Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

From T23 news thread:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 Aug 2022, 15:51 Nothing new, but the movie make me feel, adding 1-m on top of the much room to accommodate CAMM-ER looks "doable" at least. May be mixed carriage could be considered (CAMM-ER shall be expensive than CAMM). How about,
- T23: 8 CAMM-ER and 24 CAMM (3 LMS box for CAMM and 1 for ER)
- T26: 12 CAMM-ER and 36 CAMM (3 LMS box for CAMM and 3 for ER)
- T31: 12 CAMM (or 24 CAMM)
- T45: 24 CAMM, in addition to 48 Aster30 Blk1

T31 is close-in warefare specialist, so CAMM-ER is not must. T45 has Aster30 for long-range AAW, so no need for CAMM-ER.

Even though I mentioned about CAMM-ER at the above post, I think the current highest priority for RN is to
- purchase ammo
- properly arm each assets

AAW
For example, why not order 2000 CAMM and 500 Aster 30 Blk1NT now ? Then, (up)arm the escorts as
- T45 = 48 Aster-30 Blk1/Blk1 NT, 24 CAMM : needs 288 Aster-30 + 144 CAMM times 3 = 900 Aster-30 and 450 CAMM.
- T26 = 48 CAMM : needs 384 CAMM times 3 = 1200 CAMM (replacing 8 T23)
- T31 = 12 (or 24) CAMM : needs 60 (or 120) CAMM times 3 = 200-400 CAMM

Then, the next step will be to order further 2000 CAMM (may include CAMM-ER if needed). If there are ammo, doubling CAMM/CAMM-ER carriage on each escort is "easy" (there are space and weight), as we know.
- T45 = 48 Aster-30, 48 CAMM : needs 288 Aster-30 + 288 CAMM times 3 = 900 Aster-30 and 900 CAMM.
- T26 = 96 CAMM : needs 768 CAMM times 3 = 2400 CAMM/CAMM-ER
- T31 = 24 CAMM : needs 120 CAMM times 3 = 400 CAMM

ASuW
Purchase 19 kits of 8-canistered NSM with dual reload = 300 NSMs, and equip all the 19 escorts with 8 NSMs each.

For example, think about...
- T45 with: 48 Aster-30, 48 CAMM, and 8 NSMs
- T26 with: 32 FC/ASW, 48 CAMM-ER, 48 CAMM, and 8 NSMs
- T31 with: 24 CAMM and 8 NSMs
I think this is a good modest up-arming, which will not significantly increase the crew size, nor logistics. (but does increase them to some extent). I think these options are much more foreseeable and practical than calling for "more escorts" (mainly in view of lack of crew).

Just a thought.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
serge750Caribbeanwargame_insomniac

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Does make a lot of sense as you cant reload VLS at sea

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Whilst the RN's programme for its next generation of escorts is healthy, all four designs need to have greater offensive capability. We plan to have the FCASW in service before 2030, but this is really a silver bullet, designed for long reange anti ship and land attack and is going to be expensive. As a result the Royal Navy needs to invest in an intermeediate range weapon sysem such as the NSM that also has greater littoral capabilities. The FCASW will undoubtible be fitted to the T-26 and the T-83 and possible the T-32. in addition we should have between four and eight HSM fitted to these three classes plus the T-31 in canisters.

In addition to the above, and following the example of the RCN we should adopt the ExLS launch system for our Sea Ceptor, replacing the existing Mushroom launchers. With the stand alone system you can fit almost double the numebr of Missules inthe sae space.

For the T-26 I believe thesecond batch should be a hybrids desoign, installing four strike length Mk41 VLS forward as per the RAN design and and at leat forty eight Sea Ceptors in ExLS amisips.

For the T-31 we could simple replace the two six mushroom Sea Cepror launchers with two ExLS ficing the ship twenty four mssils. IT would be easy then to fit a single Mk41 VLS in the same area for various weapon options./

For the T-32 we scale up the T-31s inventory increasing the number of Sea Ceptor top forty eight and installing either three or four MK41 VLS.

It is the T-83 tha is giopng to hasve the biggest options. Loooking at the latest generation of AAW Escorts, I can see the T=83 having fourteen Mk41 VLS in two groupingd jiponed by six ExLS giving the ship seventy two Sea Ceptor.

In an ideal world we would also develop a modular, containerised Sea Ceptor sysem t be installed o RFAs when they are operating in high threat zones or as part of a Carrier Group. THis would also include the planned <RSS. Simply adding one or two Phalanx is no longer sufficient to protect these valuable vessels, whithout which our ability to operate a sea for any length of time will be severely curtailes.

(Sorry of ty[pos_

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 »

Understand the hope for "more canisters". But, it must come AFTER more ammo. Without ammo stock, many cells of VLS is meaningless.

And, as we know those new generation ammo is NOT cheap, UK needs money there. Additional VLS-cells, all with appropriate front-end-electronics boxes, also costs. Both of them needs increased maintenance load. As such, I put "adding T32 hulls" in the BOTTOM of my wish-list.

Ordering ammo can start right NOW. And, UK must put money on it as the first priority, before talking about any T32ish things, nor even "adding more VLS cells" (such as ExLS adoption). Ammo Ammo Ammo, this is the clear lessons learnt from Ukraina war.

This also means, "mid-level ammo" (not so expensive) is also important. It was VERY lucky UK started adopting 40 mm and 57 mm guns with 3P ammo. Together with new 30mm proxymity ammo, and air-burst ammo developed in USA, they will be a good defense tools against simple = cheap = numerous UAVs, or simple = cheap = numerous small boats (or even USVs).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Jensy

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

I think these are symbiotic issues - it is fairly clear that the frontline RN warships need offensive capability (each of T45/83, T23/26 and T31/32 should at a minimum carry 8xNSM) in order to be good at the business of sinking enemy warships and attacking land bases, but that is largely symbolic if there aren’t the stocks to facilitate a reload.

The current war has made clear the need for different types of weapon - if FCASW is intended to be the gold standard for the RN that so great, but the NSM has a role as a cheaper alternative to prosecute different types and target.

The issue of what anti ship / surface weapon to integrate into F35 remains an open question but getting these right is going to be critical as to the deterrence factor the RN possesses over the next 20-30 years which currently look to be a little bumpy.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I'd say a a Hi / Lo mix of FCASW and NSM for the ships, with JSM for the F35.

I understand Poland is integrating NSM and T31, so there's and easy win there. Australia have ordered JSM for their F35s so likewise. I know it cannot be fitted internally to F35B but then neither can anything else, sling it under the wings.

If and when FCASW arrives it can be fitted to T26 and T83.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 3):
serge750wargame_insomniacDobbo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Purchasing addition stocks of compllicated weaponsystems like missiles in addition to simple ammunition should be done on a yearly basis, the amount icreasing if there is any in year underspend. Historically we have kept out stock levels low, relying on NATO reserves, like what happened during the Falklands war, and we almost got into trouble there as a result. Exactly what our stock level are is classified, both to keep it from possible enemies and to hide it feom scrutiny, behind the OSA/
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
serge750

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the base line should be Type 31 and it should have

1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM Plus 16 Mk-41 VLS for Tomahawk Blk-V

Type 45 should get its 16 Mk-41 + CAMM quad packed in A-50 VLS and should be carrying

1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 40 x Aster , 32 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 16 Tomahawk Blk-V

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Just a thought, since the IH and presumably the A140 has room for up to 16 canister launched missiles, might it not be easier and cheaper for the T-31 to drop the Mk-41 for 12 or 16 NSM, as they have both anti-ship and land attack capabilities? I suspect that if we wanted 16 Mk-41 VLS, it might impinge on the space currently used for the boat bays.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
serge750
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Oops - edited to remove the double post
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote: 26 Aug 2022, 13:08 Just a thought, since the IH and presumably the A140 has room for up to 16 canister launched missiles, might it not be easier and cheaper for the T-31 to drop the Mk-41 for 12 or 16 NSM, as they have both anti-ship and land attack capabilities? I suspect that if we wanted 16 Mk-41 VLS, it might impinge on the space currently used for the boat bays.
I have the same impression. Also, adding Mk.41 VLS to T31 will start cutting her sea-going days, significantly, because they need a maintenance on port. A rule of thumb is, as complex the system is, the more the maintenance need arises. Canistered SSM can be just "replaced" on port. Such systems needs small amount of maintenance, but of course, non-negligible.

For example, Mk41 VLS hatch has a hinge, and its door is very powerful/solid, so the hinge is also very important. And it is clear maintenance of these hinges are just a small fraction of all the maintenance loads.
NSM canister also has a hinge, and thus maintenance is needed. But, other maintenance load might be small in this case.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Judging by BAE's new Adaptable Strike Frigate concept, I think some people might need to massively factor down their hopes for VLS numbers on both Types 32 and 83:

Image

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The BAe Systems Strike Frigate is more like their version of a T-31 and should be seen as a non starter for the T-32. TO keep things simple the T-32 needs to be an evolution of the T-31, turning it in to a fully fledged Combat Vessel. As for the T-31, it need more teeth otherwise it will be good for the specific roll of Persian Gulf Gunboat ad noting else. Adding a single Mk41 would give it some potions but adding canistered NSM and Sea Ceptor in ExLS may be a better solution for this class. Evolving the T-26 with the second batch should not be difficult or costly as the design work has alrteady been done for the increased Mk41 capacity and the RCN is already installing ExLS on its version of the T-26. AS for the T-83, this needs a far greater VLS capacity than the T-45, at least being doubled with supplementary Sea Ceptor again in stand alone ExLS canisters/. This is vital to counter attacks aimed at over loading existing AAW vessels, and at present reloading VLS whilst at sea is a non starter. ALternatively having medium or large USVs in the guise of additional Magazines, able to replenish in port and rejoin a Task Force could be an alternative.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

BAES have indicated what they think the RN is looking for in a T32 frigate design (allegedly based on current knowledge). They got what the RN wanted for a T31 correct as well did they not. As indicated in my earlier post, they would lack the capacity to build T32 at Govan at the likely time for construction to take place due to T26 build. Whether the (proposed) T83 could be built in the new “Shed” or not is something that BAE&S needs to very seriously think about. It is not just about length and width either. It may be that they should convert the Basin into a covered “Dry Dock” in order to significantly increase the potential mast height that can be accommodated.
Nothing is fixed in stone, but I think it unlikely that the RN will want the T32 to be smaller than the T31, also with the likely increasing emphasis on speeding up new vessel delivery and the importance placed on competition, the likelihood is, that T32 will end up following the “6” x T31s (Don’t forget the 1 x Foreign Sale) at Rosyth. :mrgreen:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If the number of escorts to be built is expanded due to an update on the Sino-Russian threat, to the point where Govan (plus Scotstoun) and Rosyth cannot meet demand, I would be delighted to see Shipbuilding resume in the covered facility at Portsmouth. :mrgreen:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Aug 2022, 23:51 The BAe Systems Strike Frigate is more like their version of a T-31 and should be seen as a non starter for the T-32.
Completely disagree, the T32 proposed has a real role as a Littoral warship, it’s the T31 in its current form which is pointless.

I think the UK should have a single design house jointly owned by the RN and UK industry, we only have funds to have one. Who then builds the chosen design can then be the competitive stage.

Overall my thoughts are it would be better to sell two of the T31s to someone like New Zealand, and build six T32s combined with 3 larger MRSSs (or JBSLs) for the core of 3 LRGs, which can be combined into larger groups.

The 3 T31 can then take on the Kipion and one in the Med (operating out of Gib) tasking along with one supporting the FRE role.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
serge750
”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

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Cooper »

Well, given how poor BAE's Type 31 offering was compared to what we got, I think we should wait to see what others can come up with.

BAE are the proverbial tin of Heinz beans, ridiculously over priced to the better tasting, cheaper competition.. :D
These users liked the author Cooper for the post:
Dahedd

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Cooper wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 14:00 Well, given how poor BAE's Type 31 offering was compared to what we got, I think we should wait to see what others can come up with.

BAE are the proverbial tin of Heinz beans, ridiculously over priced to the better tasting, cheaper competition.. :D
I actually think the Cutlass class was pretty on the money for requirement - what’s more it’s would have probably have come fully kitted for the £250mn.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 13:28
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Aug 2022, 23:51 The BAe Systems Strike Frigate is more like their version of a T-31 and should be seen as a non starter for the T-32.
Completely disagree, the T32 proposed has a real role as a Littoral warship, it’s the T31 in its current form which is pointless.

I think the UK should have a single design house jointly owned by the RN and UK industry, we only have funds to have one. Who then builds the chosen design can then be the competitive stage.

Overall my thoughts are it would be better to sell two of the T31s to someone like New Zealand, and build six T32s combined with 3 larger MRSSs (or JBSLs) for the core of 3 LRGs, which can be combined into larger groups.

The 3 T31 can then take on the Kipion and one in the Med (operating out of Gib) tasking along with one supporting the FRE role.
I believe that the T31 as currently equipped were needlessly large - they did nt need to be 140m long - they could have been 110-120 long, suffiicent to be able to operate helicopters effectively. A smaller ship should have been cheaper and should need less crew.

I also dislike the introduction of two new guns on T31, increasing the number of guns operated by RN when they should have been reducing number (to get improved loigistics and to allow to start building up ammunition supplies). If the 40mm was the correct secondary gun to put on the T31, then why was nt it the correct secondary gun to put on the T26?

And I have also commented bfore that in my opinion ALL of the RN escorts, T31 included need to have incrased VLS systems to b able to defend against massed Russian / Chinese anti-ship missiles.

But that is what I would have liked IN AN IDEAL WORLD. We have to deal with what we already have and it appears that under the T31 fixed price contract that we cannot significantly uparm the T31 whilst they are being constructed. If so, then the next realistic opportunity to uparm the T31 is when they have subsequent refits, which pushes that option further into the future.

After HMS Montrose is retired next year we will have just three remaining T23 GP frigates. I assume that the first three T31 will be to replace these, and I am guessing that the remaining two T31 will be to replace and/or augment the River B2's. Until we know that, then we can't say how many T31's could be "spare" and thus could be sold in the manner you were describing.

I am not averse to your suggestion of "six T32s combined with 3 larger MRSSs (or JBSLs) for the core of 3 LRGs". Several of us have commented before about the Danish Absalon class, as precusors to the Iver Huitfeldt class, upon which the T31's are based. Thus IMO it should be east to modify T32's from T31's to have enhanced hangar deck and well deck, initially for helicopters and small LCVP, eventually for UAV and USV / USuV. Such a vessel should have sufficent capacity to deploy 50-100 Royal Marines for smaller missions, saving the MRSSs to be command vessels or used when a larger force needs to be deployed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 15:19
I believe that the T31 as currently equipped were needlessly large - they did nt need to be 140m long - they could have been 110-120 long, suffiicent to be able to operate helicopters effectively. A smaller ship should have been cheaper and should need less crew.
But that isn't true size isn't a direct driver of cost or crew requirements. For example on the Iver Huitfeldts and Absalons and therefore T31s the engine rooms are built to commercial\manufacturers size allowing maintenance work to be carried out a lot more efficiently.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

tomuk wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 22:36 But that isn't true size isn't a direct driver of cost or crew requirements. For example on the Iver Huitfeldts and Absalons and therefore T31s the engine rooms are built to commercial\manufacturers size allowing maintenance work to be carried out a lot more efficiently.
That's exactly the point made in the shipbuilding review - the size of the hull does not drive the overall cost, so why pay a fortune to have a readily available piece of equipment (it give laundry and galley equipment as examples, but I'm sure there are many others) redesigned into fit into the most compact space possible (the small, dense design idea), when you could simply buy COTS versions and design a ship with space large enough to put them in, for far less money (the large empty design concept). This extends to all aspects of design, like shockproof valves and pumps and fire-proof joints. They all exist already, so why not buy off the shelf and design spaces to accommodate them, rather than re-design them every time, to fit an arbitrary space and shape.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 22:36
wargame_insomniac wrote: 29 Aug 2022, 15:19
I believe that the T31 as currently equipped were needlessly large - they did nt need to be 140m long - they could have been 110-120 long, suffiicent to be able to operate helicopters effectively. A smaller ship should have been cheaper and should need less crew.
But that isn't true size isn't a direct driver of cost or crew requirements. For example on the Iver Huitfeldts and Absalons and therefore T31s the engine rooms are built to commercial\manufacturers size allowing maintenance work to be carried out a lot more efficiently.
And therefore their ship capacity is NOT as much as those with similar sized military standard ships. In other words, they are virtually "a little bit smaller" than they look, when thinking of war fighting capability. Of course, for sea-keeping, large hull works (although requiring more fuel, larger engine and hence more maintenance). But, its capacity shall be significantly smaller than "slightly larger" T26. (although many of the T26's "capacity" is then spend on hull quieting).

These are all just trade-off.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

The more I think about it ( as previously suggested ) maybe an Absalom/T31 hybrid with a stretched hull for better mission bays for sub surface/mine hunting vehicles + containers etc 28knots, with the same guns + 24 + CAMM & cannister launched NSM seems like a good idea for the T32 if it can be done on a fixed price like the T32..
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
dmereifield

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lets take the idea of a stretched Absalon class if we were to add 10 meters were the second engine room would be we could fit the 4 engines plus this would allow 2 x LCVP davits to be fitted amidships and keep the flex deck fitted with a 40 ton beam crane at the back I would fit a Palfinger slipway and a ramp that works as a steel beech

Weapons fit should be 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 6 x 12.7mm GAU 19's , 32 VLS ( 64 CAMM & 64 Spear) , 16 NSM

this ship should be able to make 28 knots and would make a very good ship for the LRG

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 »

serge750 wrote: 13 Sep 2022, 20:17 The more I think about it ( as previously suggested ) maybe an Absalom/T31 hybrid with a stretched hull for better mission bays for sub surface/mine hunting vehicles + containers etc 28knots, with the same guns + 24 + CAMM & cannister launched NSM seems like a good idea for the T32 if it can be done on a fixed price like the T32..
Interesting proposal, but I'm afraid such a stretch can be very expensive, which will diminish the idea of "T31 hull-reusing for cost down".

Another option will be to use T31 hull, with not much modification, for T32.

1: remove the port side boat alcove and instead enlarge the hangar. See figure-1, from navylookout article. There are open space in the port side of the helicopter hanger, although the forward half is filled with the alcove.

2: take-off all weapons from the waist, and locate all boasts and containers there.

3: keep the forward 57mm gun (A-pos), replace the 40 mm gun (B-bos) with 12-cell CAMM VLS, replace the hangar-top 40 mm gun with a 57 mm gun (there are a space under the position, which was kept in Danish design to leave the tail-rotor unfolded (which is NOT needed for UK version of AW101, see Figure-2), to handle minimum deck penetration).

Simple?

Figure-1: Image
Figure-2: Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

Post Reply