aonestudio
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 11 March 2018
- Messages
- 2,541
- Reaction score
- 5,921
Type 31 GPFF
- Thread starter Grey Havoc
- Start date
aonestudio
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 11 March 2018
- Messages
- 2,541
- Reaction score
- 5,921
Indonesia Lays Keel of First 'Red White' Frigate - Naval News
On August 25, PT PAL Indonesia laid the keel of the first Red White Frigate for the Indonesian Navy (TNI AL).
www.navalnews.com
MdCN is sized for torpedo tube launch from submarines. That repackaging would have been done regardless of SCALP fitting or not fitting a VLS.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,378
- Reaction score
- 10,271
Good point. I finally found a drawing that shows the fuselage width of Scalp/Storm Shadow as 48cm, which actually should fit in a 21-inch surface ship VLS cell (but as you say, not in a torpedo tube).
aonestudio
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 11 March 2018
- Messages
- 2,541
- Reaction score
- 5,921
View: https://twitter.com/Babcockplc/status/1755917075220947436
www.thalesgroup.com
View: https://twitter.com/HMSVenturerRN/status/1764867905014133136
Delivery of Royal Navy’s new Type 31 Frigate Achieves Key Milestones
Thales is proud to be part of Type 31 project for the Royal Navy, for which the first frigates are currently being built in Rosyth by Babcock. Within this collaboration, Thales is responsible for the delivery of the Mission System (MS) for the Inspiration Class Type 31 frigates…
Thales completes factory acceptance tests for Type 31 frigate mission system
Thales has successfully completed factory acceptance tests (FATs) for the first Type 31 mission system, the company announced on 28 February.
www.janes.com
Sintra
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 7 April 2008
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 17
Storm Shadow/SCALP "Years late, high cost, low volumes"?!
What are you talking about?!
Contracted in February 1997, being used in anger in March 2003. On budget. More than 2500 built till now, with a hot production line still churning them out in Saint Selles Denis (more than) two decades after the first one being delivered. Incredibly sucessfull operational history in at least four different war scenarios (arguably five, with Yemen). AND it was the program that quick started MBDA.
You couldnt have picked a bigger success story if you tried (well, unless it was the Matra Exocet).
By comparison the LM JASSM development was nothing short of a disaster.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 10,400
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Scotland are busy building the Royal Navy's Type 31 frigates CREDIT: Barry Wheeler/Royal Navy
Young people must understand their freedom is at risk, says Babcock chief
Interview: Babcock boss David Lockwood on why Britain must raise defence spending
www.telegraph.co.uk
FighterJock
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 4,208
- Reaction score
- 3,385
What has been said in the telegraph article is so true Grey Havoc, Britain must increase it's defence spending now to get out of the problems that it has found itself in ever since the 2010s. Ordering the new Ballistic missile submarines and the GCAP/Tempest fighter is a start but not enough as far as I am concerned.
View attachment 725515
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Scotland are busy building the Royal Navy's Type 31 frigates CREDIT: Barry Wheeler/Royal Navy
Young people must understand their freedom is at risk, says Babcock chief
Interview: Babcock boss David Lockwood on why Britain must raise defence spending
Frigates that don't exist according to some Scots nats.....
Ambitions and needs must first be met by the fundamental requirement of having a large enough body of trained personnel.
Immediately that hits a priority gradient. How much of a population should the military employ?
Type 31 at least has the merit of being lean in crew numbers.
Immediately that hits a priority gradient. How much of a population should the military employ?
Type 31 at least has the merit of being lean in crew numbers.
1635yankee
Recovering aeronautical engineer
- Joined
- 18 August 2020
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 477
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 4,507
Demography is certainly going to have a profound effect as a driver of the increased use of automated and autonomous systems.
The Black Death upended the feudal agricultural system, making labour both more mobile and better paid. While comparison with a pandemic of that scale may seem hyperbolic (though we couldn't rule one out), developed countries - even China - are projecting demographic crises with sharply declining birth rates. Global population is projected to reach a peak of about 10 billion by the end of the century (it's 8 billion now) and thereafter decline with a far greater proportion of the elderly.
A number of political and military figures are talking about reintroducing conscription. Initially it's in reaction to the perceived 'post Cold War to pre-war' transition in Europe, but overall demographic trends are increasingly highlighted. It's not just 'kids these days' but 'there aren't enough kids.'
In the Asia-Pacific:
China's falling population threatens its industrial and military might
Economic engine at risk with workforce set to shrink an estimated 9% in 10 years
asia.nikkei.com
Japan’s Changing Demographics and the Impact on Its Military - Association for Asian Studies
Modern Japan has long been a prosperous country with a growing population, but over the past couple of decades, its economy has struggled and its birth rate has been declining while its population is rapidly aging. Japan’s population reached a peak of 128,057,352 people in October 2010, but it...
www.asianstudies.org
So, put you investments in robots and automation. The RN is certainly aware of its manpower issues and expects them to continue. Type 31 requires a crew of about a hundred and even a reduction to half that in the Type 32.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Babcock's corporate affairs chief John Howie discussed how how they were looking at significantly reducing the number of crew onboard future warships like the Type 32, stating that “People talk about a Type 32 frigate – we like to refer to it as Type 31 batch two. We’re doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two.”
Type 32 frigate - Wikipedia
Scroll down to "A radical solution for Type 83":
Otherwise it's...
Watch Dad's Army Streaming Online - TVShows.How
tvshows.how
'Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin/Xi...?'
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 1,838
Scroll down to "A radical solution for Type 83":
If manpower is a pressing issue I expect that the Type 83 is going to be a much larger ship, to allow for greater automation and access for maintainence, and greatly improved crew quarters to improve retention.
The desire to put large radars as high as possible is also going to drive up ship size, and since it looks like every other European country is looking at splitting phased array radars between fore and aft superstructure blocks for survivability (as seen in the German F126 and F127, Italian DDX and Dutch FuAD), I expect the same will be done with Type 83, which will almost certainly drive displacement well beyond 4000 tons and very likely over 10,000 tons.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 10,400
- Joined
- 3 January 2006
- Messages
- 965
- Reaction score
- 402
The genius of the 4,000 ton concept is that it doesn’t need a high mounted radar installation when it’s operating with the carriers. As an escort, most likely in the company of allied ships equipped with SM-3, it also doesn’t need to be a primaryABM platform. That eliminates the need for an excessively wide hull. Moreover, with totally unmanned machinery and non-habitable spaces filled with inert gas, you can minimize hull and crew size. No need for damage control. Get rid of silly missions like anti-drug patrols and SAR and you don’t need a permanently embarked helicopter. The Type 45 was profoundly noisy and a hopeless ASW platform, so limit the minimal 4,000 ton ship to active anti-torpedo defense. No capability lost. It could work.
On the other hand, retiring the Type 45s prematurely in favor of AAW optimized Type 31s could work as well. You might even be able to “recycle” much of the Type 45’s sensor suite, in the same way that the Type 26s do with the Type 23s.
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 1,838
As part of a relatively small navy, it will almost certainly be operating independently at times. ABM capability should be organic, given the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and US politics, Britain may find itself with the need to defend against ballistic threats without Allies who have access to SM-3.
Additional beam is not the problem, if you can afford the AAW combat system, then you can afford a considerably larger hull.
Non-habitable spaces filled with inert gas suggests a hull significant volume will be required, hence something much larger than 4000 tons.
Again said combatant is likely to be used in a general-purpose role (why else is it called a Type 83, rather than a Type 46?), and helicopters are too useful to do without.
The Type 83 is a new build destroyer design, it hardly has to have the same limitations as the Type 45. Silencing was fitted to previous Royal Navy destroyers, and even when operating in concert with a carrier, you don't want it's escort revealing the location of the carrier group.
If I was designing a new destroyer with the expectation that I would operating it potentially well into the 2060s, I would want a ship with significantly more margins (be they topweight, volume, power generation or cooling capacity) than a Danish frigate design from the 1990s.
Better to build a 10-15,000 ton plus hull with IEP and a Type 26-esque mission bay
You only have to look at Zumwalt as an example of IEP which did not go well both for its cost and extraordinary number of years in build, and do not want to repeat the experience, if you want a quiet ASW ship nearly all use hybrid propulsion system, otherwise for an AAW ship is there any reason that they have to be as quiet as an ASW ship when they will be escorting a much nosier carrier, if you need additional electrical power use larger DGs which would not be surprised if an order magnitude cheaper and faster to build than any IEP system.
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 1,838
Britain has made use of IEP and Electric drive on the Type 23s, Type 45s, Albion and Queen Elizabeth classes, the Royal Navy now has plenty of experience with it.
IEP does not add anything to the build time of a ship.
I would hope the Carrier, AAW escorts and ASW escort all have similar, and very extensive, levels of silencing. I would like to minimise undersurface threats to warships, especially assets as important as a carrier group.
Even if you're not worried about the noise signatures of your Carrier and it's AAW escorts, the ASW escort's job is made much easier if the radiated noise from its consorts are much lower.
At the expense of greater cost, size, fuel burn, worse endurance, more personnel for maintenance, and the small but glaring fact that nobody has built such a ship. When faced with the need for much greater power generation, defence bureaucracies around the world keep selecting IEP. I'm not aware of a modern CODAD surface combatant with the 120-140 MW of power generation capacity that DD-21 was intended to have, or for that matter the 78 MW of Zumwalt as built.
The concept of a AAW only ship could encompass something down to 4,000tons....maybe even less.
But this would struggle to perform other duties. As such it should either be described as a Type 4X or Type 6X vessel.
It could only become multirole and be described as Type 8X if it was in fact a distributed systems concept and purchased in large numbers.
While a ship over 10,000tons could potentially perform a very wide range of duties as a Singular vessel alone and be built in low numbers.
Arguably in a shooting war as Ukraine, and frankly most other conflicts that endure over more than a few months, favour the large scale production over small scale.
Should we say get into a conventional shooting war with the likes of China and manage to keep it below the nuclear threshold. Then endurance and capacity will count.
This may be prompting the Admiralty to change it's thinking......
But it's hard to envision the solution being a return to something like the Ivar Huitfeldt AAW ships.
But this would struggle to perform other duties. As such it should either be described as a Type 4X or Type 6X vessel.
It could only become multirole and be described as Type 8X if it was in fact a distributed systems concept and purchased in large numbers.
While a ship over 10,000tons could potentially perform a very wide range of duties as a Singular vessel alone and be built in low numbers.
Arguably in a shooting war as Ukraine, and frankly most other conflicts that endure over more than a few months, favour the large scale production over small scale.
Should we say get into a conventional shooting war with the likes of China and manage to keep it below the nuclear threshold. Then endurance and capacity will count.
This may be prompting the Admiralty to change it's thinking......
But it's hard to envision the solution being a return to something like the Ivar Huitfeldt AAW ships.
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 4,507
I agree. I've heard the V-class SSBNs have become maintenance nightmares as they've aged because they're very cramped and it's hard to access many parts. On the other hand, it's often said that steel is cheap and air is free - what mainly drives cost is complexity.
The Zumwalt Mini-Me concept is very unlikely in my opinion. The one (very) early concept we've seen from BAE for the Type 83 is quite sizeable and has radars on the aft funnel.
Attachments
Understood Type 23 propulsion is a hybrid CODLAG with the Spey GTs driving through a reduction gearbox so not an IEP, the Type 45 IEP was a disaster as they kept breaking down, now class slowly undergoing expensive propulsion upgrade with more powerful diesels being fitted.
One of the reasons given for Zumwalts very long time in build was the IEP
Don't disagree but would point to the new German 10,000t F126 class designed by Damen who had originally looked at GTs, but finally chose all diesel, CODLAD with the main MAN propulsion diesels equipped with a high displacement, soft resilient mounting system to comply with the latest regulations regarding shock and noise requirements.
Not saying if you require very high power GTs are not a good choice as the main propulsion engines for max speed but at anything other than max speed they are gas guzzlers, e.g. the all GT Burkes range limited to approx 3,000nm with the Navy standard min 30% reserve, would note have seen the 16,000t Zumwalt IEP all GT quoted max range 6,000nm, so approx. 4,000 nm actual with 30% reserve whereas the all diesel Iver Huitfeldt class max range 9,000nm plus gives approx. 6,000nm actual. Long range is what's required for USN ships operating in the Pacific unless relying on noisy oilers which will be one of the prime targets for the Chinese subs.
As far as I remember the situation of Type 45's IEP was due to the operating environment was very different from design (Middle East vs North Sea), as well as software setting issue that will overload the GTs.
As there will only be more electronics on future vessels, having IEP will bring the benefit of providing more power which helps future upgrades also. Lasers will eat up some consumption too.
The last time I heard about limiting a 4000ton-ish vessel design was the Taiwan Navy with their 4250-ton design, and that didn't go well.
As there will only be more electronics on future vessels, having IEP will bring the benefit of providing more power which helps future upgrades also. Lasers will eat up some consumption too.
The last time I heard about limiting a 4000ton-ish vessel design was the Taiwan Navy with their 4250-ton design, and that didn't go well.
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 2,744
Issue originally was the Intercooler from Grumman Marine. It didn't work as advertised and instead of 'degrading gracefully' would fail totally and trip the entire system. The Diesel gensets onboard the T45 as built were designed to take over the load gradually (or provide hotel load etc when the ship was at anchor etc.). Instead when the entire system shut down rapidly the diesel gensets could not respond fast enough or provide enough power for the entire ship without the WR-21 running. There have been workarounds and some improvements made that appear to have mitigated most of the issues in practice (which lets face it is common across most systems). The full belt and braces Propulsion Improvement Project (PIP) underway at present for the T45's replaces the gensets with 3 far more powerful MTU diesels. In effect they take the place of the WR-21 as the main generators with the GT's providing additional power. Type 45 after PIP is still IEP, but with Diesel instead of the GT's primarily providing the bulk of the 'E' bit...
...Gas Turbines and IEP go together so well BECAUSE they have a narrow efficient drive band. They only have to maintain one set of rpm when driving a gen set. If you need more power, you bring another GT, or some diesel gensets online.
And if you need 78 megawatt or more, the size of diesel generators becomes prohibitive.
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 2,744
Absolutely, when running correctly a Type 45 which was almost twice the size of a Type 42 that it replaced would burn dramatically less fuel as the WR-21 would be happily spinning at its optimum settings. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that well on T45 (but has on the QE class with the MT-30's). It remains to be seen how the PIP will change things in terms of fuel burn.
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 535
- Reaction score
- 399
The problems are the GT engines not the IEP itself.
Because the original electric motor was tbe problem. But then again zumwalt is a first case ship.
F-126 also got an IEP or AEP how MTU likes to call it
My understanding the German F126 is not an IEP it is a hybrid electric drive (HED), combined diesel electric and diesel (CODLAD) propulsion system, the two MAN 32/44CR main propulsion diesel engines use standard mechanical drive via RENK gearboxes to the prop shafts. The onboard power for the F126 is provided by the four MTU Series 4000 variable speed diesel gensets, the advantage of the variable speed generator sets is a reduction of fuel consumption at part load operation and reduced maintenance. Understand it is the first time that variable speed generator sets can be used on Naval vessels as it needs to be combined with a DC Grid. The MTU gensets also provide the power to the two RENK advanced electric drives (AED). These electric propulsion motors drive the propellers either individually or together with the MDEs. AED can be rated from 1.4 to 6MW , no knowledge of the power rating chosen for the F126 (for ref the RN Type 26 uses two GE 3.4MW electric motors, have seen no figures for the Constellation HED).
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 535
- Reaction score
- 399
No your right i looked into it again and mixed up which AED solution was used for it as one is an IEP.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,930
- Reaction score
- 4,743
50 is not viable. Look at what the LCS ended up with. 80 or so will probably work.
Steel is cheap. Steel is really cheap.
Build a ship with space and topweight reserves for upgrades, or you're stuck with something like the US Ticonderoga class, which were basically not upgradeable as soon as they were launched. Oh, you could add software, but anything that actually added weight needed something else taken off.
And hand your opponents a free "We sank a Royal Navy warship"? Brilliant. How many of those crew are you planning on sacrificing at the same time?
My response to "getting rid of search and rescue capabilities" would get me banned. Not to mention it being the obligation of the laws of the sea to render aid to individuals in distress.
I'll just leave it as "do you know how many sailors on warships get lost over the side every deployment?"
Helicopters are sufficiently generally useful that every nation building warships includes helicopter capabilities, and when your nation is in the North Atlantic you want as much protection from the weather as possible. Which means not just a flight deck, but a hangar to stick that helicopter or two inside.
Is the Type 45's sensor suite worth installing into a new ship, or is it 20+ years out of date?
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 4,507
The Zumwalt Mini-Me offends me actually. It's an abomination that only a bean counter would love.
SAR is certainly an essential role, not to be stripped away in the interests of false economy. Surface warships have to be versatile because emergency response is so often required of them and emergencies by definition are unpredictable. Being able to cope with an emergency entails a broad set of capabilities.
Regarding the Type 45's sensor suite, sticking it in a new-ish frigate and expecting to serve for decades more would be insane.
This, I think, illustrates the difference between frigates and destroyers, as it is emerging, while 'cruiser' is a term that is going to be retired. The cruiser's role as a powerful, fast, ship able to hunt and kill over long-ranges is fulfilled by an SSN now. The only thing an SSN can't do that old cruisers or battlecruisers did was general disaster relief and peacetime projection of soft power by 'showing the flag' (like the Hood). Those roles can be performed by frigates, carriers, and LHDs etc.
'Destroyer' is an imprecise term but by default, and applied to a Type 45, it denotes a vessel that is at its best monitoring and controlling the battlespace around a fleet. The Type 45 in particular is focussed on air defence. The situation has changed since the requirements for the 45 were formulated and that's why simply moving its equipment into a frigate's hull for future battles won't work. At the high end, ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles are increasing threats and at the low end the current situation in the Red Sea - and everywhere, actually - has shown that cheap, numerous drones are to be taken very seriously and using million-pound missiles to shoot them down or burn them on the water is unsustainable. From what I've gleaned, the Type 83 will be expected to deal with the high end, which makes situational awareness reaching into space will be essential, whether with on-board systems or by connecting with space-based capabilities. Dragonfire lasers can be expected for the low end. Certainly, they will be fleet defenders. The only reason why they wouldn't operate independently is that it would be overkill for most tasks, not inadequacy.
Overall, I think 'destroyer' is going to mean a vessel that is more than simply an escort and which, other than a carrier, might be the surface lookout and guardian for a fleet or other vessels such as carriers and amphibious or littoral vessels in a task force (along with the auxiliaries of course).
The Type 26 is specialised for anti-submarine warfare in RN service but is also called a 'Global Combat Ship' which denotes its other capabilities, not unlike those of an old-fashioned cruiser. 'Frigate' in this case, recalls the 'fully rigged' ship that is in fact quite sizeable and able to operate independently. Indeed, the Type 26 is very large compared with a 23 and not much smaller than a 45. Significantly, the 26 is optimised for ASW in the RN but in other navies - Canada, Australia, Indonesia - which don't have 45s, 26 variants will will be more multi-purpose. Again, since the RN has more diverse ship types, the 31 is called the 'General Purpose Frigate.'
What the 32 turns out to be is anyone's guess at this stage. So far, we have some talk about it being a 'drone mothership,' while Babcock has proposed a 'Type 31 Batch 2' with more modularity, and BAE Systems has proposed a fairly small 'Adaptable Strike Frigate', which suggests more of a littoral role.
So, while names of ship types seem very vague, it appears that the RN plans could produce a range of complementary types if everything works out.
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 1,496
As far as I'm aware it's not really out of date, but it would certainly need updates if it were to be recycled and put onto a new ship, especially one entering service in the 2030's. At that point one may as well design and/or procure a completely new system.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,930
- Reaction score
- 4,743
Agreed, the US has been using the old "cruisers are named for cities" rubric for SSNs since the early 1970s.
Strictly speaking, a Destroyer was a ship designed to chase down and destroy torpedo boats before they could attack the battleships. By WW1, Destroyers were big and fast enough to replace most torpedo boats, so they gained an offensive mission to attack the battleships with torpedoes as well as keep opposing Destroyers away from the battleships. (In WW1, submarines were basically separate from the battle fleet.)
In WW2, Destroyers also picked up some AA protection tasks, as well as keeping the sneaky torpedo boats (submarines) away from the battleships and carriers.
So a modern Destroyer has ended up having to be capable of a lot of protection tasks. Needs to be able to shoot down planes, missiles, drones. Needs to be able to track and engage submarines. Usually gets some antiship and land attack missiles added to the mix as well. So a Destroyer needs AA and now TBMD missiles and radars, good surface search radars with periscope-seeking tricks, plus sonar, a helicopter hangar, and ASW weapons.
At this point, the functional difference between a cruiser and a destroyer is how long the ship is intended to be off by itself. Which means how many repair parts it has onboard as well as how much food and fuel the ship carries. We can make an argument about flag command space, which is generally part of a Cruiser's hull in the USN, but the JMSDF included flag space in their not-Burkes.
In the Age of Sail, Frigates were the largest ships that weren't in the Line of Battle.
When steam power overtook sails, the role of the Frigate was taken over by the Cruiser.
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 782
Point of clarification: Age of Sail frigates were cruisers. As were corvettes and even sloops. Cruiser was a mission description, not a ship type.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,930
- Reaction score
- 4,743
Fair enough, but the role of "largest ship not of the battle line" went from Frigates in age of sail to Cruisers today.
Yellow Palace
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 1,665
TBH, it doesn't matter what you call the ship.
he French frégate is translated into English differently for AAW and ASW ships, even when those ships are the same size. The Soviet Union built 'Large Anti-Submarine Ships'.
The question is, what job does it perform? The rest is just politics.
he French frégate is translated into English differently for AAW and ASW ships, even when those ships are the same size. The Soviet Union built 'Large Anti-Submarine Ships'.
The question is, what job does it perform? The rest is just politics.
BlackBat242
OK, I changed my personal text ;)
- Joined
- 10 April 2013
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 1,880
And the JMSDF built 4 classes of "Helicopter carrying ASW Destroyers" - 2 with a small flight deck and a hangar for 3 helos, and two with full-length flight decks.
Similar threads
-
-
Australia announces the outcome of it's Frigate competition
- Started by Rickshaw
- Replies: 65
-
-
RN Type 42 AAW Destroyer (Study 382) 1964 question
- Started by Thorvic
- Replies: 2
-