both between 5,700 and 6,600t."

And this bears links to T31? What more could you ask for?

"While the project remains to be in the design stage, Maj James Lim of the MRCV project office told Shephard the MRCV will be ‘a little larger’ than the [formidable class stealth] frigates, which are 3,200t, and need to be stable enough to operate multiple uncrewed systems.

Based on the RSN’s past requirements it is likely that the ship will be equipped with Leonardo’s 76mm main gun, 12.7mm Hitrole remote weapon systems, MBDA's Mica-VL or even the Aster-15/30 anti-aircraft missile, and a new Thales multi-function radar, likely the APAR or Sea Fire systems.

Lim said offensive weapons are still ‘a work in progress’ and the RSN is also deliberating whether the hosted uncrewed systems will possess ‘response capabilities’.

He added that the RSN could not design type-specific platforms and instead will focus on modular vessels that are flexible and can react to current and future maritime threats, while at the same time solving Singapore’s future manpower shortages."

All nice stuff. Impressive. BZ singapore!

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

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

new guy wrote: 04 May 2023, 16:33So, They essentially have started now, Start construction next year and are going to be delivered in the same year as our first T26 & T31? Impressive.
Agree, but with small correction.

T31 hull1 will be delivered to RN in 2025 (although will not be "accepted into service" until 2028).
T26 hull1 will be delivered to RN in 2026 (although will not be "accepted into service" until 2028-2029).

The point is, "delivery" and "accepted into service" are two different things.

And the point is, yes, regardless of the first point, Singapore's shipbuilding is much faster than that of UK.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
new guy

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Very interesting development and if this is the basis for the T32 it certainly won’t be in £250m ballpark.

It appears to to have 5 mission spaces plus the hanger.

- An aft mission area capable of embarking two 10m - 15m craft plus a central palfinger launch recovery system if desired over the double ramp setup for Singapore.

- An under flight deck mission area with a lift up to the flight deck and also joined to aft mission space. This is a game changer and a massive omission on the T31 were the TEU in the under flight deck mission area cannot be moved whilst at sea.

- An amidships full width T26 style mission area albeit with more modest dimensions would be excellent for launching/recovering RHIBs etc.

- An amidships uncovered working deck with space for multiple TEUs, numerous NSM canisters plus ample space for PODs.

- Space for up to 32 Mk41 cells.

First impression, it looks like a versatile basis for a UK optimised design. What changes would RN require?

- Access from the flightdeck to the amidships working deck is crucial, could a covered access be created which could double as space for a second helo if required?

- The flight deck looks too complicated with the lift position. Could it be extended to provide a second landing spot and allow UAVs and the helo to operate concurrently?

- The stern arrangement looks too specialised. A single stern ramp would be better to allow a TAS/VDS to operate via PODs if required.

Very interesting that the MRCV and BAE’s ASF has a virtually identical layout.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Again, T31 isn't exactly fixed in stone, but any major change could take away a few of 'Less R&D' elements.
Babcock has a key a MoI with DH defence, key PODS system company.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 0-frigate/


T31, has been advertised and proven with Indonesia (Crazy restyling and forward VLS) and Poland to be adaptable. T31 can very easily have a cross ship boat bay by connecting forward boat bays. Babcock has said and show that hull can be extended by a reasonable amount, and that the entire midship could be reworked to create a mission bay significantly bigger than that of the MMB on T26.

Indonesia:


Cross-ship bay:
https://www.babcockinternational.com/wh ... e/type-31/

T31 adaptability:
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/

IMHO, BAE ASF have a better ship design compared to the initial presentation of MRCV.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ba ... e-concept/. Common guns with T31.
. Path from flight deck to amid ship
. Forward VLS ( Compared to amid ship on T31)
. Also SH defence MoI
. Rear working area connected to all 4 boat bays (Not separated like on both MRCV and T31 (though MRCV hasn't even really been
designed yet and T31 could be reworked))
. Midship working deck
. Bigger

Thanks.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 04 May 2023, 18:37 IMHO, BAE ASF have a better ship design compared to the initial presentation of MRCV.
Is it a design or just some pretty pictures?

The MRCV looks very much like a IH/Absalon hybrid so the hull is in the water and well tested. That should reduce the design costs massively.

Personally I think both designs have merit but I get the feeling they are going to be very very expensive and my £2.5bn estimate for the class of 5 doesn’t look excessive.

However, still not convinced that all of this capability needs packed into a Frigate and a combination of High Capacity OPVs and a larger class of more capable T31s is a better direction of travel for RN when money is tight.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 May 2023, 16:25 Further info, thanks to Xavier-san

So when I look at this it is slightly bigger Absalon with 2 x Palfigar slipway systems and what I have been saying for 6 months or more

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 04 May 2023, 18:37 Again, T31 isn't exactly fixed in stone, but any major change could take away a few of 'Less R&D' elements.
Babcock has a key a MoI with DH defence, key PODS system company.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 0-frigate/


T31, has been advertised and proven with Indonesia (Crazy restyling and forward VLS) and Poland to be adaptable. T31 can very easily have a cross ship boat bay by connecting forward boat bays. Babcock has said and show that hull can be extended by a reasonable amount, and that the entire midship could be reworked to create a mission bay significantly bigger than that of the MMB on T26.

Indonesia:


Cross-ship bay:
https://www.babcockinternational.com/wh ... e/type-31/

T31 adaptability:
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/

IMHO, BAE ASF have a better ship design compared to the initial presentation of MRCV.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ba ... e-concept/. Common guns with T31.
. Path from flight deck to amid ship
. Forward VLS ( Compared to amid ship on T31)
. Also SH defence MoI
. Rear working area connected to all 4 boat bays (Not separated like on both MRCV and T31 (though MRCV hasn't even really been
designed yet and T31 could be reworked))
. Midship working deck
. Bigger

Thanks.
I have said before to take the BAE ASF from pretty pictures to ships in the water will cost 4 billion pounds this is based on the fact that all three players in the type 31 program could only meet the 2 billion pound program cost by putting forward slightly modified well proven ship designs i.e

BAE with Khareef class modified from 99 to 117 meters
Babcock with IH class with lower weapons fit
Atles Elektronik with Meko A200
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 05 May 2023, 10:20 So when I look at this it is slightly bigger Absalon with 2 x Palfigar slipway systems and what I have been saying for 6 months or more
Is it bigger? I don’t think so, its displacement is larger but it measures 139m LOA with a beam around 20m if my calculations are correct.
C9AB0963-2B73-4FEF-BE60-CB7A33CDFF93.jpeg
13944819-EB62-4844-99D4-26E7D4381A3B.jpeg
It is very much a reconfigured Absalon albeit with T31 improvements.

- The Flex Deck has been raised by one deck presumably to improve damage control and the flight deck has therefore correspondingly been raised by one deck also.

- The hanger has been shortened to allow space for the UAV lift and an extra deck has been added above the hanger. The reason for this is not immediately apparent and it appears to add a lot of extra top weight to a design that already had a pretty high centre of gravity.

- The large amidships open working deck appears unchanged dimensionally other than the size and layout of the superstructure fore and aft.

- The intake and exhaust arrangement looks more like Absalon than IH so top speed may be more in the 24-25knts range rather than 28-30knts.

- The mission spaces are extremely generous but how many is too many? Are these vessels trying to do too much?

From an RN point of view this is an incredibly versatile blank canvas with many of the Absalon RORO damage control concerns removed.

As a multipurpose Littoral enabler for the FCF this hull can do it all but IMO the design has more to offer.

If this hull was stretched by 8-9m to provide a larger stern mission area and extend the flight deck to provide two landing spots many new opportunities would appear. That would give the hull a LOA of 147m to 149m or just slightly shorter than a T26.

The hanger is spacious enough for one Merlin or two Wildcats and the UAVs are embarked in the mission area below. What if the amidships deck had a telescopic hanger roof installed to provide basic shelter from the elements? That would allow full maintenance facilities in the hanger plus stowage for up to 2 Merlin sized helos amidships.

That would give an embarked FCF force multiple options without the need for any LPD or LSD ships in support.

- Up to 2 Merlin plus 2 Wildcats embarked.
- Flight deck with 2 landing spots
- 2 CB90 sized craft from the stern ramp.
- 5 RHIBs launched amidships mission space
- Multiple supporting UAVs and USVs
- Stern ramp capable of launching XLUUVs
- Mk45 installed if required
- 32x Mk41 cells plus amble space for NSM

Additional 15m craft, RHIBs, UAVs and XLUUV could be stored in the mission area below amidships working deck.

If two T32s operated together both embarking and deploying around 60 FCF whilst collaborating on ASW, MCM and providing NGS it would be a pretty formidable pairing.

I think there is a rationale here but the hull needs a 9m stretch to realise the full potential.

The flip side is that all of this can be achieved with much less expensive HiCap OPVs and fully equipped T31s. The question remains, with money in short supply and the headcount under pressure does all of these capabilities need added to a class of Frigates?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyonew guywargame_insomniac

Post Reply