August 16, 2009
An Exceedingly Weird Sea Story
Eaglespeak has been covering the mystery of the MV Arctic Sea for several days now.
Cliffs Notes version: The Moter Vessel Arctic Sea, a Maltese ship with a Russian crew was siezed by pirates posing as marine police in the...BALTIC SEA. After transiting into the Atlantic all the vessels transponders wee shut off...no one knows where the ship is. Though there have been at least 2 reported sightings one just last night, both are a bit sketchy at best.
See here here and here. There is a bit of analysis at Information Dissemination here.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
04:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
August 08, 2009
At the Ship Shopping Bazzar
Over at
The Marine Forum there is a very large
collection of pictures from the 2008 Euronavale, a European defense contractor convention with a naval focus.
A few trends are visible, and
others have commented upon some of them at length. The poster/photographer at MF was obviously drawn to the frontline ship offerings, in the distance there seem to be a lot of OPVs and similar vessels.
This is understandable as such vessels are the most important vessels in most navies, doing the sort of gunboat tasks that often are ignored by many but are absolutely vital.
There are a lot of logistics and force projection vessels too, which ought to come as no surprise. There are many reasons for this, they are versatile vessels in everything short of a balls out war (The Boxing day Tsunami put the utility of such vessels in the spotlight)...and they can be useful auxiliaries in a major conflict as well.
Submarines seem to be particularly well represented, particularly interesting are small relatively cheap costal units like the Andrasta shown above. There seem to be a lot of
Air
Independant
Propulsion designs as well
There are several export designs from US firms particularly LockMart which is not only offering yet another aegis equipped export version of their LCS (this time retaining the 57mm gun) but also an Aegis corvette that may be aimed at an Israeli requirement. Then there is this...
...The Chuck Norris of FACs...Yes...it appears to be a fast attack craft about 200-220 feet long that has a
5"62 caliber gun on its bow. This is an extreme example of what seems to be a mini trend, larger guns on surface vessels from corvettes on up. Even the French, are offering frigates with the US weapon.....
...and the Russians appear to be offering 100 and even 130mm guns on what
appear to be some fairly small corvettes and frigates.
( the 3 furthest from the camera in the picture above). Such weapons are good for costal bombardment, but it may be that they are intended for close range antiship use as well. A few 100-130mm shells might well provde a mission kill on a corvette or smaller ship and lots more shells than missles can be carried.
The natural predator of the small costal surface warship is an aircraft but SAMs might make this untenable in some circumstances. So the guns may be a hedge as well as being potentially usefull against small boat swarms,
One other thing needs to be mentioned, though it is not a trend...behold the solar powered Offshore Patrol Vessel (with force projection capability!)

Anyway...discuss.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
04:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 4 kb.
May 27, 2009
Vikings VS Pirates: Round 1
Round one goes to the VIKINGS!
(HT Eaglespeak) Early this morning, suspected pirates attacked a Greek Bulk Carrier
in the Gulf of Aden. The pirates fired upon the ship with small arms
and RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade). A distress call was picked up by
the EU NAVFOR Swedish warship HSwMS MALMO which immediately proceeded
to the area.HSwMS MALMO made visual contact with the attacking
skiff and fired warning shots and flares. The skiff stopped after
pursuit and was boarded by a VPD (Vessel Protection Detachment).
Weapons, GPS equipment, grappling hooks and barrels of fuel were found
on board the skiff. 7 suspected pirates were captured and are at
present being held for further investigation........
The
Swedes have stationed two Stockholm class corvettes in the area since
last year. The tiny vessels are supported by a tender.
Stockholm and Malmo with their tender
The
Stockholm class are interesting. These little ships are intended to
operate in the Swedish archipelagos as coast defence craft.Their stats
via World Navies Today are as follows:
Displacement: 335 tons full load
Dimensions: 50.5 x 7.5 x 2 meters/165.7 x 24.6 x 6.6 feet
Propulsion: 3 shafts; 2 cruise diesels, 4190 bhp, 20 knots;
1 boost gas turbine, 6,000 shp, 32 knots
Crew: 30
Radar: Sea Giraffe 50HC air/surf search
Sonar: SS304 Spira hull mounted, TSM 2642 MF VDS
Fire Control: 9LV 300 missile control
EW: EWS-095 intercept, Philax decoy RL
Armament: 8 RBS-15 SSM, 1 57mm/70cal DP, 1 40 mm AA, 2 21 inch
torpedo tubes, 4 LLS-920 ASW RL
These
numbers are a few years old. They have recently had their ASW
capability upgraded with a big variable depth sonar and several 40cm
ASW torpedoes in place of the 21 inchers . In any event it is very
likely they have landed most heavy weapons for this deployment. This
would make them very economical to operate in comparison with any other
full fledged warships. In theory quarters normally used by the
technicians for the heavy weapons could be utilized by boarding teams.
The fact that a tender supported vessel of this size is meeting success
on the other side of the world goes a long way to validating some of
Admiral Cebrowski's
Streetfighter concepts.
A
slightly larger vessel able to be fitted with with ASROC or ( perhaps
more realistically) and some light AAA weapons like Evolved Seasparrow
or RAM might very well be a good fit for the USN.
With their
heavy weapons removed they would be fairly cheap to operate in "warm
war" operations like this but they might be quickly fitted with their
variable depth sonar and ASW weapons (presumably attended to by
reservists) so they would act as sub chasers in a hot war Such a
vessel would be much closer to the original "Streetfighter" concept
than the LCS it eventually evolved into.
The closest to this idea is actually the often mentioned
FLYVEFISKEN class in service with Denmark. It's easy to see something like this fitted with the the
Franco-Italian MILAS ASW missile
in lieu of their Harpoons acting as sub chaser in a hot war. It would
be a comparatively efficient little gunboat in warm ones. The broad
work deck could be used for various cargoes such as relief supplies or
the drones the LCS prototypes are now testing....In Coast Guard service
such a vessel might also tend bouys.
Vessels able to act as
tenders for these vessels already exist. Some of the 'gator navy'
amphibious vessels could be modifid to do so and most could provide
helicopters as well.
It certainly beats ending up with
200 or fewer ships...
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
06:28 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Politicians can give away what fighting men achieve. I won't really consider this event a "success" until after we hear what happens to those 7 pirates. If they get their hands slapped, and are returned to Somalia, then I would rank it as a failure.
The real problem right now with fighting the Somalian pirates isn't available equipment, it's the ROE. Congratulations to the Swedish navy, of course, but no fighting man can win if his leaders don't want him to.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wed May 27 18:51:26 2009 (+rSRq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 30, 2009
Accidental Q-Ship
Hah!
A group of Somali Pirates attacked a tanker off the horn of Africa several hours ago. This would be sad but not remarkable as the piracy in the area has been bad for years and exploded in the last few months. However the tanker they attempted to board was the
FGS Spessart, a German Navy supply ship.
...
and so...
The German sailors returned fire and pursued the skiff while also
calling in for support. Several naval ships — including a Greek and a
Dutch frigate, a Spanish warship and the USS Boxer — sped to the area
while a Spanish marine aircraft and two U.S. Marine Cobra helicopters
joined the pursuit.
Five hours later, Greek sailors reached the pirate skiff, boarded it
and seized the seven suspects and their weapons, including assault
rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, the Greek navy said. The suspects
were disarmed and transferred for questioning to the German frigate
Rheinland-Pfalz where they remain Monday, pending a decision on whether
they will be legally prosecuted, Christensen said.
Wasp, meet sledgehammer.
(Hat Tip:
Information Dissemination)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
08:22 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Don't gloat too soon. The last time pirates got captured, they were held for a few days and then freed.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Tue Mar 31 01:30:13 2009 (+rSRq)
2
Oh, go ahead and gloat for a while. Though I was SO hoping that you were going to say the not-Q-ship lowered false sides to reveal a couple of 5" guns...
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tue Mar 31 20:58:26 2009 (tMdKd)
3
The piracy problem in those waters isn't going to diminish significantly until pirates start dying in significant numbers. The ships there won't be safe untill they start shooting back.
Even if they take one or more RPG hits because of it. In the long run that's cheaper than being captured and held for ransom.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wed Apr 1 02:02:03 2009 (+rSRq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2009
More Ideas for Naval Numbers on a Budget
As has been mentioned here
before, the combination of increasing unit costs, aging hulls in need of replacement an increase in the numbers of units needed and the unforced budget debacle facing the treasury has created a procurement conundrum for the US Navy and Coast Guard.
We need ships, lots of ships in a decade or less but given the economy we are likely to have have very little money
Given the high tempo '
medical diplomacy' operations pioneered by the Bush administration as well as the need to respond to disasters such as typhoons, volcanoes, plagues and tsunamis at least some of the vessels we build ought to have some sort of cargo capacity and a larger than average medical facility.
A converted or redesigned merchant design would seem to be the logical choice but if these are to replace the FFGs then it is important to ensure that such a vessel be capable of providing something in the event of a hot war other than terrible ways for bluejackets to die.
This is not unheard of. The
Flower class sloops of world war one were built to commercial standards, had a modest cargo capacity and were intended to serve as minesweepers, troopers, escorts, picket vessels, gunboats and light replenishment ships. They were not frontline ships but they were not helpless either and provided sterling service as convoy escorts and on gunboat duties between the wars.

The challenges of modern warfare mean that an electronics fit is needed of course so such a ship will bear no relation in cost to whatever merchant ship it is designed from, but it might cost something akin to a modern corvette.
Lets take a standard American containership design, the
Philidelphia Class, and assume the aft deck is used for helicopter operation and the aft holds are used as a flex deck for small craft and Littoral combat ship modules. The holds forward of the bridge have ample room for containers that can contain everything from food to hospital or war supplies. I'd use the midships below decks space (where pitching would be minimized )for a big hospital and a secondary helipad (if only to directly service the hospital). This would not have the capability of the
Mercy or Comfort but it could conceivably approach that of the LHAs and could do a LOT of good on mercy missions.
It might be less threatening as well. Note that while such a vessel would not be a hospital ship, and would therefore be targetable by law, most people we are likely to lock horns with are unpersuaded by appeals to human decency anyway. Forward of the hospital area, even 2-400 containers would be an impressive ammount of relief supplies in peacetime and still leave room for 16-32 VLS cells for ESSM. The large helideck would give a decent helicopter borne ASW and possibly even minesweeping capability in wartime especially if during a major war something like SCADS or the old
ARAPAHO concept were put into place along the lines of this....
We might be able to build a dozen or more of these in commercial yards over the next few years. This would have the added benefit of propping up and stimulating our shipyard capacity during dark economic times in a way that dog parks in California are unlikely to do. Such a program might appeal to the current leadership in ways a more conventional naval procurement would not.
These would probably not able to be procured in the same numbers that 600 ton corvettes might but they could ad a considerable complementary capability to the low end of the hi/lo mix.
At any rate it may bear considering. Any thoughts?
UPDATE: In the comments
James Rummel takes the time to comment at length about the idea and makes some lucid points but also indicates that I may have been unclear about as few things.
These are not replacemtnts for our cruisers and destroyers, but a low end complement. If they replace anything they might best replace part of the production run of the LCS vessels....
IF they can be procured more economically and IF they would be a net improvement in capability . These are indeed big "IFs".
There are certainly all sorts of issues with this concept
both political and practical. However, I am of the opinion that, if
built, these would be warships with peacetime duties similar to a 19th
century gunboat but with much greater utility to assist the main force.
Mr Rummel makes another comment that deserves mention.
You suggest that this is only a temporary change until economic
conditions improve. But anyone interested in military procurement will
tell you in a heartbeat that it would be almost impossible to get
Congress to pony up for actual, very expensive warships after a decade
of building cheaper cargo ships. Once the change is made, there is no
going back.
This is a
very real concern.
It is probably one reason the navy doesn't
build some smaller carriers to increase survivability through numbers.
This was tried in the 70s ant the congress made it plain that it would
ONLY buy the smaller carriers and not increase numbers...thereby
gutting the navy but giving the impression that congress was providing
modern ships.
It does not always work out that way though.
In the 1880's the UKs shipbuilding program was terribly screwed up,
with problems that included cost overruns, excessively long build
times, ships massively over budget as well as overdue, quality control
issues, problems integrating new technologies and simple corruption
(sound familiar?). The response was to, for a time, order only second
line vessels such as gunboats and auxiliaries as well as a few
experimental technology test beds such as experimental high speed craft
(the torpedo boats).
These were often ordered outside the usual defense procurement clique.
In the meantime the procurement system was overhauled, investment was
made in physical plant improvements at the shipyards and the
procurement system was reformed, Concurrently, a determination of what
sort of vessels were needed was made. Then rational, attainable
requirements for the various types of vessels were drawn up that
matched the then current technologies, the national strategy of the
time as well as the gamut of potential scenarios.
After several years of building gunboats and finishing the dubious
vessels that were already ordered, the Royal Navy began building ships
under the
Naval Defence Act.
William Whites design team produced the finest ships that had been
built up to that time and for nearly two decades, every subsequent
class was an improvement on their design predecessor in some way.
From that point until WW1 the British Royal Navy built a balanced fleet
and produced some of the best, most economical; and cost effective
ships of their day.
So while the pitfall Mr Rummel points out is very real, it can in
fact be avoided if care is taken and the legislature acts in good
faith...another very big "IF".
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
12:00 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1172 words, total size 8 kb.
1
As a guest here, I'm having a hard time coming up with a way to avoid offending you while still voicing my opinion that this is a really terrible idea.
Busy now. Give me a day or so to think on it.
James
Posted by: James R. Rummel at Sun Mar 22 02:03:09 2009 (85JOu)
2
Thanks for dropping by.
It's just brainstorming and opinions were solicited so offense is unlikely.
( WTF? Dissenting opinions in my echo chamber!1!? zomg!1!!)
By all means have at it.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sun Mar 22 08:37:46 2009 (xqpbD)
3
I really enjoy your blog Brickmuppet, there are very few places where you can read about ships while looking at cute anime girls!
The specifics of your proposal have been intensely debated for years with the Falkland campaign cited by both sides: The necessity of logistic support vs survivability and recoverability. The loss of Atlantic Conveyer in the face of all the brits efforts and all the handicaps argentina had to overcome shows that defences alone are not the answer. On the other hand S&R principles and merchant ship construction are not totally incompatible (ref. the ww2 exploit of the tanker Ohio in the relief of Malta). If we accept that our ship is going into harms way we can modify the design for fire main capacity and access, critical system seperation and redundancy, compartmentilization, etc. These changes coupled with a large well trained crew would give our ship a fighting chance.
As for equipping, have you considered drop in modules for the container wells? many possibilities there.
Posted by: Larry Schumacher at Sun Mar 22 23:13:26 2009 (jBw+d)
4
Well, the whole ship procurement program has become totally broken due in large part to political corruption, primarily on the part of Congress critters. The rest is due to contractors and Naval "gold plating." Until that procurement process gets repaired, somehow, we are screwed. For and example look what happened to the super and stealthy rail gunned destroyer project. Pretty much looks like it is going to be two ships as tech demos since on cost as much as a fleet of Arleigh B's. It's bad enough, that I'd suggest purchasing warships from Korean yards or course that won't happen because things have to be built in the US.
Maybe we could get the Koreans to build a yard in an "Open Shop" state.
Posted by: toadold at Mon Mar 23 00:45:30 2009 (zcbXo)
5
I want to make sure that I understand your proposal.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are suggesting that the Navy pretty much assign building dedicated warships a lower priority. Instead, they should throw their clout behind acquiring the type of vessels you discuss above.
Again, if I understand correctly, you are saying that this is simply acknowledging basic reality. Ships are becoming so old that they must be retired anyway, redesigned civilian cargo carriers would fill a great many more roles than dedicated warships, and the most common type of mission the Navy is tasked with today is humanitarian.
Besides, at least this way there would be some active ships around, instead of a steadily shrinking number of aging warships.
Is that correct?
James
Posted by: James R. Rummel at Mon Mar 23 04:24:00 2009 (YuARq)
6
Is that correct?
Basically yes.
This is a sub optimum solution to be sure, but the situation, both financial and political is pretty messed up. We are broke and our obligations are not going to obligingly taper off while we get our house in order.
We have a fair number of underage first rate destroyers and a dozen or more of the Ticos can probably soldier on at least a decade. I would hope that very low rate destroyer production would continue to make up for aging and attrition.
These vessels have lots of missile tubes and with Aegis the ability to use them quite effectively.
We have no shortage of tubes, but we need more hulls.
What we need is a successor to the FFG7s ( frigates) and something to augment the 2 overworked hospital ships. Assault ships can do the latter but they are expensive to operate, a little threatening, and the gator navy is being used already.
Note that I don't advocate flying jump jets off of these despite the diagram above. It was the only ARAPAHO graphic I could find. Several helicopters, a few being flying cranes to offload humanitarian containers, would be adequate. I wouldn't want the electronic suite to be much more than a modern version of what the Perrys have.
Tilt away guys.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Mon Mar 23 08:30:45 2009 (NOj8q)
7
Brickmuppet your hospital tasking is one of areas in which I see LCS1 as being useful. Her nimble shallow draft hull enables her to get into small ports. State would rent a warehouse on the quay while LCS would bring in equip. and materiels in her hold. Additional personel would be flown in by V22. These units would set up clinics in the warehouse as well as classrooms for health and hygine ed. I have done this on a small scale in mexico and have seen great results; a few inexpensive basic items and an afternoon of instruction can make a huge difference in sombodys life. While all this is going on in addition to basic support the ship could host an NOAA survey crew to update the chart info for the area; such info is always valuable.
Posted by: Larry Schumacher at Mon Mar 23 10:14:49 2009 (jBw+d)
8
<i>"...the situation, both financial and political is pretty messed up. We are
broke and our obligations are not going to obligingly taper off while
we get our house in order."</i>
The problem, as I see it, is that you have completely ignored the only real reason why the Navy exists in the first place. What is worse is that you are ignoring the reason people seek out a career there.
You see, the Navy exists to make war against America's enemies. That's it. Nothing else.
Every single ship under Navy command was planned, purchased, budgeted, and operates to conduct combat operations, or to support the ships that do. Even prototypes are purchased to test new technology that might go in to a warship, not so we can develop designs to bring medical aid to 3rd World nations.
It is true that some humanitarian missions have gotten some press lately, but the idea is to support combat operations through PR work. Hearts and minds. Get a hospital or aid station set up in equatorial Africa so the locals are less likely to join al Queda. After all, if the Navy's purpose was to bring medical services to those who needed it, you would see them setting up clinics in Canada, where socialized medicine has caused huge waiting periods for even basic care. But you don't.
Your scheme calls for the Navy to throw all of their resources, budget and political, into building nothing more than support ships. What is worse is that these ships won't be supporting warships conducting combat operations, since you propose simply retiring an entire class of ships.
So how do you think our professional fighting sailors would view the change?
It would be seen as complete submission and defeat. The Navy to which they devoted their lives, making some extreme sacrifices so far as raising a family and enjoying watching their children grow up, would be changed into some sort of shipping concern.
You suggest that this is only a temporary change until economic conditions improve. But anyone interested in military procurement will tell you in a heartbeat that it would be almost impossible to get Congress to pony up for actual, very expensive warships after a decade of building cheaper cargo ships. Once the change is made, there is no going back.
Another thing you failed to take in to account is what the Marines would have to say. One of the big debates that rage amingst military circles is how the Navy has ignored ship designs with guns, in favor of missiles and anti-submarine capability. The idea is that the Navy is not interested in supporting amphibious landings, even though that is one of the more likely operations we will be forced to use if there is ever another serious shooting war.
But, lack of big guns or not, at least most warships have a gun of some kind. They can still support landings, just not in the style to which the Marines were accustomed in WWII.
That isn't true with the ships you propose. They have an extremely limited self defense capability, but really can't do anything to add to the firepower being brought down on trouble spots. And yes, I am counting the VLS pod you mentioned in your post. A few dozen cruise missiles simply can't take the place of thousands of artillery shells that a single warship can fire off, not to mention the VLS pods that the warship would also have available.
I think that, should your scheme be adopted, we would see a migration of talented, dedicated people who would find other work after their term of enlistment expired. Smart, dedicated warriors who we need to keep our 1st class warfighting capability intact would fade away, and we wouldn't see too many of their ilk stepping up to enlist and replace them. What warrior would be interested in making the sacrifices of spending all that time away from homw and family, hust to serve on board a cargo vessel that is helpless to any submarine that happens along?
This is a terrible idea! Lucky thing that just about everyone with a military background would laugh it into the ground just as soon as they heard of it.
James
Posted by: James R. Rummel at Mon Mar 23 17:41:54 2009 (YuARq)
9
Mr. Rummel, I think you are seeing things that are not there...
The problem, as I see it, is that you have completely ignored the only
real reason why the Navy exists in the first place. What is worse is
that you are ignoring the reason people seek out a career there.
You see, the Navy exists to make war against America's enemies. That's it. Nothing else.
I agree completely that the purpose of the USN is to make war against Americas enemies. Nothing I have said here would indicate that I don't appreciate that.
However, you also wrote:
It is true that some humanitarian missions have gotten some press
lately, but the idea is to support combat operations through PR work.
Hearts and minds. Get a hospital or aid station set up in equatorial
Africa so the locals are less likely to join al Queda
...and it seems you think that might be a worthy goal. Weaken the current enemy by reducing his ability to recruit.
You wrote:
Your scheme calls for the Navy to throw all of their resources, budget
and political, into building nothing more than support ships. What is
worse is that these ships won't be supporting warships conducting
combat operations, since you propose simply retiring an entire class of
ships
I do not propse the navy put ALL of its rescources into this. This is intended to provide additional low end hulls at a minimum of sacrifice in frontline production.
I don't propose retiring an entire class of ship.
I
do point out that the FFG7s are at the end of their useful lives.
Note that the projected replacement, the LCS is very lightly armed and quite expensive. It is also built to basically commercial standards. This vessel might be a better fit for many missions.
As I pointed out in the follow up comment the navy has many destroyers and cruisers to fight with. It has aircraft carriers and submarines. However, for duties like we are asking the navy to do now (hunting pirates, show the flag and the humanitarian missions) the navy needs larger numbers than we have. We can't afford to build all the needed hulls as destroyers. Additionally, it is a waste of materiel to use an AEGIS cruiser to hunt pirates and give out water packets. Those vessels need to focus on drilling for a hot war.....killing enemies and breaking their ships.
One proposal is to build lots of vessels like the navies Cyclone class patrol boats....but those would be basically useless in any sort of hot war.
As to the utter uselessness of
these vessels lets look at what I actually said
....and still leave room for 16-32 VLS cells for ESSM. The large helideck
would give a decent helicopter borne ASW and possibly even
minesweeping capability in wartime especially if during a major war
something like SCADS or the old ARAPAHO concept were put into place along the lines of this...
32 VLS cells equals 128 Evolved Seasparow missiles. This is not a defenseless ship, though being built to civilian standards it might not be terribly survivable if it were hit.
The ASW and minesweeping helicopters would be very useful in supporting the fleet.
A fleet that would then be better able to make war against Americas enemies.
With 3 times as many AAA missiles and 4 times as many helicopters, one of these vessels would be a fine replacement for the Perry class frigates in convoy escort. One of the greatest threats the navy faces right now is cheap quiet diesel boats. This is a possible way to deal with that problem.
Just to clarify: by "deal with" I mean sink.
The hull I proposed using is an off the shelf comercial design...but it is 23000 tons. There is no reason that it could not be fitted with the same gun as a 9000 ton destroyer, and carry enough ammunition to exhaust the barrel life of said gun (7000 rounds for the 5" 62) before reloading. However, not every ship needs to be able to conduct fire support ops.
You suggest that by buying ships that have some support capability that the Navy would not get recruits. Well the Navy has oilers, repair ships, water barges, hospital ships, combat stores ships, survey vessels and torpedo recovery ships now. Those sailors are not going to fail to reenlist because they got a billet not on a destroyer.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Tue Mar 24 01:16:19 2009 (xqpbD)
10
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/a-ship-for-all-seasons-or-the-return-of-the-auxiliary-cruiser/
Posted by: GJ at Sun Mar 25 15:44:53 2012 (KJn9O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
64kb generated in CPU 0.0269, elapsed 0.1139 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.0942 seconds, 233 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.