Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: MAD detection of subs

 
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 Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: MAD detection of subs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MAD detection of subs - 10/24/2016 9:28:52 PM   
StellarRat

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline
"If this was realistic, that a P3 would get a MAD contact at a sub at any depth, well I don't think the Navies of the world would be spending as much time and money in ASW as they are.

In the game; a 30x30mile patrol box of a P3 with a loiter time of 3hours would detect a sub every single time. No matter what depth or speed. Simply by flying over it with MAD. The sub could be 1400 feet deep."

- Only if the sub stayed in one place and the P3 got lucky enough to fly right over the sub and the conditions were perfect and you happen to be searching the correct 30x30 mile area to begin with. Even if it's working right it certainly isn't the ultimate sub detection system.


< Message edited by StellarRat -- 10/24/2016 9:31:46 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 31
RE: MAD detection of subs - 10/25/2016 1:55:23 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4281
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Found the answer to why MAD has fallen out of favor...from the Undersea warfare report from CSIS that I posted in the other thread:

Page 42 in that PDF states that Degaussing made MAD relatively ineffective. It was also stated that deep water operations hurt MAD capabilities. I should have remembered the degaussing thing. I had read that somewhere else earlier.

(in reply to StellarRat)
Post #: 32
RE: MAD detection of subs - 10/25/2016 5:42:12 AM   
dvresic

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/31/2015
Status: offline
Can't get too specific. Did some testing around Nanoose Bay. MAD detection is overly generous in this game.
There's a reason why the Ch-148 isn't outfitted with a MAD, aside from the fact Canada's not too concerned with Nuclear powered subs lurking off our coasts anymore.
Aside from that love the database.
It's not your fault. These things are too top secret for your developers to know all the ins and outs.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 33
RE: MAD detection of subs - 10/25/2016 5:46:51 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Ok thanks

mike

_____________________________


(in reply to dvresic)
Post #: 34
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/26/2019 3:59:01 AM   
MH-60Deuce

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline
I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY I´ve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things I´ve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90´s MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblin´s location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads aren´t just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldn´t have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but we´re not talking about fish farts here, last time I´ve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably won´t find and shouldn´t trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didn´t knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.


Deuce


< Message edited by MH-60Deuce -- 3/26/2019 4:42:11 AM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 35
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/26/2019 6:00:00 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 11536
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY I´ve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things I´ve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90´s MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblin´s location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads aren´t just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldn´t have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but we´re not talking about fish farts here, last time I´ve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably won´t find and shouldn´t trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didn´t knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.

Deuce



So, to distill the essence of your argument:

* Effective MAD detection ranges (slant) should be significantly reduced from their current levels.

* MAD sensors should not be able to perform volume search, only to refine existing underwater contacts.

* MAD false targets should be introduced, to make a MAD hit less of a "target present" guarantee.

You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

Also, since you are asking for a fairly significant sensor change, we will probably need to contact you in private. We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.


< Message edited by Dimitris -- 3/26/2019 7:26:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to MH-60Deuce)
Post #: 36
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/26/2019 11:09:57 AM   
jarraya

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

See article attached with A LOT of detail, if you're interested. I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/image_cache/GA16642.pdf


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 37
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/26/2019 2:09:16 PM   
MH-60Deuce

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

Submarines are not oil. And without having education and professional experience in the Navy ASW MAD topic, "I think" or "I imagine" is never close to be accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

A 2017 example. I have no clearance for links so I added an image.

From the Abstract:
"Among these sources, ferromagnetic field source has been studied thoroughly and widely applied in magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) systems. However, the strength of this source can be largely minimized by using degaussing technology, and MAD signals usually suffer from strong magnetic noise interference from geology, geomagnetic, platform vibration and motion, ocean motion and wave, which severely limit the application of MAD systems in realistic environments [2]."
While some may argue that this publication is not an US-based one, the statement above is based on Reference [2] which is the work of Holmes J.J 2006, Naval Surface Warfare Center, US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.

Perfect, I couldn´t wish for more. The internet is overflowing with "military experts" proposing heaven on earth and no statement can be taken granted. So I even support you to not treat my post different. Use your expertise, research, and your strong connections to the real deal people - your professional customers.

While they perhaps can´t or won´t tell you exact performance values, I am in good hope that they can brief you about MAD´s primary detection capabilities and what it is able to and what it isn´t able to.

Great response, thanks too.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MH-60Deuce -- 3/26/2019 2:12:21 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 38
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/26/2019 7:34:39 PM   
c3k

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline
Not a submariner, or sub-hunter, but the pdf's linked upstream also discuss the effect of sensor velocity in regards to sensitivity. The faster it goes, the better it is able to filter out noise, and therefore detects the magnetic anomaly at greater distances.

The pdf linked upstream shows ranges at 30, 60, and 120 knots. The P8, based on the 737 airframe, patrols at a greater speed than those. 210 kts seems reasonable, based on a 737 at low altitude and max loiter. (Again, I'm not an expert in P8 ops.)

I have no idea if the sensor velocity is part of the sim.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 39
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/27/2019 11:40:48 AM   
SSN754planker


Posts: 445
Joined: 10/2/2013
Status: offline
I have tackled this subject before, and ill do so again in CMANO later today. Ill do a couple different setups.

1. Soviet/Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (mid 1980's)
2. NATO MAD asset vs. Soviet sub. (mid 1980's)
3. Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (present day)
4. NATO MAD asset vs. Russian sub (present day)

Ill do a 5th experiment with chinese subs vs japanese/US assets also if i see weird things happening.

Dimitris and I have discussed this before and MAD seems to be spot on last time we really looked at it together. But patches being patches with such a complex sim such as this could always have unintended results and "break" something that was not broken.

Ill post my results as i get things simmed out.



_____________________________

MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 40
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/27/2019 2:00:06 PM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline
Always wondered about this.

I have read alot about MAD/SAD and all military sources that I have sighted state the effective detection of MAD vs subs is about 500 - 1200 feet and almost all sources state that MAD is not viable for first contact pick-up but that it is almost exclusively used for final comfirmation and final weapon solution determination.

Account by an Naval officer who worked with MAD in anti-submarine-warfare:
"The MAD gear is sensitive to about to 1200 feet depth; considering you are at 200 feet, you can detect a sub at aproximately 1,000 depth below the water."
https://books.google.de/books?id=nhgpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT190&lpg=PT190&dq=mad+submarine+operator&source=bl&ots=1T-rlGFZJV&sig=ACfU3U1P4_7OHm4Y0B043QHVwSSCTCZ-3Q&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxruzHsaLhAhUGxYUKHcIaCpwQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=mad%20submarine%20operator&f=false

Note the "to about 1200 feet". Conditions and submarine construction countermeasures can lower this range. Also note that this is calculating the plane´s height into it.

This account is consistent whith what most other military sources state about the performance of MAD.

I had incidents where my old Helix ASW helo was casually strolling back to base and accidentally located distant + deep enemy subs like the Seawolf or modern diesels via MAD and instantly killed it

The ingame MAD range of 1 nautical mile aka ~6000 feet is "extremely generous". Taking the theoretically best possible performance calculation provided by the naval officer and almost all other sources into account, Command´s MAD still overperforms by ~500% in regards to distance. Considering that magnetic fields decrease as the inverse cube of distance you may get an idea on how big the MAD sensor sensitivity discrepancy is: 4000%, but don´t quote me on that last number, no math pro.

< Message edited by JamesHunt -- 3/27/2019 5:07:55 PM >

(in reply to SSN754planker)
Post #: 41
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 12:52:08 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1702
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Here's a repost of some information I'd added to another thread last year, with a bit more added.



I have to admit that as a player I love MAD on my side, since it makes sub detections so easy. Flying over a sub within a little under a mile slant range (half that for non-magnetic hulls) will give you a perfectly accurate positional detection. I hate it when it's on the enemy side, since it's pure luck of the draw whether an aircraft on its random patrol path happens to pass nearby, in which case you almost always lose the sub if the enemy's armed.

Up to this point I'd not seen any hard figures about the range to which actual MADs worked in the real world, but the other day I accidentally came across a report titled "AR70-14 Soviet Antisubmarine Warfare: Current Capabilities and Priorities". This is is a formerly Top Secret report from the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, which was published in 1972, and declassified for public release in 2017. You can read it on the CIA's website here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005512850.pdf


As of the early 1970s, it gave the following summary:

"Presently operational saturable-core magnetometers are sensitivity limited and can provide detection ranges of 1,000 to 1,400 feet under favorable conditions. The newest optically pumped magnetometers have a sensitivity of 0.1 gamma, and can obtain detection ranges of 2,000 feet under good conditions."

and

"Present Soviet aircraft MAD gear is estimated to have a detection range of 1,500 feeet. The Soviet's extensive effort in MAD sensor technology should allow them to extend this somewhat. Evidence from recent naval aircraft operations indicates that improvements have been made. Their weakness in signal and data processing will probably limit them to at most a 50% increase in range in the near future."



What strikes me about this is that the ranges are much shorter than those currently modeled in CMANO, where reliable detections occur out to ~1 nm, which is 6076 ft. Here they're talking about operational and newly developed sensors with ranges of only 1,000 to 1,400 feet (0.23 nm), 1,500 feet (0.25 nm), or 2,000 ft (0.33 nm) and that's only when conditions are good. Presumably the situation would be worse in shallow waters, where the seafloor could interfere, or near other naval vessels, which would generate false signals. The report does mention potential technological improvements to improve magnetometer sensitivity (superconductivity!), but also seems to imply that it may be difficult to make use of such improvements given the natural environment.


It turns out that sensor platform speed (helicopter vs MPA - it's easier to spot the signal when you pass over it quickly), wave (magnetic) noise, altitude (better to be further away from the waves), geomagnetic noise (space weather), geological noise (local anomalies) all have effects on MAD detection ability. This 1976 report (Speed and Depth Effects in Magnetic Anomaly Detection) for the US Navy suggests these factors combine to give useful detection ranges of approximately 1350 feet.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a081329.pdf


A 1994 thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School, "A Limited Analysis of some Nonaccoustic Antisubmarine Warfare Systems", suggests that these factors would give an effective range for the P-3's AN/ASQ-81 of a little under 500m (1640 feet) against a typical diesel sub.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a281747.pdf


The most recent MADs seem to have improved their performance somewhat; no doubt advances in signal processing have helped greatly. CAE, makers of the later AN/ASQ-508 MAD, and the recently developed MAD-XR, mentions detection ranges of "approximately 1,200 metres" (3937 feet) in their most recent promotional literature, although this is somewhat at odds with lack of recent enthusiasm for MADs in general. (Treat all promotional literature with caution, of course.)
https://www.cae.com/media/media-center/documents/datasheet.MAD-XR.pdf
https://bricanflightsystems.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/%C2%A9_BFS_TD_100_Class_II_UAV_ASW_SubDetect.pdf


One complication is that it turns out that the strength of the magnetic anomaly varies greatly depending on the relative orientation of the searcher's flight-path, the orientation of the sub, and the specific local magnetic field. A system which may give a good detection range in one pass, may have a much smaller detection range in another. See these papers for detailed mathematical examples:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012958.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012961.pdf

This recent (2015) Chinese paper on MAD detection highlights the variability. A sub detection which happens at nearly 800 m (~2,600 feet) flying at very low altitude in ideal orientation can drop to less than 100m (~ 300 feet) if you fly higher and the sub changes direction. (Yes, vertical separation does matter.)
http://www.jestr.org/downloads/Volume8Issue4/fulltext84172015.pdf



That's a lot of variation!


So based on my highly informed opinion (translation: after few hours of bewildered Googling), it looks like the current MAD model in Command is somewhat optimistic. Even the most modern figures I found don't reach the current 1 mile range that's in the database.




I think that think that reducing the range for the generic MAD in the game would be a good idea. Although identifying the performance of individual MAD systems would be very difficult, given the scarcity of information, it might be a good idea to replace the one 'Generic MAD' sensor with several generations of generic sensor, each covering a decade or two, and gradually stepping up detection ranges from generation to generation. Given the amount of variation MAD sensors seem to encounter, I'd suggest stepping back the detection range claims for the most modern systems a bit. I'm not sure if it would be worth modelling different magnetic signatures depending on sub size too.


I want to add that there is a game-mechanics caveat about this.

Currently MAD detections seem to be be checked every 15 seconds. (Hover a helicopter near a sub you have detected by MAD only. I think you'll see the white contact age numbers counting up to 14 seconds and then resetting in a continuous cycle.) For a fast-moving aircraft, such as a P-3 loitering along at 205 knots, this means one detection is resolved every 0.85 nm. If the MAD had a more realistic range of 0.25 nm, for example, then there would be gaps in the search pattern. Since the MAD sensor is presumably receiving continuously, a quicker detection check interval would be needed to simulate the continuous coverage.

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 42
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 2:10:42 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1702
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Just a note to add, it is not completely unrealistic to use MAD as a search sensor. Although it is usually for refining a pre-existing contact, MAD patrols across straits and chokepoints are actually used for primary target detection.

MAD patrols of this type were used in combat in WWII. Here's an example from 1944, where a PBY patrol across the Straits of Gibraltar successfully detected a submerged U-boat with MAD, and then participated in sinking it.



https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/221590.pdf

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 43
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 3:22:41 PM   
SSN754planker


Posts: 445
Joined: 10/2/2013
Status: offline
quote:

I want to add that there is a game-mechanics caveat about this.

Currently MAD detections seem to be be checked every 15 seconds. (Hover a helicopter near a sub you have detected by MAD only. I think you'll see the white contact age numbers counting up to 14 seconds and then resetting in a continuous cycle.) For a fast-moving aircraft, such as a P-3 loitering along at 205 knots, this means one detection is resolved every 0.85 nm. If the MAD had a more realistic range of 0.25 nm, for example, then there would be gaps in the search pattern. Since the MAD sensor is presumably receiving continuously, a quicker detection check interval would be needed to simulate the continuous coverage.


If this is the case, wouldn't that make MAD detection a bit harder because the p-3 may fly right over between "ticks"

But helicopters would not have that problem. But a heli on top of you as a sub driver means certain death a lot of the time. But this is also true IRL. A heli is always the larger threat than fixed wing MPA.

_____________________________

MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 44
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 3:29:42 PM   
SSN754planker


Posts: 445
Joined: 10/2/2013
Status: offline
Also the way "random" way ASW patrol boxes set up by ref points work now, i have noticed it may take a good amount of time for a MAD contact to happen, if ever. The sonobouys being dropped nail them before a MAD flyover would.

_____________________________

MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754

(in reply to SSN754planker)
Post #: 45
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 8:04:46 PM   
Herman_Hum

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/16/2018
Status: offline
Its too strong in the sim. The best `in your dreams` MAD range you can hope for is about thousand to 1200 ft. This is not different for Soviet, nor Russian, nor PLAN mad systems. First contact utility is almost nil. Subs in great depths are basically undetectable by it.

< Message edited by Herman_Hum -- 3/28/2019 8:24:50 PM >

(in reply to SSN754planker)
Post #: 46
RE: MAD detection of subs - 3/28/2019 10:56:18 PM   
c3k

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline
If those reports are being released (and unclassified) I would think that means they've been superseded by better detection methods, such as the gravity-based referenced above. But that's supposition.

(in reply to Herman_Hum)
Post #: 47
RE: MAD detection of subs - 4/21/2019 1:49:43 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 11536
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
We're still looking into this.

_____________________________


(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 48
RE: MAD detection of subs - 5/7/2019 2:52:59 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 11536
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
We are introducing some changes in this, you should see them on the next update release.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: MAD detection of subs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.156