• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Standard Missile projects.

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles. Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
The SM-5 was the name given to the US Navy’s plan for an over-the-horizon, networked missile to leverage AEGIS CEC that would be targeted by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and would replace the SM-2(ER) Block IV. SM-3 is the upper tier BMD missile and SM-4 the cancelled RGM-165 Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM). The key to the whole SM-6 supplanting the SM-5 was the SM-2(ER) Block IVA (confused now?).

SM-2 Block IVA was to be a lower altitude BMD tier (terminal phase) to complement SM-3 that would also have an extended range AAW capability to replace Block IV. Block IVA was cancelled in 2001 and the Navy needed a gap fill so Raytheon proposed the SM-2 Block IV meets the AIM-120C-7 to create the RIM-174 Extended Range AAW Missile (ERAM) aka SM-6. SM-6 will have the over-the-horizon, networked capability of the SM-5 but will have the AMRAAM’s active seeker autonomous terminal interception rather than the E-2D supported solution of the SM-5. But don’t write off the SM-5 yet... it may re-emerge, especially if the threat start to field active seeker decoys.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
Thanks, I'd always wondered what SM-5 was. Apparently they're going back and modifying the SM-2 Block IVs that were built to fill the role of the IVAs that were cancelled. Any idea what these modifications are and do those modified missiles get a new designation? (SM-2 Block IVB?)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
Lampshade111 said:
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles. Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.
There's a picture floating around of an F-106 carrying a Standard missile of some sort in relation to either the Seekbat program or the Standard-based ASAT program.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
1
That picture is one of the Seekbat test rounds.

Here's soem AIM-97 info:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
sferrin said:
Thanks, I'd always wondered what SM-5 was. Apparently they're going back and modifying the SM-2 Block IVs that were built to fill the role of the IVAs that were cancelled. Any idea what these modifications are and do those modified missiles get a new designation? (SM-2 Block IVB?)
SM-2 Block IV is basically SM-2 Extended Range, that is the SM-2 missile with the Mk 72 booster (same booster used on SM-3 and SM-6) sized for use in Mk 41 strike length VLS cells. It is only used on US Navy AEGIS Cruisers providing an extended range (within line of sight) air defence capability. It's formal designation is RIM-156. The Block IV modification you refer to is probably juse the same as the SM-2 Block IIIB (RIM-66 or unboosted SM-2MR) Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) that adds a side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal engagement against missiles. Which is nothing like the BMD and over the horizon capability of the Block IVA.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
Abraham Gubler said:
SM-2 Block IV is basically SM-2 Extended Range, that is the SM-2 missile with the Mk 72 booster (same booster used on SM-3 and SM-6) sized for use in Mk 41 strike length VLS cells. It is only used on US Navy AEGIS Cruisers providing an extended range (within line of sight) air defence capability. It's formal designation is RIM-156. The Block IV modification you refer to is probably juse the same as the SM-2 Block IIIB (RIM-66 or unboosted SM-2MR) Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) that adds a side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal engagement against missiles. Which is nothing like the BMD and over the horizon capability of the Block IVA.
I'd thought the main difference between a Block IV and a IVA WAS the additional side-mounted IR seeker? ??? And how would the IVA have OTH capability, as I understand it it was still a SAR missile (or was it's IR seeker sufficient for terminal guidance on it's own?)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
Looks like the new SM-2 Block III varient with TVC will be called the "SM-2 Block IIIC" according to this weeks AvWeek.

"The centerpiece of the yet-to-be-funded SM-2 Block IIIC is a steering control upgrade—derived from the SM-6—the addition of jet-tab thrust vector control, improved guidance system and different autopilot. The thrust vector control is primarily aimed at enhancing short-range performance.

As a second step, the Navy and Raytheon are considering a dual-pulse rocket motor enhancement and introduction of more advanced guidance software, says Ron Shields, the company’s program manager. Shields says the upgrade program has already attracted international interest­—the SM-2 has a broad customer base, and many countries operating Block IIIAs would like to modernize them."

Hope it does get funded seeing how the -IIIB has been around for quite a while now.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
sferrin said:
I'd thought the main difference between a Block IV and a IVA WAS the additional side-mounted IR seeker? ??? And how would the IVA have OTH capability, as I understand it it was still a SAR missile (or was it's IR seeker sufficient for terminal guidance on it's own?)
Sorry for the late reply, didn't notice your post.

The SM-2 Block IVA was not like the SM-2 Block IIIA which added the secondary side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal performance. The SM-2 Block IVA's IR seeker was a 'side looking' system able to provide interception guidance against ballistic missiles over an area 100 km by 50 km. So presumably its sensitivity was able to support independent detection and engagement of air targets over the Mk 99's illumination horizon. You can see from this picture just how much space the Block IVA’s IR seeker occupied.
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
98
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non-standard-navy-sm-6-kills-cruise-missiles-deep-inland/
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
801
Reaction score
10
Abraham Gubler said:
The SM-5 was the name given to the US Navy’s plan for an over-the-horizon, networked missile to leverage AEGIS CEC that would be targeted by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes

Is this the concept that was also referred to as "Forward Pass"?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
"Forward pass" is a fairly generic term -- it's been used for various over-the-horizon concepts since the 1970s.

SM-5 came about in conjunction with the Navy's Mountain Top Cruise Missile Defense ACTD. Mountain Top got its name because they simulated the use of a future AEW&C aircraft with Standard Missile fire control capabilities by mounting an E-2-type radar, CEC systems, and a shipboard-type fire control radar on top of a mountain in Hawaii. The idea was to have a missile (a modified SM-2 Block III in the tests, eventually SM-5 if it went operational) that could receive both mid-course and terminal guidance from an airborne platform rather than just the launching ship. That turns out to be a very complicated task. In the end, it was easier (or at least cheaper) to just put an active seeker on the missile and skip the airborne illumination aspect (hence SM-6, with an AMRAAM seeker).

Here's a nice technical paper on Mountain Top for more details.
http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td1804/zinger.pdf
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
TomS said:
Hmm. . .from the PDF:

"A modified form of forward pass emerged in the late
1970s to early 1980s during a series of “outer air battle”
studies, which addressed next-generation Navy battle
group air defense requirements against Soviet bombers
armed with long-range antiship cruise missiles. If the
bombers could be intercepted before they approached
to within range of launching their missiles at U.S.
ships, a critical new layer of defense would be provided.
This variant of forward pass featured a conceptual, longrange
ramjet missile that could be launched from an
Aegis cruiser
and flown toward a carrier-based surveillance
and fire control aircraft."



Maybe? ???
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
I think this absolutely was the missile they had in mind for the outer air battle studies.


http://books.google.com/books?id=CQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=asalm+outer+air+battle&source=bl&ots=fpeuJH-xoX&sig=JP4Le-E73vL3WYCfGSycPMhejCY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DvvzU9CvD8aMyASbhYG4DQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
10
TomS said:

The missile evolved into a series of Navy ramjet studies. I don't have the names handy. The sensor aircraft evolved into CONDOR. At the same time DARPA was doing similar, but not directly related work.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
98
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/supersonic-self-defense-navy-nifc-ca-passes-key-test/
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
6
MDA, Navy Now Testing SM-6 Against Ballistic Missiles In Terminal Phase

The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy this week began a series of tests in the Pacific Ocean to assess a previously unevaluated feature of Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 ship self-defense weapon: its ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of flight, an objective key to the Pentagon's aim of fielding a comprehensive sea-based ballistic missile defense capability.

On July 29, MDA and the Navy initiated a series of tests at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii -- scheduled to conclude Aug. 4 -- that aim to test and certify the first increment of a sea-based terminal defense capability.

The test is dubbed Multi-Mission Missile Warfare (MMW) and divided into four events, according to MDA spokesman Rick Lehner.

"These events will demonstrate advanced Aegis tracking and engagement capabilities in the terminal phase of ballistic flight," Lehner said.

To date, MDA and the Navy have repeatedly demonstrated the ability of the Aegis BMD system to intercept short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles during the midcourse phase above the atmosphere with the Standard Missile-3 weapon system.

As part of a plan to incrementally improve the system, an objective is to also intercept short-range ballistic missiles inside the atmosphere. If effective, the SM-6 would replace the SM-2 Block IV interceptor currently deployed for terminal defense.

The new capability builds on the Navy's Aegis Baseline 9 architecture, adding terminal defense with the SM-6 guided missile and the BMD 5 series weapon system, according to MDA.

In 2014, MDA completed the SM-6 Dual I software build 1 -- also called Sea Based Terminal Increment 1 -- and demonstrated its performance in a simulated environment. This week's MMW events are intended to validate the capability; MDA also plans follow-on testing in fiscal year 2016.

"Events 1 and 2 will demonstrate the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability to engage a short-range ballistic missile target with an SM-6 Dual I missile and the SM-2 Block IV missile in the endo-atmosphere," Lehner said.

"Events 3 and 4 will demonstrate the SM-6 Dual I capability against AW targets," he added.

MDA and the Navy are also planning to field a second increment of the sea-based terminal defense capability to be certified and fielded in 2018. -- Jason Sherman
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
6
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
bring_it_on said:
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
Ugh. Just. .. ugh. First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it. SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's. Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy. And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
98
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
Ugh. Just. .. ugh. First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it. SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's. Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy. And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.
Would a near vertical Mach 6+ tungsten dart diving through multiple decks be possible or a bunch of flechettes hitting all the radar and communication masts?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
Ugh. Just. .. ugh. First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it. SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's. Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy. And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.
Cost may also be another factor but if they can do the same mission with the same missile it gives some magazine flexibility
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
Ugh. Just. .. ugh. First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it. SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's. Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy. And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.
Cost may also be another factor but if they can do the same mission with the same missile it gives some magazine flexibility
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM. Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range. (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
525
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM. Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range. (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )
SM-6 is a suboptimal anti-ship missile, but, VLS cells cannot be reloaded at sea. In that case, it stands to reason to make the SM-6 as flexible as possible so that a warship could equip as many as possible.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
6
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM. Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range. (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )
I know..What I meant was that it is likely to be significantly more expensive with the only utility being that the missile could be used for both air to air and anti surface.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM. Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range. (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )
SM-6 is a suboptimal anti-ship missile, but, VLS cells cannot be reloaded at sea. In that case, it stands to reason to make the SM-6 as flexible as possible so that a warship could equip as many as possible.
If that were the case every ship in every navy would only carry one type of missile. They don't. Hmmmm, I wonder why. BTW all Standards, with the exception of SM-3, already have secondary antiship capability. We still have Harpoons, Tomahawks, and soon, LRASMs for reasons already mentioned.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
6
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
bring_it_on said:
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..
There is room in a VLS cell for them to stretch a LRASM about 4 feet. They'd need to use the Tomahawk booster instead of the ASROC booster to do it though. As for a supersonic Tomahawk. . .they'd need to make it a completely new missile. Different engine, intake, nose, wings, etc. Probably be better to just do like the Rooskies do with the Sizzler and have the high speed "dart" for the final run.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
98
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..
There is room in a VLS cell for them to stretch a LRASM about 4 feet. They'd need to use the Tomahawk booster instead of the ASROC booster to do it though. As for a supersonic Tomahawk. . .they'd need to make it a completely new missile. Different engine, intake, nose, wings, etc. Probably be better to just do like the Rooskies do with the Sizzler and have the high speed "dart" for the final run.
Lock on and then a 'Super Roadrunner' booster accelerates it to M8+ would be a sight to behold :eek:

Last 10 seconds of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bPu58fSc0
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
55
We've discussed it before and now it comes to pass:

Carter said the Pentagon's five-year budget plan also included $2.9 billion to modify Raytheon Co's new SM-6 missiles for use as powerful anti-ship weapons and buy 625 more of the weapons, which are now used for missile defense.

In fiscal 2017, the Navy would spend $587 million to buy 125 SM-6 missiles, according to a senior defense official.

Secret testing last month had proven the Navy's ability to use the new Raytheon missiles as offensive anti-ship weapons, Carter told sailors at the Navy's massive San Diego base.
Emphasis mine. Full article
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-budget-navy-idUSKCN0VC2LX
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
98
https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

Click bait title with similar info as Reuters story (probably where it came from) but included this interesting paragraph I haven't heard before:

The US has already run tests with the SM missile and the F-35 fighter-bomber, in which an SM missile has been fired from a ship but with no target identified. An F-35 in flight took control of the missile in midair, and then as the missile proceeded downrange, handed control of that missile to another F-35. Thus you could imagine a small, hardened launcher on an island popping up a missile and flinging it way into China, where it gets vectored on to target by a stealthy F-35.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
There is an ongoing plan to increase the 2nd stage (main missile) of the SM-3 to a 21" motor (SM-3 Blk II).



I found some test results on the new 21 motor

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA320272

They also talked about making a surface strike version of the missile with a range of 550+ km.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
In fact they've flight tested it twice already. The strike version (Arc Light) was killed sometime ago. Considering the Block II is about $31 million I don't know how wise it would be to use it as a strike missile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJhKkiTvtxg
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Hey Spudman, why'd you change the slide? I was interested in that 27-inch development.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
I w
TomS said:
Hey Spudman, why'd you change the slide? I was interested in that 27-inch development.
I saw that too but I figured it was too big (the pic, not the missile).

I'll dig up some more info and post it again.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Here is some more info on the 27" SM-3 BlkII

Basic Info
http://defense-update.com/20101118_aegis_sm3b2.html

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
Don't recall if I've posted this before:

http://www.systima.com/prod/Space%20Systems.html
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Pretty sure you did post it somewhere, but not in this thread, so good to see it again.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
201
TomS said:
Pretty sure you did post it somewhere, but not in this thread, so good to see it again.
Probably in the LRASM-B or ASALM threads.
 
Top