Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The modern Australian military

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The modern Australian military
    Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 08:38
update

11 September 2007
Firing of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile

The frigate HMAS Sydney fired a missile against a Kalkara unmanned airborne target on Monday 20 August 2007. The missile was successfully launched and controlled in flight, resulting in the destruction of the target.

The missile was fired from the Vertical Launch System recently installed in HMAS Sydney as part of the FFG Upgrade Program. The firing was supported by the upgraded combat system and the Australian Distributed Architecture Combat System (ADACS) software being developed and delivered by the former ADI Ltd, now trading as Thales Australia.

This Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile firing is the first from an FFG-7 class frigate, a class in service with many navies around the world. HMAS Sydney is undergoing a multi-million dollar upgrade including its combat system. The ship now is equipped with two missile systems to combat anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

This successful firing is a significant achievement for the FFG Upgrade Program. It justifies confidence in the current upgrade of the Australian Distributed Architecture Combat System (ADACS) software used to support this first-of-class firing of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile from the installed Vertical Launch System.

The FFG Upgrade Project is scheduled for completion in December 2009.









http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Sep/20070911a/index.htm

Information can be on the ESSM  in my post on Page 5 of the Greek military thread
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2007 at 10:31
update


A ceremonial handover took place at Robertson Barracks today to mark the introduction to service of the first four M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carriers to the Armys 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment. 
source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Nov. 15, 2007


Project Overview

LAND 106 was endorsed by Government in the 2000 Defence White Paper to provide a major upgrade of 350 of the Armys in-service M113A1 vehicles. The upgrade will provide significant enhancements in protection, lethality and mobility whilst also providing improved supportability:

  • Protection. Protection will be significantly enhanced with the addition of appliqu armour and spall curtains as well as a number of changes designed to enhance the vehicles mine protection.
  • Lethality. Lethality will be increased with the incorporation of a totally new electrically powered turret. The turret will be fitted with a quick-change barrel machine gun and a new day/night gun sight.
  • Mobility. The upgrade includes a new engine, transmission, drive train and drivers controls. To maximise the benefits of this new driveline the suspension, track and road wheels are also being replaced.
  • Supportability. Improvements include new electrical and fuel systems, improved habitability and a range of new stowage layouts to meet the diverse requirements of the numerous user units.

At the completion of the upgrade each of the variants will be designated as either an M113AS3 or M113AS4. The designations AS3 and AS4 refer to the carrying capacity of the upgraded vehicles. The AS3 variants have five road wheel stations per side and a Recommended Gross Vehicle Mass (RGVM) of 15,000kg. The AS4 variants have been stretched by 666mm, with an additional road wheel station per side and a RGVM of 18,000kg.

There are seven variants of the M113AS being produced. These are Armoured Personnel Carrier (M113AS4 APC); Armoured Fitters (M113AS4 AF); Armoured Recovery Vehicle Light (M806AS4 ARVL); Armoured Ambulance (M113AS4 AA); Armoured Mortar (M125AS3 AM); Armoured Command Vehicle (M113AS4 ACV); and Armoured Logistic Vehicle (M113AS4 ALV).

The contract is structured in 3 stages to mitigate development risk for the Commonwealth:

  • Stage 1 was the development and preliminary testing of two Demonstration vehicles.
  • Stage 2 was the design, construction and testing of the first of the Initial Production Vehicles (IPV).
  • Stage 3 is the design, construction and testing of the remaining Initial Production Vehicles and the delivery of 336 production standard vehicles.
Source
more from Tenix which covers the upgrades in better detail.


The M113AS Family of Vehicles (FOV) will have greater firepower, protection and mobility than the existing M113A1 fleet.

  • A powerful EURO III four-stroke DaimlerChrysler-MTU engine coupled to a six gear ZF automatic transmission will improve speed and mobility
  • Yoke steering with true pivot turn and natural steering input in reverse
  • Upgraded vehicles will have base level protection enhanced by external appliqu armour and spall curtains for increased vehicle and crew protection
  • A new Tenix designed and manufactured turret will provide a platform to ensure superior firepower
    • Day/night sight (including a unity vision periscope channel)
    • New electric powered turret drives with stabilisation as future growth capability
    • New M2 HB QCB 12.7mm machine gun
  • Revised seating and stowage layouts in the M113AS4 APC(S) to provide improved habitability for the vehicle crew and passengers
  • Hull reinforcement to improve mine blast protection

Tenix has chosen German company FFG as the major technology partner for the program.  Other key subcontractors and suppliers include Thales Optronics, Moog GmbH, SKF Australia, Bisalloy and a number of Australian SMEs.

tenix

now for the pictures....

everyone arriving for the photo shoot


M113AS4 AF - Armoured Personnel Carrier (Fitters)






M806AS3 ARVL - Armoured Recovery Vehicle Light




M113AS4

in the NT


test range





Mass
a. Unladen 11600 kg
b. Maximum loading 18000 kg
Dimensions
a. Length 6000 mm
b. Width 2620 mm
c. Height with Cradle 2600 mm
d. Ground Clearance
i. Unladen 400 mm
ii. Limiting Feature Belly plate

Engine
  • Manufacturer/Type MTU 6V 199 TE
  • No. of Cylinders V6
  • Power (Nett) 260kW @ 2000rpm
  • Torque (Nett) 1730 Nm @ 1080rpm
  • Capacity 11.95 litres
Performance
  • Fording depth(unprepared) 1600 mm
  • Turning Circle(normal vehicle moving) 14.0 metres
  • Turning circle (vehicle stationary) Pivot turn
  • Maximum gradient 60%
  • Maximum side slope 30%
  • Fuel consumption highway laden 69 litres per 100 km
  • Speed maximum 67 km/hr
Fire Power: Weapon mount allows mission-dependent selection of either:
  • Browning Type 12.7mm (0.50 inch) Calibre M2-Heavy Barrel, Quick Change Barrel Machine Gun7.62mm MAG 58 Coaxial Machine Gun, or
  • 7.62mm MAG 58 GPMG
  • Ready round storage: 250 x 12.7mm/600 x 7.62mm rounds
source

edit: changed the pictures realized Balaam already had posted them (sorry Balaam) added descriptions


Edited by Leonidas - 20-Nov-2007 at 11:51
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2007 at 11:23
Hey thanks for the updates. The new M113AS's look tough, and weigh up well statistically too. What are they like in comparison to equivalents in other nations? Nice images by the way Smile
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2007 at 13:50
Pray that Aussies never have to fight in that thing. Its a death trap as proved in the 'Nam.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2007 at 11:53
Originally posted by Knights

Hey thanks for the updates. The new M113AS's look tough, and weigh up well statistically too. What are they like in comparison to equivalents in other nations? Nice images by the way Smile
I will do, i was thinking it would be good to see what we paid our money for.  I want to get some numbers on the German, Italian and Israeli ones and the last of what the US developed.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2007 at 12:00
update


15 November 2007
FIRST AUSTRALIAN MULTI-ROLE HELICOPTERS (MRH002 & 3) ARRIVE IN AUSTRALIA

The Defence Materiel Organisations (DMO) AIR 9000 Program has achieved another significant Program milestone with the arrival of the first two Multi-Role Helicopters (MRH) in Australia. The helicopters arrived at the Australian Aerospace facility in Brisbane inside a leased Antonov aircraft last night.

The arrival of the aircraft was celebrated by a small ceremony at the Australian Aerospace facility involving Industry, DMO and Defence representatives.

The MRH90 aircraft will be returned to flying condition after the transit, and test flown by Australian Aerospace flight test crews in preparation for delivery to the Commonwealth.

The AIR 9000 MRH Program will provide the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with an additional squadron of troop lift helicopters and replace existing Black Hawk and Sea King helicopter fleets, for land and maritime operations, respectively. AIR 9000 is a multi-phased program to consolidate and reduce the number of helicopter fleets operated by the ADF.

The first four MRH90 aircraft were assembled at the Eurocopter facility in Marignane, France. The remaining 42 helicopters are being assembled in Brisbane by Australian Aerospace.

source









Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 06:00
Glad to see this day, a fresh look at our air capability..

... and a aossible cancellation of those rubbish F-18E's thanks to our new government, and another look at our f-111's




The Minister for Defence, the Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP, today announced the structure and details of the new Governments promised review into the adequacy of current planning for Australias Air Combat Capability to 2045.  
 
This review will provide the Government with a timely opportunity to assess the strengths of our current plans and inform consideration of our future air combat capability in the context of the new Defence White Paper, Mr Fitzgibbon said.  
 
The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will assess:  
 
A) Australias Air Combat Capability requirements in the period 2010 to 2015;  
B) the feasibility of retaining the F-111 aircraft in service beyond 2010;  
C) a comparative analysis of aircraft available to fill any gap that may be left by the withdrawal of the F-111; and  
D) the status of plans to acquire the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/


Back to Top
Balaam View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl

Suspended

Joined: 12-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1286
  Quote Balaam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 12:52
Originally posted by Leonidas

Glad to see this day, a fresh look at our air capability..


and I just read this from ninemsn that the US defense secretary Robert Gates believes that Aussies could be trusted with the F-22 and is going to try and have the law changed against selling them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aussies can be trusted with F-22: Gates

Monday Feb 25 22:10 AEDT

Australia could be trusted with the United States' Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter, US defence secretary Robert Gates says.

Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor.

The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said last week he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in the law.

Mr Gates, in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks at the weekend, said on Monday it was inappropriate for Australia to make its case directly to Congress.

"I think it probably is at the end of the day not appropriate for Australia to make its case directly to the Congress, to change the law. I think that's my job and the job of the administration," he told ABC Television.

"The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country.

"Others, such as Japan, want the F-22 and we are in a position - we can't sell them the F-22 either.

"So I think it's up to us to try and see if we can get this statute changed."

When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not."


AAP 2008

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=383977

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 13:27
i saw that interview on TV (ABC's 7:30 report) he was coy about our chances though. Its about time we put the hard question on them, Howard didn't try nearly as hard, if at all.

Otherwise we may very well look at a proper and open competition with a fighter aimed at matching the sukhois. The Pooper Hornets cant do it and the F-35 is questionable. Enter the Eurofighter, if the US cant sell us a new fighter that can clearly matches the regional benchmark we should look elsewhere.

Edited by Leonidas - 25-Feb-2008 at 13:29
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 14:25
^

Totally agree with the above. The USA doesn't have to help us balance out our region's changes in conventional military capabilities, but it seems the decent thing to do considering Australia has participated in good faith in a number of recent adventures that don't truly concern our regional interests.

Anyone have any info on the best alternatives to US hardware? Against the Russian equipment supplied to our neighbour across the Timor Sea, there is bound to be something that can seriously trump it. If we have the money, let's invest it wisely.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 16:26
Are you sure Australia really has the infrstructural base to support such a beast as the Raptor? An while I am sure such a base could be created would it be fiscally responsible to build one, when considering that most threats to Australia are Naval?
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 00:09
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI


Anyone have any info on the best alternatives to US hardware? Against the Russian equipment supplied to our neighbour across the Timor Sea, there is bound to be something that can seriously trump it. If we have the money, let's invest it wisely.
Advanced Sukhois with Israeli avionics maybe a good solution. These are far more cost effective than American Raptors or other US aircraft options.  Friend /  Foe identification may be a problem, but that can be overcome with training etc.  Even if potential opponents have similar equipment, more advanced models, avionics and especially better crew training will give Australia the edge.
 
The money saved can be spent on other needed equipment such as Strykers.  Buying Raptors etc. seems to be saying that the safety of a few pilots is more desirable than the safety thousands of infantrymen making do with older equipment (upgraded M-113s of questionable effectiveness). 
 
Australia is not likely to be directly challenged by a conventional force fielding large amounts of advanced equipment manned by highly trained troops.  Thus the "best of the best" aircraft are not needed.  Australia could fight and win any forceable air war with....
 
-48 to 60  Advanced air / ground Sukhois  
-16-24 Advanced Naval Strike Variant Sukhois
-12 Czech advanced jet trainers / light strike aircraft
-30 Pakstani turbo prop light aircraft for basic flight training and search / rescue,  target spotting, Special OFrces support, liason etc. in counter insurgency type scenarios
-3 Baby Awacs for coordinating high tech land / air / sea strikes (U.S. carrier AWACS plane)
-3 to 4 large refueling aircraft to give Sukhois even longer range (converted older passenger jets)


Edited by Cryptic - 05-Mar-2008 at 19:34
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 15:27
Cryptic im open to westernized flankers, but politically for this country not a chance - it wont be even considered. My main problem with this, is that flankers with isreali and/or french avionics is not unique. The Indians have something very advanced like that as do the Malays which based theirs of the Indians. So what advantage would we have? Only with the crappy Flankers flown by Indonesia.  If we cannot get a clear technological advantage in the region it would ultimately be a numbers game and when that happens we lose.

To tell you what the US can be like; we needed a new fire control system for our Subs while the USA was already helping with designing quieter propellers (a couple of design f*k upsEmbarrassed). When we went to the Germans looking to buy one of theirs the US basically said that they would stop all other work on the subs as no third country (even NATO!?) can get close to their technology. We were told it is either all US or we get nothing, we went with the US fire control system. You can see what may happen if we get the Russians in our airbases.

We have 6 AWACs and 5 new A330 tankers on order and a over the horizon radar (JORN) system that AKAIK (unclassified) range reaches as far as singapore. So all we need is a 5th gen (or advance 4.5) fighterWink

Originally posted by Constantine XI


Anyone have any info on the best alternatives to US hardware? Against the Russian equipment supplied to our neighbour across the Timor Sea, there is bound to be something that can seriously trump it. If we have the money, let's invest it wisely.
after the raptor, the choice is either a F-15 adapted with whatever raptor technology that can be sold, the eurofighter which can match the flanker and as cryptic mentioned our own westernized flankers. The F-35 alone is not suitable, as is the super hornet. The French Rafaele is probably a bit too small.

Originally posted by Sparten

Are you sure Australia really has the infrstructural base to support such a beast as the Raptor? An while I am sure such a base could be created would it be fiscally responsible to build one, when considering that most threats to Australia are Naval?
naval and airspace in our north are both considered critical by our military. From there, we can use technology to multiply our strength and advantage. We simply don't have a comparable human resource like some others in our neighborhood to fight it out on the beach or jungle. Its also easier for us to dominate the air and pummel any attacking naval force from above, rather than relying on complete naval dominance which we cant achieve against the bigger navies.

we have the resources and the money for these F-22's.



Edited by Leonidas - 29-Feb-2008 at 15:32
Back to Top
Balaam View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl

Suspended

Joined: 12-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1286
  Quote Balaam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 00:43
At last we are getting rid of those horrible Seasprite's

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government cancels Seasprite project

Wednesday Mar 5 11:00 AEDT
A%20Seasprite%20helicopter.%20%28AAP%29

By ninemsn staff

The federal government has cancelled the $1 billion Seasprite navy helicopter project.

National Nine News reporter Laurie Oakes has revealed that Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon will abandon the project.

The Seasprite has been one of the most difficult projects for the Defence Department, running more than six years behind schedule and with no helicopters operational.

The cancellation follows a major review of Australia's military defence capabilities.

The helicopters are one of a number of military projects that are running behind schedule, over budget or don't operate as intended.

Also in doubt is a $6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornet fighter aircraft undertaken by the Howard government.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=387569&rss=yes
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 12:29
next time can they just can go with an advance Lynx. That would of looked expensive at the start but would of ended up much cheaper than that piece of sh*t.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 12:49
Leonidas land based air power is always going to be an iffy prospect. Better to invest in submarines. Or perhaps CVs.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 13:24
we have the subs (6 if you count the first one -lemon), and the capability to build them after a very long and expensive learning process.  CV may help in projecting power out further, we've had one before. But we are only interested in the air/sea lanes via Indonesia, south china sea to an extent, and those things are very expensive -  needing its own escort fleet and special aircraft.

Subs are certainly the way to go and ours a quite good. We should have 8 not  6.

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:45
Originally posted by Leonidas

 My main problem with this, is that flankers with isreali and/or french avionics is not unique. The Indians have something very advanced like that as do the Malays which based theirs of the Indians. So what advantage would we have?
 
How likely is it that Australia is going to fight India?  Even the Malaysian aircraft are out of range.  They would have to stage from Indonesia.  And even if they did, they would not have air dominace.  Australia would still have better training, a far superior Navy and no land threat.  With the expert Sub Crews, Australia would win any conflict.
 
The "all or nothing" U.S. selling tactics are probably a sign of desperation from the lack of sales.  Poland and South Korea were evidently "persuaded" to buy American aircraft by heavy use of diplomatic, economic and technical support pressure.   
 
 
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 01:28
Originally posted by Leonidas

next time can they just can go with an advance Lynx. That would of looked expensive at the start but would of ended up much cheaper than that piece of sh*t.


They should of went with seahawks until they finally get the the NFH90's. The Seahawks are due for an upgrade soon but are much easier to bandaid and modify to any standard while you wait on what looks like an impressive airframe in the NFH90, though I'm not sure of the price difference the lynx is junk IMO. Though I am an ex UH-60 crewchief and have some biasTongue
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2008 at 05:14
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Leonidas

 My main problem with this, is that flankers with isreali and/or french avionics is not unique. The Indians have something very advanced like that as do the Malays which based theirs of the Indians. So what advantage would we have?
 
How likely is it that Australia is going to fight India?  Even the Malaysian aircraft are out of range.  They would have to stage from Indonesia.  And even if they did, they would not have air dominace.  Australia would still have better training, a far superior Navy and no land threat.  With the expert Sub Crews, Australia would win any conflict.
 
its not that we plan or think we will fight India, the PRC has always been the number one potential 'threat' if we had to single one out. Mainly because India is more concerned in its north and west with its security, with some more concern around the Bay of Bengal area (PRC via Burma).

Though when we assess our regional threats India is the only other potential dangerous power outside of the PRC. So within an 'all possibilities' threat planning what the Indians have (or even can export regionally) would still need to be worked around. Both the PRC and India (as well as japan) have major interest in our resources, like major & competing interest . We need to plan around all of this, such interst can be both good or bad in the longer term.


The "all or nothing" U.S. selling tactics are probably a sign of desperation from the lack of sales.  Poland and South Korea were evidently "persuaded" to buy American aircraft by heavy use of diplomatic, economic and technical support pressure.
yeah i was pretty pissed at this, not that we got sold a dud, just the principle of it. This deal was a way they can make money in a part of the defense market they have no real presence in, conventional Subs.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.