Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 2/28/2014 8:29:18 PM   
Supreme 2.0


Posts: 516
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hey people

I'm working on future Arleigh Burke loadout's but it turned out to be damn difficult when trying to stay realistic (my conception of a future loadout might not match these of others). To be exact, I'm trying to put the LRASM, RIM-174 Standard ERAM and RIM-161 SM-3 Block IB in its place on the Arleigh Burke's VLS and other warships.

What I want to know, what would your composition of a modern missile armament looks like?

Like the Harpoon, the LRASM will be considered part of the basic armament, so I've added 12-16 missiles to the front VLS not depending on mission role. I think this is a realistic amount because, on the one hand it is designed to fit in the regular MK 41 and not giving any limitations like the MK 141 Quad-Launchers did and the other hand not more like 16 to represent the cuts in US military budget and the costly missile itself will be added to a lot of combatants.

Of the ERAM's, I placed 16-24 of on a Burke-class. Wikipedia says 89 are ordered so, regarding the amount of destroyers, this is a bit much on every Flight II in my opinon but where does the heavy AAW armament goes then (considering the 16 ESSM's)?

On the RIM-161 SM-3 Blk IB, I do not have any ideas. Not sure if it even is going to be stationed aboard Arleigh Burke's till the Flight III comes into live with its AMDR.

How will the other components of the loadout be adapted (RUM-139/ESSM/Tomahawk)?

Any suggestions or propositions are most welcome!

Greetings
Post #: 1
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/1/2014 4:10:33 AM   
orca

 

Posts: 290
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: online
In addition to the possible new new weapon loadouts you mentioned, the future flight iii Burke is planned to have AMDR radar, AN/SQR-20 MFTA sonar, and ESSM block 2


(in reply to Supreme 2.0)
Post #: 2
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/1/2014 2:51:09 PM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
Almost seems comical to say it, but, I guess we're actually here now; Lasers?

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 4:24:12 PM   
Supreme 2.0


Posts: 516
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Germany
Status: offline
Well, doesn't seems to be comical at all to me! Nearly all of the listed weapons are confirmed to their fielding. Already read things about the Arleigh Burke Flight III with its AMDR radar and AN/SQR-20 MFTA sonar...
Lasers in form of LaWS (Laser CIWS), that is all I can imagine. The US will equip an amphibious ship with an LaWS as a testbed sometimes this year and if I recall right, Turkey also wanted to do some sort of CIWS with Lasers.

Greetings

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 4
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 4:57:17 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6639
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Romania
Status: online
Iron Beam might work in naval environment too.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Supreme 2.0)
Post #: 5
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 10:13:11 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 3238
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
General Atomics is already pitching to the USAF a laser mounted on a drone. In fact, the ad for it looks like a commercial for Command. I'll see if I can find it.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 6
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 10:55:29 PM   
mikmyk


Posts: 11215
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: online
Think Ponce is testing one this year although not much clarity as to what its capabilities are.

Pretty sure the limiting factors right now are power generation, fire rates etc.

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 3/2/2014 11:56:03 PM >


_____________________________

________________________________
Mike Mykytyn
Ex-CMANO Dev

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 7
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 11:41:16 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 3238
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Here is the video. The laser part towards the end is not very convincing. The most interesting part is all the networking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH2Zbo0KCxE

(in reply to mikmyk)
Post #: 8
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/2/2014 11:59:41 PM   
mikmyk


Posts: 11215
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: online
Great video. Guess we should keep an eye on this although probably a long ways off for the laser stuff. We should be thinking about some of the other technologies as well.

Mike


_____________________________

________________________________
Mike Mykytyn
Ex-CMANO Dev

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 9
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/3/2014 12:03:10 AM   
mikmyk


Posts: 11215
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: online
This was the last list I had on US SM-3 capable ships. Probably need to look at what happened in 2014 as well as the coming Cruiser cut

DDG 54 USS Curtis Wilbur
DDG 55 USS Stout (ATL)
DDG 56 USS John S. McCain
DDG 59 USS Russell
DDG 60 USS Paul Hamilton
DDG 61 USS Ramage (ATL)
DDG 62 USS Fitzgerald
DDG 63 USS Stethem
DDG 65 USS Benfold
DDG 69 USS Milius
DDG 70 USS Hopper
DDG 73 USS Decatur
DDG 76 USS Higgins
DDG 77 USS O'Kane


DDG USS Ross (2012) (ATL)
DDG USS Donald Cook (2012) (ATL)
DDG USS Carney (2012) (ATL)
DDG USS Cole (2013) (ATL)
DDG USS McFaul (2013) (ATL)
DDG USS Porter (2013) (ATL)

CG 67 USS Shiloh
CG 70 USS Lake Erie
CG 73 USS Port Royal
CG 68 Anzio (ATL)<--likely next tico candidate
CG 72 Vella Gulf (ATL)<--likely next tico candidate


DDG 100 USS Kidd IOC'd the SM-6.
CG 62 USS Chancellorsville did some testing in 2013.
Several other ships as well.

LRASM

No idea. You can looks at historical stuff and say the US generally deployed 2 quads for T-Hawks and Harpoons. On the other hand the SAM defenses of any potential opfor are considerably better so more may be needed. Not sure if the cost of the system would prevent though (obviously SS-N-25, 27 etc much cheaper than LRASM).

Mike

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 3/3/2014 1:14:10 AM >


_____________________________

________________________________
Mike Mykytyn
Ex-CMANO Dev

(in reply to mikmyk)
Post #: 10
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/3/2014 1:20:00 AM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
Within the next 20 years, I'm fairly certain our surface combatants ( probably the remaining Burkes ) will be fitted with the first generation of railguns. More than likely, there will also be a long-range, super/hypersonic precision strike weapon that can take out HVTs in bunkers.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to mikmyk)
Post #: 11
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/3/2014 8:34:25 PM   
Juramentado

 

Posts: 247
Joined: 1/20/2009
Status: offline
Although a laser will be tested on Ponce in the Persian Gulf, there is no Program of Record for shipborne lasers. No PoR means no official intentions as to what type, when or how much to get. Still very much experimental.

As for loadouts, LRASM doesn't replace TACTOM. So the question of splitting tubes goes down even further - how much different types of "strike" do you want to have afloat? One strategy would have had the cruisers carry more LRASM, and keep TACTOM aboard the DDGs. As it stands now, most of the standing BMD patrols will be Burkes; so that gets you some symmetric capability by putting the forward deployed ships into a default strike role. Then you would deploy CGs with anti-shipping as needed. No classified sources, but it's fair to say that 20 tubes would be typically loaded with TACTOM. For the really heavy binga-banga-bonga you would send the SSGN Ohio.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 12
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/3/2014 11:41:59 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 509
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
Well I know the upcoming Zumwalt class destroyers were designed to be fitted with both rail guns and lasers. This being the Mai reasons it's engines generate such a large amount of energy. The mount for the rail gun already exists. Ultimately, the problem with using ship mounted lasers in an anti ASM role is that it must sea the missile before it shoots it. Considering a sea skimming missile isn't visible for long at all before it hits, this is a limitation, especially if there are multiple missiles since the beam must be in contact for several seconds

A better bet is a drone armed with a laser that can circle the ship at high altitude and strike missles father away. That will be awile
Though before they can miniaturize the power system

(in reply to Juramentado)
Post #: 13
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/4/2014 1:43:41 AM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
Solid state lasers are already getting small enough to use on a small air craft, and the new anti-SAM/MANPAD systems carried aboard various Air Force aircraft are based on lasers. They burn out the seekers of incoming missiles, causing them to miss, and self destruct. My brother, who was a crew chief on AFSOC Hercules AC, said those lasers can definitely kill people and burn holes in all kinds of material at distances under 1000ft. Coming from him, I can assume that is the watered-down unclassified info.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 14
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/4/2014 4:45:55 PM   
nudnik

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 7/18/2013
Status: offline
I read about lasers and rail guns onboard ships last year, this article is from february:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-to-deploy-laser-weapon-system-2014-2

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 15
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/4/2014 7:15:12 PM   
AlmightyTallest

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline
http://laststandonzombieisland.com/2013/04/


quote:

(The red ‘can’ on the side of the CIWS is the LaWS laser…coming to the fleet at least in experimental form as early as this year)

The Navy is intending to add this system to the more than 250 CIWS Phalanx mounts found through the fleet. These devices are the familiar R2D2-looking systems that marry a small radar, fire-control system, and 20mm Vulcan cannon to track targets out to 10 miles away and destroy them once they are within 2.2-miles with accurate gunfire. The addition of the LaWS laser to this will allow the CIWS to engage threats first with the laser then with the 20mm Vulcan if needed.

This combined laser/gun mount, after testing and acceptance will be known as the CIWS Mk 15 Mod 41 with production and fielding in the fleet by 2017.


I found it interesting they are claiming a 2.2 mile accurate range with the CIWS 20mm Blk 15, this would fall into line with the updated barrels, and supports used to make the gun more accurate, as well with a newer effective armor piercing ammo type.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm

quote:

2) The original M61A1 gun barrels were designed for short bursts and were subject to wear and increased dispersion patterns.
The new Optimized Gun Barrels are 18 inches (46 cm) longer, substantially thicker and include a barrel brace and a muzzle restraint to both improve life expectancy and reduce projectile dispersion patterns.


quote:

3) The Mark 244 Mod 0 ELC (Enhanced Lethality Cartridges) uses a heavier optimized tungsten alloy penetrator that extends the effective range of this weapon. However, these rounds have been found to increase the likelihood of jams in the ammunition feed system. These jams were the result of the cartridge case getting dented when it was trapped between the feeder unload sprocket and the guide bar just after handoff from the gun bolt. This problem was traced back to the new round having a different center of gravity than previous rounds, which causes the Mark 244 to be mis-positioned in the feed system during the handoff. Alterations of the feed sprocket wheels and guide bars have been recommended to reduce the problem.


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-103.htm

quote:

The Mk 244 Mod 0 cartridge is known as the ELC (Enhanced Leathality Cartridge). It has a more aerodynamic tungsten alloy penetrator that gives an increase in effective range. Muzzle velocity is 3,650 feet per second (1,113 meters per second) for the Mk 149 cartridge.


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/05/LaWS-Background.pdf

The brochure above has contacts with U.S. navy personel and some specifications on the Phalanx LaWS combination capabilities.

Updated with links.

Called the CIWS 15 Mod 41


LaWS is an ORDALT to the Mk 15 CIWS that adds a laser weapon
to provide multi-mission, “zero time of flight”, low per shot cost,
and deep magazine capabilities to counter asymmetric threats
(UAVs, jet skis, boats, threat EO/IR sensors, rockets, artillery,
mortars, etc.) beyond existing CIWS hard kill ranges. LaWS will
complement, not replace, the 20 mm gun.


What are its capabilities?
Anti-Materiel:
• Counter UAVs
• Counter Rocket Artillery Mortars (CRAM)
• Anti-EO/IR guided anti-ship missiles
• Reversible EO jamming (In band)
• Destructive EO jamming (out of band)
• Counter MANPADs
• Counter Crossing anti-ship missiles (future upgrade with
higher power)
• Asymmetric Threats (e.g. small boats)
Others:
• Laser DazzlerTM/ Hostile Intent determination
• Situation Awareness on both asymmetric and traditional
threats
• EO/IR augmentation to radars
• Floating mine detection
• Counter-ISR (i.e. UAVs, Periscopes)

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/12/2014 8:07:35 PM >

(in reply to nudnik)
Post #: 16
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/4/2014 9:11:29 PM   
Supreme 2.0


Posts: 516
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Germany
Status: offline
Thanks Almighty! Interessting facts you got there.

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)
Post #: 17
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 3/11/2014 5:18:11 PM   
Zathras1

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/24/2013
Status: offline
Although it may not be a sexy upgrade, I'd like to see the AN/SQS-53 Kingfisher set added. This is actually an upgrade to the AN/SQS-53C(V)1 you already have installed, but the Kingfisher is a mine avoidance sonar. It is currently installed on a bunch of the Arleigh Burke hulls.

Thanks.

(in reply to Supreme 2.0)
Post #: 18
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/16/2015 3:25:03 PM   
Swedelicious

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 4/26/2014
Status: offline
I am sorry I am posting this here, but I did not want to start a new thread for this small question and I could not find a "post minor questions here"-thread, so:

I have recently bought the game (and love it so far). Now I am working on a scenario taking place 2017. However, I can't find the Arleigh Burke class (that's why I chosed this thread) destroyers USS Ross or USS Donald Cook in the (latest) data base. Or at least, I can't add them as units. Will they be decomissioned by 2017, or are they not added to the DB, or am I missing something?

(in reply to Zathras1)
Post #: 19
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/16/2015 4:40:40 PM   
mikmyk


Posts: 11215
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: online
Hi

We added the Burke's and tend to mark them by their Hull numbers and dates. So in this case Ross is DDG 75 and you want 2017 so the closest match is #2344 DDG 72 Mahan. To rename the unit once you add it to the map just select it and press r .

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________

________________________________
Mike Mykytyn
Ex-CMANO Dev

(in reply to Swedelicious)
Post #: 20
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/16/2015 4:57:57 PM   
Swedelicious

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 4/26/2014
Status: offline
Ah, I see. Thanks!

(in reply to mikmyk)
Post #: 21
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/17/2015 3:36:52 PM   
Araner

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/27/2014
Status: offline
Is there a database entry for the AMDR radar yet? The difference between various weapon loadouts on the Flight III Burkes are far outweighed by the game-changing capabilities of the AMDR (IMHO...)
The closest I could come to simulating a Flight III Burke was by adding the SPY-3 radar from the cancelled CG-21 to the most recent Flight IIa (USS Truxton). This really wouldnt be the same however, as the AMDR-s is a completely new combat system that replaces the Aegis SPY-XXX. Does anybody know if the Dual Band "Cobra King" radar on the USNS Howard O. Lorenzen is similar to the AMDR-s?

(in reply to Swedelicious)
Post #: 22
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/17/2015 4:33:19 PM   
Rudd

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
In response to the OP

This table shows Bryan Clark's proposed changes from the PDF on this page on PDF page 59




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rudd -- 1/17/2015 5:34:09 PM >

(in reply to Araner)
Post #: 23
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/17/2015 11:16:12 PM   
Araner

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/27/2014
Status: offline
The "Distributed Lethality" concept outlined recently on the USNI blog (the forum erases my posts for some reason if I post anything that looks like a URL...) seems to elaborate on the themes introduced by the CSBA Report cited above. It includes a hypothetical scenario for a new "Hunter/Killer SAG" group oriented towards offensive sea control. The example envisions a DDG 1000, an LCS-SSC Mod and a Burke Flight III. Like the CSBA report it cites the urgent need for new long range ASuW and ASW weaponry, but unlike the CSBA it could not make specific recommendations concerning weapons systems before they've gone to bid.
In fact, it was through an effort to model the very same example scenario that led to my earlier question about the AMDR database entry (any thoughts on that btw?)

Initially, my preferred loadout for the Flight III would've been to save the LRASM for high value surface targets like Type 052D Destroyers and to replace the TACTOM cells with the Multi-Mission Upgrade. The land attack-oriented DDG-1000 would retain the TACTOMs to augment its AGS/Railgun and the Medium/Short range needs could be filled by the LCS carrying the Naval Strike Missile and Longbow Hellfire. But then I noticed that in the CSBA report recommendations the Tomahawk had been replaced completely by the LRASM, with its own Multi- Mission variant filling the land attack role.

Why did the Tomahawk fall out of favor so quickly? I know the MMS upgrade would've sacrificed some of the range in order to add the sensor suite, but this still seems like a less costly option than fitting the entire fleet with an entirely new missile. Does anybody have any insights on this?

(in reply to Rudd)
Post #: 24
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/17/2015 11:20:24 PM   
jtoatoktoe

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 10/9/2013
Status: offline
LRASM isn't even a guarantee (though it probably is). The initial order as far as I've heard will only be for air launch variants. In 2017 a full on competition between manufactures will begin with a new Anti Ship Missile being fielded in 2024. LRASM will be in there, Naval Strike Missile for Air Launch will be in there, a new Tomahawk Variant and also maybe the JSOW-ER which Raytheon claims can do what LRASM does but cheaper.

(in reply to Rudd)
Post #: 25
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/18/2015 6:58:08 AM   
poaw

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Araner

Why did the Tomahawk fall out of favor so quickly? I know the MMS upgrade would've sacrificed some of the range in order to add the sensor suite, but this still seems like a less costly option than fitting the entire fleet with an entirely new missile. Does anybody have any insights on this?


It will have been in service for 50+ years by the time they suggest it should be replaced.

The reason I suspect has to do with the CSBA's tendency to push technically ambitious projections of the future and the equipment required to do so. This is the same organization that suggested the future of naval warfare was railgun equipped submarine cruisers which would surface to fire then dive again, and flying aircraft carriers by 2025.

(in reply to Araner)
Post #: 26
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/18/2015 2:36:39 PM   
DeSade

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Araner

The "Distributed Lethality" concept outlined recently on the USNI blog (the forum erases my posts for some reason if I post anything that looks like a URL...) seems to elaborate on the themes introduced by the CSBA Report cited above. It includes a hypothetical scenario for a new "Hunter/Killer SAG" group oriented towards offensive sea control. The example envisions a DDG 1000, an LCS-SSC Mod and a Burke Flight III. Like the CSBA report it cites the urgent need for new long range ASuW and ASW weaponry, but unlike the CSBA it could not make specific recommendations concerning weapons systems before they've gone to bid.



Distributed Lethality is more then just a concept, its current reality. All Navy heavyweights embraced it:

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/if-it-floats-it-fights-navy-seeks-distributed-lethality/
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/distributed-lethality

however offensive arming of combat logistics ships reminds me of early XX-century auxiliary cruisers

As for future Burke loadout, most interesting and enigmatic imho is future ASW missile - with at least 50nm range. Any ideas who is working on such a stuff?

(in reply to Araner)
Post #: 27
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 1/20/2015 2:35:29 PM   
Araner

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/27/2014
Status: offline

The only research I am aware of is the Boeing's HAAWC ALA contract (I still can't post links, but Google HAAWC ALA for info), which is basically just an air-deployable Mk54 LWT modified with a standard JDAM kit. It would be hard to imagine a similar mod for a ship launched/VLS version however...
It does show how far they seem to be taking the 'payloads over platforms" concept! The ship launched equivalent of the HAAWC ALA would somehow have to combine a LWT with a relatively common VLS-launched missile... I can't think of anything that could pull that off!

(in reply to DeSade)
Post #: 28
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 2/4/2015 1:54:54 PM   
Araner

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/27/2014
Status: offline
quote:

The ship launched equivalent of the HAAWC ALA would somehow have to combine a LWT with a relatively common VLS-launched missile...


Coincidentally, two days after the above-post was published, the CSBA released a report on "The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare" (posted on another thread that I can't link to) which includes a proposal for a "missile with a CVLWT warhead"... So I guess we're on the right track!

(in reply to Araner)
Post #: 29
RE: Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? - 2/4/2015 8:28:01 PM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
@DeSade; I remember at least ten years ago a picture of a LR ASW concept; It was a Mk50 AWLT mated to a Tomahawk missile body. IIRC, it could have had a range in excess of 100nm.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to DeSade)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Arleigh Burke Future Loadouts ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.227