USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
If the US decides to build the next-gen cruiser, no edge-peripheral launch system/tubes like DDG-1000 Zumwalt, way too vulnerable, keep armament amidship and re-loadable.
Vulnerable how? On the contrary, they act as armor for the ship, protecting it from deeper penetrations. The cells are armored in such a way that a missile can burn in it's cell without harming the ship. In contrast, if the Mark 41 gets hit, the ship is a goner.

Also, VLS is not practically reloadable at sea in any US ship. The Navy gave up on attempting underway reloading of the Mark 41 decades ago.
The Mark 41 is not that vulnerable to hits, the times that they suffer an hang missile and explosions in the cells comes to mind...

But it does eat up a Metric Crapton of premium centerline space. Space that can be use for may other things.

Crew quarters, guns, storage, generators, ETC.

Two of which are noted problems on the current combat ships. The navy will love to give its crew more space and ships more power for DEW type toys.

The Mk57 gives you that option without making the ship larger, and as such it be slightly more cheaper.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
The Mark 41 is not that vulnerable to hits, the times that they suffer an hang missile and explosions in the cells comes to mind...

I know we've had restrained firings (rarely) but I have never heard of an in-launcher detonation, ever. The Navy's commitment to insensitive munitions makes that incredibly unlikely.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
1,750
Is Cruisers today more relevant than, say, Cruisers in WWII? If it were, and war breaks out, I don't think the marginal performance difference would be highlighted at all.


The replacement for the Burke is a ... Long Burke?

Small programs with fast iteration is low risk compared to leap-ahead with large planned runs.
-----
edit: perhaps the Navy could steal AF digital engineering and plan an series of ships instead of one and done ddX design.

Note the author.

 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
If the US decides to build the next-gen cruiser, no edge-peripheral launch system/tubes like DDG-1000 Zumwalt, way too vulnerable, keep armament amidship and re-loadable.
Vulnerable how? On the contrary, they act as armor for the ship, protecting it from deeper penetrations. The cells are armored in such a way that a missile can burn in it's cell without harming the ship. In contrast, if the Mark 41 gets hit, the ship is a goner.

Also, VLS is not practically reloadable at sea in any US ship. The Navy gave up on attempting underway reloading of the Mark 41 decades ago.
The Mark 41 is not that vulnerable to hits, the times that they suffer an hang missile and explosions in the cells comes to mind...

But it does eat up a Metric Crapton of premium centerline space. Space that can be use for may other things.

Crew quarters, guns, storage, generators, ETC.

Two of which are noted problems on the current combat ships. The navy will love to give its crew more space and ships more power for DEW type toys.

The Mk57 gives you that option without making the ship larger, and as such it be slightly more cheaper.
Mk57 also makes makes a lot of sense if large-diameter hypersonic weapons are likely to stick around. While a modular dense pack module which can be configured for multiple sizes is a reasonable concept, it also pits the hypersonic load against the "everything else" load every time you plan to fill the cells up. As we're likely to see with the hypersonic weaponry refit for the DDG-1000s, pVLS lets you essentially set a floor on that "everything else" load from the start.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
That seems like reasonable weapons and sensor suite. It looks like it retains a small hull sonar, which is something I felt the FFGX should have had (maybe in the next batch). They mention being able to swap 32 VLS cells for a dozen larger cells (presumably CPS)...what is the notional total VLS fit? Is that another set of VLS cells admid ship? The document didn't get into specifics.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
366
Reaction score
505
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
Interestingly, the peripheral VLS arrangement from the Zumwalt is not repeated here, as it wouldn't have the modularity as indicated in the presentation slide. Does this make the Mk.57 VLS a dead end, given that the 12-block VLS cells on DDG(X) would likely be larger?
 
Last edited:

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
Interestingly, the peripheral VLS arrangement from the Zumwalt is not repeated here, as it wouldn't have the modularity as indicated in the presentation slide. Does this make the Mk.57 VLS a dead end, given that the VLS cells on DDG(X) would likely be larger?
At least on graphics it appears to be 2x32 blocks, with either one swappable for 12 plus size ones.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Interestingly, the peripheral VLS arrangement from the Zumwalt is not repeated here, as it wouldn't have the modularity as indicated in the presentation slide. Does this make the Mk.57 VLS a dead end, given that the VLS cells on DDG(X) would likely be larger?

I think very likely yes.

The new status quo will likely end up as Mk41/21-inch missiles for the majority of the inventory plus some gigantic ~34-inch tubes for hypersonic strike and massive ABM interceptors.

The "Destroyer Payload Module" reference implies an interchangable unit (like the VPM) which might be similar to that CPS launcher modules being worked on for the DDG-1000s. That could incorporate Mk57-size tubes without too much trouble but I just don't see the demand.
 
Last edited:

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
605
While the graphic in the report doesn’t state it - it looks like the area where the Destroyer Payload Module could be fitted has another 32 Mk 41 cells, for a total of 64 - 26 less than the Burke class. Does the USN consider 90 VLS cells excessive now, or do they see the Constellation class picking up some slack?
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
While the graphic in the report doesn’t state it - it looks like the area where the Destroyer Payload Module could be fitted has another 32 Mk 41 cells, for a total of 64 - 26 less than the Burke class. Does the USN consider 90 VLS cells excessive now, or do they see the Constellation class picking up some slack?
The wording on the slide is a bit misleading, the actual image shows 2 of the standard USN 32-cell Mk41 blocks for 64 missiles on the bow. The amidships installation is less clear, but space wise there could easily be 1 or 2 more blocks back there.

They then have an objective requirement for a 12 x (large cell) module that fits in the same footprint as the mk41. In other words, something other than the adapted payload tube which is planned for the DDG-1000 refits.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
3,361
The US Navy ended the Cold War with a coherent combination of low (Perry) medium (Spruance) and high (Tico/Bunker Hill) ships.
In the last thirty years it has clearly lost it its way. The Burke class have become de facto replacements for the Perry/Spruance. Meanwhile the LCS and Zumwalt classes have swallowed up resources with no evident success.
The low end can be dealt with by importing European designs to release the Burkes for medium end duties.
A multipurpose large hull like the Spruance but incorporating lessons from Aegis and Zumwalt is the obvious solution.
Space for different weapons fits (AAW/ASW/Land strike) will be crucial.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
The future appears to be FFGX /Constellation frigates and ‘Large Surface Combatant’, which seems to be a cruiser by another name.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
The future appears to be FFGX /Constellation frigates and ‘Large Surface Combatant’, which seems to be a cruiser by another name.
The distinctions between Cruiser and Destroyer have been meaningless since the 1950s. Large Surface Combatant is an entirely reasonable description, and is probably a more accurate description than Cruiser or Destroyer.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
DDG-X Program.

Looks promising.

The tank test photo is interesting. Basically a more Zumwalt-like superstructure mated to that very fine forward-raked bow. Still a lot of RCS shaping, but maybe not as draft-sensitive as the DDG-1000 bow shape?

View attachment 672120
Guess I was right about my prediction (not sure if I stated it on here though) that although DDG(X) might look more like a Burke than a Zumwalt externally (including a conventional seakeeping hull), it would have much more in common with the Zumwalt, especially internally.

Still I am bitterly disappointed about the lack of phased-array SATCOMs though.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Basically a Type 055 copy with less capability. Much smaller cells, no CIWS up front, no ASUW rockets, and still using dish illuminators for god's sake. Fail. No wonder USNI shut down the comments section on this farce.

Would not be at all surprised if the someone said, "hey, the Type 055 has some rocket launchers at the back so we need some. Oh, ours are RAM launchers? Well that's okay, just stick 'em on there."


Apologies for the rant. I've come to expect the worst when it comes to the US's ability to follow through on either the Tico replacement or hypersonics. (God knows they've given me reason to.) I'll give them the benefit of a doubt for now.
 
Last edited:

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
Basically a Type 055 copy with less capability. Much smaller cells, no CIWS up front, no ASUW rockets, and still using dish illuminators for god's sake. Fail. No wonder USNI shut down the comments section on this farce.
Smaller cells matter when there is something too large to put into them. Right now, there isn't.
'huge cells are in green in any case, and they're intended to be readily swappable.

ASUW - SM6-Ib?

Dish illums - the same: SM-2s stock won't go anywhere anytime soon, and the intention is to produce something reliably. Unless the intention is to go with lots of empty boxes, but what's the point of 128 cells in this case?

I don't see anything wrong with this design, at least not on the surface level.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Guess I was right about my prediction (not sure if I stated it on here though) that although DDG(X) might look more like a Burke than a Zumwalt externally (including a conventional seakeeping hull), it would have much more in common with the Zumwalt, especially internally.

Definitely. Sounds liek something very similar to Zumwalt IPS but taking advantage of improvements in electric propulsion technology. The released diagrams with that tank test do show cross sections with a lot of tumblehome, most starting at or near the waterline, so it sounds like there's actually a lot of Zumwalt DNA in the hull shape too, just not the wave-piercing bow.

Basically a Type 055 copy with less capability. Much smaller cells, no CIWS up front, no ASUW rockets, and still using dish illuminators for god's sake. Fail. No wonder USNI shut down the comments section on this farce.

The USN seems to be getting quite a lot of performance out of 21-inch missiles. They don't necessarily NEED bigger tubes. And the Destroyer Payload Module concept includes the potential for larger tubes if there were a pressing need (which there isn't right now).

Dish illuminators are clearly for backwards compatibility, but how many new SAMs will even need terminal illumination? SM-6 doesn't, neither does SM-2 Block IIIC (MR Active). That seems to be the future plan.

The issue of ASuW missiles is probably still an open question. There's a good chance they end up in VLS, assuming that the Offensive Missile Strategy comes together at all. And if not, this design is NOT a final one at all, it's just a sketch. So you might well see box launchers added at some point. There will be room.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Guess I was right about my prediction (not sure if I stated it on here though) that although DDG(X) might look more like a Burke than a Zumwalt externally (including a conventional seakeeping hull), it would have much more in common with the Zumwalt, especially internally.

Definitely. Sounds liek something very similar to Zumwalt IPS but taking advantage of improvements in electric propulsion technology. The released diagrams with that tank test do show cross sections with a lot of tumblehome, most starting at or near the waterline, so it sounds like there's actually a lot of Zumwalt DNA in the hull shape too, just not the wave-piercing bow.

Basically a Type 055 copy with less capability. Much smaller cells, no CIWS up front, no ASUW rockets, and still using dish illuminators for god's sake. Fail. No wonder USNI shut down the comments section on this farce.

The USN seems to be getting quite a lot of performance out of 21-inch missiles. They don't necessarily NEED bigger tubes. And the Destroyer Payload Module concept includes the potential for larger tubes if there were a pressing need (which there isn't right now).

Dish illuminators are clearly for backwards compatibility, but how many new SAMs will even need terminal illumination? SM-6 doesn't, neither does SM-2 Block IIIC (MR Active). That seems to be the future plan.

The issue of ASuW missiles is probably still an open question. There's a good chance they end up in VLS, assuming that the Offensive Missile Strategy comes together at all. And if not, this design is NOT a final one at all, it's just a sketch. So you might well see box launchers added at some point. There will be room.
"The USN seems to be getting quite a lot of performance out of 21-inch missiles. They don't necessarily NEED bigger tubes. "

Imagine how much more performance they could get with larger tubes. ArcLight might have actually been possible. You can always put a smaller missile in a large tube. The opposite is not true however. As for the DPM sounds like they didn't learn their lesson with LCS.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
It looks like it has what it needs to get the job done. The intent wasn't to build a Kirov, the intent was to build an AAW focused escort that could handle the full spectrum of AA missions from ABM to low level cruise missiles, and this seems to fit the bill.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
It looks like it has what it needs to get the job done. The intent wasn't to build a Kirov, the intent was to build an AAW focused escort that could handle the full spectrum of AA missions from ABM to low level cruise missiles, and this seems to fit the bill.
Did somebody suggest the intent was to build a Kirov? Or do you think that putting cells larger than the Mk41 would demand something the size of Kirov? Well let me help you out there:

1602798484233.png

None of those larger cells require a Kirov.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
The USN seems to be getting quite a lot of performance out of 21-inch missiles. They don't necessarily NEED bigger tubes. And the Destroyer Payload Module concept includes the potential for larger tubes if there were a pressing need (which there isn't right now).

Dish illuminators are clearly for backwards compatibility, but how many new SAMs will even need terminal illumination? SM-6 doesn't, neither does SM-2 Block IIIC (MR Active). That seems to be the future plan.

The issue of ASuW missiles is probably still an open question. There's a good chance they end up in VLS, assuming that the Offensive Missile Strategy comes together at all. And if not, this design is NOT a final one at all, it's just a sketch. So you might well see box launchers added at some point. There will be room.

The choice of the future of the MK41 cell, and cell size is independent of the DDG(X). That's the entire point of the program, to take the current best in class with the Flight III AEGIS BL10+ and put that on a new hull with more room and IPS. If they decide to go for a larger diameter cell, they'll add it to this vessel at a given time during its production. They've already mentioned that it will be able to have the 12 larger diameter cells in place of the 32 cell MK41 and one would assume that this would support 12 LRHW's so you can probably also add other larger missiles there if you need. The ship has room to support all that. They'll also be foolish to completely ditch the MK41 given how proliferated it is and given it works for 100% of the defensive weapons currently in production or in the works for fielding over the next 5-8 years. If they need something that is larger for a special application they can always add those and the greater volume availability of the ship should allow this just as it does for (probably) LRHW.

The SM-6 1B and SM-3 2A are the two most advanced missiles in the Navy's IAMD inventory. The SM-6 1B is still 4-5 years from entering service so those will likely not exist in large quantities when the first DDG(X) enters construction. Any wholesale shift to a larger diameter cell for VLS has to be independent of this program. This is as much about integrating what the Navy needs into a new hull. To start, they are choosing to integrate what they currently have on Flight III so that they reduce upfront risk. This is also important to manage a smooth transition from Flight III production at the two yards to DDG(X) production. The PM spoke about this being important during yesterdays presentation. Given their record with LCS, and Zumwalt, one can't really blame them.

IMO for the first few DDG(X) they need to -

1) Get the size right
2) Have adequate power
3) Have enough room for future enhancement
4) Meet their affordability targets

Rest can all happen incrementally. If they get either of these fundamentals wrong, they risk of completely messing up the transition from DDG-51 to DDGX. They need the latter to take over and be delivered at 2-3 hulls a year without significant delays or issues.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
It looks like it has what it needs to get the job done. The intent wasn't to build a Kirov, the intent was to build an AAW focused escort that could handle the full spectrum of AA missions from ABM to low level cruise missiles, and this seems to fit the bill.
Did somebody suggest the intent was to build a Kirov? Or do you think that putting cells larger than the Mk41 would demand something the size of Kirov? Well let me help you out there:

View attachment 672152

None of those larger cells require a Kirov.

The USN doesn't have anything larger than 21" in service. If and when it does, space has been reserved to upgrade some of the tubes. It looks like the size of the space reserve is intended to make CPS a possibility, but the USN might adopt some other larger caliber missile for some reason, in which case a totally different size launch tube might be installed. I don't see any problems with that situation.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
As for the DPM sounds like they didn't learn their lesson with LCS.

The problem with LCS isn't really modularity, it's being able to train crews to rapidly swap between widely disparate missions and equipment.

The Payload Module concept is fundamentally no different than being able to swap loadouts in existing VLS, just preserving the option to have different size tubes if necessary. As long as the missiles in a Payload Module are AURs, they bring very few of the problems faced by LCS.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
I'm not sure if "Destroyer Payload Module" implies something like the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System, where they can add larger cells in lieu of the smaller ones, or if they mean hull-plugs containing more VLS modules like the Virginia Block Vs.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
It looks like it has what it needs to get the job done. The intent wasn't to build a Kirov, the intent was to build an AAW focused escort that could handle the full spectrum of AA missions from ABM to low level cruise missiles, and this seems to fit the bill.
Did somebody suggest the intent was to build a Kirov? Or do you think that putting cells larger than the Mk41 would demand something the size of Kirov? Well let me help you out there:

View attachment 672152

None of those larger cells require a Kirov.

The USN doesn't have anything larger than 21" in service. If and when it does, space has been reserved to upgrade some of the tubes. It looks like the size of the space reserve is intended to make CPS a possibility, but the USN might adopt some other larger caliber missile for some reason, in which case a totally different size launch tube might be installed. I don't see any problems with that situation.
Why would anybody build a larger missile when the entire surface force is standardized around a smaller cell? (To this day nobody has even suggested a missile of a size to fill a Mk57 cell, and we actually have some of those.)
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
68
Considering how both the SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6 Block 1B both required designing a new lightweight canister just to make it work in the Mk 41, and have wanted even larger Standard variants since the 90s, I don't see how asking for a larger cell is unreasonable. You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it from.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it from.
The Navy designed a larger missile than what the Mk41 could accomodate (IR-CPS) and plans to launch it from both the Zumwalt class and DDG(X) it seems.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,084
Reaction score
4,074
“We haven’t actually locked down the hull form, yet. That’s a concept,” Connelly said, referring to the concept drawing the office presented.
“It is one of the many options still in play. … We as the design team, are going through all the different options to see which one performs best for the long-term and the mission.”
Sounds like its just a generic CGI for one design option and that there is a long way to go yet.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
I'm not sure if "Destroyer Payload Module" implies something like the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System, where they can add larger cells in lieu of the smaller ones, or if they mean hull-plugs containing more VLS modules like the Virginia Block Vs.

Probably a bit TBD. Will be very interesting to see how the modules on the Zumwalts end up looking. First report made it seem like they might just literally drop in four VPMs with MACs redesigned to hold 3 IR-CPS rounds. But my guess is changing a bit. I now expect that we'll see something using the electronics architecture of the VPM but with a different approach to holding the actual missiles. Especially now that we see square canisters for the Army version of IR-CPS.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Considering how both the SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6 Block 1B both required designing a new lightweight canister just to make it work in the Mk 41, and have wanted even larger Standard variants since the 90s, I don't see how asking for a larger cell is unreasonable. You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it

You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it from.
The Navy designed a larger missile than what the Mk41 could accomodate (IR-CPS) and plans to launch it from both the Zumwalt class and DDG(X) it seems.
I'll believe it when I see it. Right now have they even cut parts on either the missile or the launcher?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,567
Reaction score
3,257

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
I'll believe it when I see it. Right now have they even cut parts on either the missile or the launcher?

Yes they've awarded contracts for missiles and are expected to complete mods on the first Zumwalt class ship in 2025. The Navy is a partner on LRHW/R-CPS and has a stated program to operationalize this system on the class by 2025, and on subs by 2028. Given the maturity of current weapons, and what's coming in the near-mid term they've likely asked that DDGX be able to accomodate these. Thus the mention of larger missiles being available. Could a future requirement drive them to larger cells? Sure. When that happens they'll add it to the DDGX program just like they've added other things to it. The approach is very much to integrate existing stuff with a new hull and architecture. Replacing MK41 is a long term decision that impacts other classes and future needs. When a decision is taken DDGX will likely get it but the ship won't be driving that decision which was a mistake they made on Zumwalt (new hull design, new CS, new radars, new VLS etc all rolled into one huge program).

 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Considering how both the SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6 Block 1B both required designing a new lightweight canister just to make it work in the Mk 41, and have wanted even larger Standard variants since the 90s, I don't see how asking for a larger cell is unreasonable. You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it

You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it from.
The Navy designed a larger missile than what the Mk41 could accomodate (IR-CPS) and plans to launch it from both the Zumwalt class and DDG(X) it seems.
I'll believe it when I see it. Right now have they even cut parts on either the missile or the launcher?

The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon booster has a static test fire in 2021 and the glide vehicle has flown a couple of times from surrogate launchers. So yes, they are actually bending metal on it.

ON the Navy launcher, nothing seen yet (contracts were just solicited late last year, IIRC). Unless it is just the Flexible Payload Module that Lockheed tested in an SSGN a couple of years ago.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
2,095
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon booster has a static test fire in 2021 and the glide vehicle has flown a couple of times from surrogate launchers. So yes, they are actually bending metal on it.
Well, at least here US is not that much behind North Korea... (sorry for the pun, but I couldn't resist)
 

Similar threads

Top