Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:23
Caribbean wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 09:28
Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:37
Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 Maximise commonality with the Tides.
Or whatever the MRSS becomes?
Indeed - another possibility
A multi role BMT Ellida with the 2 LCU well dock, 2 spot flight deck and 4 medium helicopter hanger plus a liquid and solid replenishment capability would be a fantastic addition to any LRG/LSG or HADR deployment. Perfect for any Tide replacement programme. Around £350m per hull if built in the UK would seem realistic
I assume you mean waves because the Tides don't need replacing for ages and even when they are replaced we need the same relatively simple large fleet tankers not some jack of all trades master of none
If the Albions were extended in service for another 15 years until 2050 via an extensive refit/conversion that would retain well docking for 10 LCUs or equivalents within the fleet if the Bays/Argus were replaced by LPHs. Adding hanger space for 2-4 Merlin would not be cheap but it would unlock the potential. Spending £150m per hull to add embarked aviation, improve self defence capabilities and extend the OSD to 2050 would be money well spent IMO.

Replacing the Bays and Argus with 3 or 4 basic but capable LPHs would then proportionate and affordable.
So everything has hangar space for 2-4 merlin and we are getting LPHs presumably with more hangar space. Where are all these merlin coming from to fill these empty hangars? Or will the QECS and T26 not need any helicopters?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA

As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line

Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:17
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA

As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line

Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:17

This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA
The V-280 Valour is aiming to have a range of 2,000 miles and a combat radius in excess of 700 miles which would dramatically change that equation if we were to purchase them for the RM as a Merlin HC4 replacement in the future.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:10 I assume you mean waves because the Tides don't need replacing for ages….
Absolutely, my apologies for the typo.
So everything has hangar space for 2-4 merlin and we are getting LPHs presumably with more hangar space. Where are all these merlin coming from to fill these empty hangars? Or will the QECS and T26 not need any helicopters?
This argument regarding a lack of helicopters has been doing the rounds for years but it makes zero sense IMO.

When a vessel is designed to embark 4 Merlin with maintenance clearances it isn’t Merlin specific, it’s simply an illustration of space and capability in a Royal Navy context.

The UK has lots of helicopters.

For example:

What if the Chinooks received folding rotor heads?

What about the Wildcats?

What about the Apaches?

As Tempest414 has submitted many times, what about the Puma replacements?

What about interoperability with Allies?

Filling two vessels with 4 Medium sized helos is not a major challenge for the UK.

Filling a LPH with a mixture of Apache, Merlin and Wildcat is perfectly feasible.

The LRG and LSG concept is based around multiple distributed components joining together to form a predetermined group which is appropriate for the tasking. Not all vessels need to embark the maximum aviation capacity at all times, just as the CVFs clearly do not and will not for the foreseeable.

Short Endurance Littoral Strike by the FCF will rely heavily on embarked aviation. It simply is not feasible without it. A mixture of Merlin, Wildcat and on occasion Apache will be required, ideally Chinook also. An element of operational aviation redundancy will also need to be considered as losses will occur eventually and enough helos will need to be embarked to ensure any extraction is completed successfully.

Drones will continue to proliferate and much hanger space will be required to embark and maintain them. What these drones look like will continue to evolve going forward.

Since their conception the LPDs have been let down by a lack of embarked aviation. The Bays have had to rely on retrofitted RUBB hangers to embark helicopters and decommissioning Ocean was a massive loss to the fleet regardless of the welcome addition of the CVFs. Argus is a massively capable platform in high demand and for good reason.

When the Amphibs were renewed in the 1990s the ideal fleet balance was for two LPHs, two LPDs with hangers, four LSDs plus Argus and the six Points. It was a good plan but losing the LPD aviation and building the Bays without a hanger was a bad decision.

Let’s not make the same mistakes this time around.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
serge750wargame_insomniacjedibeeftrixBring Deeps

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The UK has plenty of helicopters on paper. Not in practice. Too many penny packet fleets, too few people to operate them.

The amphibious ready group was configured as it was because it was supposed to operate together not independently. Trade offs were made based on that assumption. The construct for the deployment of a marine battlegroup which could be reinforced and use mechanised forces was a gd one of the better decisions we had.

The fact we had two of them was even better, we threw it away.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 16:00
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:17
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA

As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line

Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.
She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwing

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 09:27
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 16:00
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:17
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA

As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line

Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.
She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwing
25 years into this project that about sums it’s up.

She was flying marines ashore was she not

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 21:04 The UK has plenty of helicopters on paper. Not in practice. Too many penny packet fleets, too few people to operate them.

The amphibious ready group was configured as it was because it was supposed to operate together not independently. Trade offs were made based on that assumption. The construct for the deployment of a marine battlegroup which could be reinforced and use mechanised forces was a gd one of the better decisions we had.

The fact we had two of them was even better, we threw it away.
This is the point going forward it is not about how many aircraft we have it is about dietributed operation by sea and land. Having 2 carriers and 4 Flattop MRSS plus SSS capable of carrying 3 Merlin means we can deploy air assets were needed and operate them as needed in support of our goals

Its very well having only 2 flattops but if one is in the North Atlantic and the other in a dry dock they are little use in a pop up problem in the Indian Ocean the French have 1 carrier and 3 LHD's and always have one of these 4 assets EoS
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
serge750Poiuytrewq

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 09:42
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 09:27
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 16:00
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 15:17
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.

The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA

As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line

Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.
She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwing
25 years into this project that about sums it’s up.

She was flying marines ashore was she not
Yes but in the CSAR role

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

But don't the Commando force currently have rather more than 60 Vikings and BV206s?
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jan 2023, 21:56 But don't the Commando force currently have rather more than 60 Vikings and BV206s?
That's my fear. Another stealth cut dressed up as good news as new acquisition.

It does refer to the "older BV206s" in the press release and tweet, so I am clinging to the faint hope that a significant number of newer BV206s are retained.....
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

60 is probably enough given the restructuring of how the RM will operate, with only one Commando allocated to Arctic warfare at any one time. What will be interesting is seeing what new vehicles could be purchased for the RM deployed as part of the Littoral Groups.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 12:49
My thinking is that the MRSS….

Repulse wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 11:47
The problem I have with the MRSS….

Poluytrewq wrote:
I don’t think the MRSS is going to happen.

If the future is heavily dependent on naval MALE drones then an MRSS like Ellida is clearly the wrong choice especially if the entire Amphibious fleet is to be replaced by a single class.

Much better to convert and retain the Albions, build a couple of Ocean Mk2’s and a couple of Karel Doorman sized Enforcers.

I really can’t see that being more expensive than six Ellidas.


The 4 ships I would like based on the Baltic Enabler you can call what you like

Multi role support ships = MRSS
Logistics Sea base ships = LSBS

The reason for 4 of these ship is that I would deploy 1 on AP/N , 1 EoS and 2 kept in the Home fleet

2 of these ships along with the Points would be able to move a re-enforced armoured brigade plus 20 helicopter off 12 spots.

These ships would capable of carrying out low level LRG , ASW carrier , sea-lift , HDAR

Now all 4 ships would be operated by the RFA and I would build 2 LHD's for the RN

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.

If the money was there, I would personally argue for:
- 3 large RFA manned JSBLs (one LRG(N), one LRG(S) and one reserve) each with aviation support facilities for @6 Merlin sized helicopters.
- 6 RN manned smaller landing / motherships, something like the Damen Landing Ship Transport LST 120H design.
”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: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:00 The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.

If the money was there, I would personally argue for:
- 3 large RFA manned JSBLs (one LRG(N), one LRG(S) and one reserve) each with aviation support facilities for @6 Merlin sized helicopters.
- 6 RN manned smaller landing / motherships, something like the Damen Landing Ship Transport LST 120H design.
Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.

My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. Finally we have the T32s, if we have them based on something like the Damen Crossover 139 or the Absalon we’d have 5 vessels that can escort the above but also conduct smaller scale ops such as raiding.

It’s about tying all these replacements together so they can not only operate in a distributed way but also come together.

2 x LPD - 200m by 30m, 6 merlin hanger, twin chinook flight deck, 4 LCU well dock

4 x LSD - based on the same hull as above, 3 merlin hanger, twin merlin/single chinook flight deck, single LCU well dock, open work deck with 2 60tn cranes

2 x Modified Karel Doorman - 6 merlin hanger, twin chinook flight deck, 2 LCVPs, 1000 lane meters, increased store in place of 1000 lane meters.

5 x T32 - 140m by 19m based on crossover 139, 2 merlin hanger, chinook fight deck, 2 LCVP sized vessels, 2 rhibs plus containerised off board systems.

To me the above sounds like something that can work in both a distributed sence or as a tradition ARG. They also have the added benifited of not being a threat to the carriers like flat tops would be.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:20Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.

My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. ...
Sorry I understand this discussion stands on optimistic "what should have been" viewpoint. But I cannot stop pointing out that
- RFA Argus's crew is needed for the 2nd FSSS. Choose which?
- Waves are gone. Anyway, there is no crew to man them. With the 3rd FSSS coming, which also does not have any crew, I think 2 Waves now in extended readiness will simply go. One vessel out of the 10-12 RFA fleet "without crew" is needed to account for long maintenance/modernization, but you do not need more than one.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Agree Donald-san, what I’m proposing is the three LSDs (and Argus) get replaced by three (but more realistically two) JSBLs.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:29
Jake1992 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:20Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.

My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. ...
Sorry I understand this discussion stands on optimistic "what should have been" viewpoint. But I cannot stop pointing out that
- RFA Argus's crew is needed for the 2nd FSSS. Choose which?
- Waves are gone. Anyway, there is no crew to man them. With the 3rd FSSS coming, which also does not have any crew, I think 2 Waves now in extended readiness will simply go. One vessel out of the 10-12 RFA fleet "without crew" is needed to account for long maintenance/modernization, but you do not need more than one.
It could be said that there is a plan and that plan is for the RFA to end up with

4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS

This will replace the current operational ships

4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus

Meaning there are crews for 3 x Tide class , 2 x SSS and 3 x MRSS allowing for one of each class to be in maintenance / refit at any one time allowing for better operational flow. Now I would like to see a 5th tanker and there is no reason why the RFA can't employ more staff to cover this

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:57
4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS

This will replace the current operational ships

4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus
Sounds plausible, effectively the Bays and Argus replaced by the four MRSS.

The big question would be what would replace the Albions and that decision would heavily influence the ultimate design of the MRSS.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 11:12
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:57
4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS

This will replace the current operational ships

4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus
Sounds plausible, effectively the Bays and Argus replaced by the four MRSS.

The big question would be what would replace the Albions and that decision would heavily influence the ultimate design of the MRSS.
I was just taking about the RFA of course the grand plan is to replace the 2 LPDs , 3 LSD & Argus with 6 MRSS but I think this needs to change and that is why I now think we need 4 x Logistic Sea Bases - based on the Enabler class and 2 x LHD/LHA's

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:00 The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.
The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.

Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is to the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 11:27
Repulse wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 10:00 The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.
The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.

Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is too the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...
Yes it is interesting that there is a lot of talk about re-enforced company level operations yet all the current deployments are based around re-enforced Battalion operations and have been from 2016 from this date we seen the standard deployment of 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD and 1 escort this is joined by ether Argus or a Point class and sometimes both
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Post Reply