Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 2:42:26 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 966
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-says-us-wont-scrap-carrier-harry-s-truman-decades-early-2019-4

"The Navy announced in its FY 2020 budget proposal that it had decided to mothball the Truman rather than go through with its planned mid-life refueling. The move was intended to free up funds for the purchase of new systems to give the US Navy an edge against rivals China and Russia, technologies such as artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and directed-energy weapons, among other things."

So much for the theory that CVNs are still viable in this era of hypersonic weaponry.

Post #: 1
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 4:00:05 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6303
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 2
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 4:50:26 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 966
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.


Oh yeah, discussing Naval affairs is trolling. If it's too controversial for you you can always keep scrolling. Snowflakes are insufferable.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 3
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 5:04:20 PM   
bobdina

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline
They announced last week this was in fact not happening . Hear it is in print took less then 1 minute of research to find it. https://www.dailypress.com/news/military/military/navy/dp-nws-uss-harry-truman-carrier-0501-story.html Matter of fact here it is in the publication you linked saying it isn't happening .Sorry cant link it for some reason but just read the linked one from him. story.

< Message edited by bobdina -- 5/10/2019 5:10:39 PM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 4
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 5:41:44 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25428
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
At least I use downriggers.



_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 5
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 6:57:07 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8730
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Ah yes, equating mothballing due to wanting to spend the money on something else with "wants to scrap."

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/10/2019 7:23:36 PM   
rsallen64


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/15/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Don't forget the "snowflake" in the reply to your post as well. Trolls gotta troll...

_____________________________

Desert War 1940-1942 Beta Tester
Agressors: Ancient Rome Beta Tester

"The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices." Frederick the Great

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 7
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/13/2019 8:30:50 PM   
FlyByKnight


Posts: 247
Joined: 10/8/2016
From: West Coast
Status: offline
Title: "US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman"

Article:
quote:

Vice President Mike Pence, speaking aboard the USS Harry S. Truman Tuesday, said that the carrier won't be retired decades early as the Pentagon had planned.

quote:

...it had decided to mothball the Truman...

Sensing some cognitive dissonance here...

(in reply to rsallen64)
Post #: 8
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/15/2019 10:46:47 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 966
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Don't forget the "snowflake" in the reply to your post as well. Trolls gotta troll...

quote:

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.


Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.

I guess you missed the post I responded to. You should be a hockey official as you miss the initial hit.

(in reply to rsallen64)
Post #: 9
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/15/2019 11:36:48 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2523
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Some people should avoid the sun so they won't turn into stone.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 10
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 1:02:55 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13657
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Or look back at the old days before WitP-AE and turn into a pillar of salt.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 11
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 3:05:39 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8730
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Or look back at the old days before WitP-AE and turn into a pillar of salt.


I think this more likely; they're already quite salty.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 12
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 8:09:46 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13657
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Some Iowas I believe were mothballed more than once and brought back into service.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 13
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 8:44:40 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1999
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
The carriers still have a role to play, but there is no doubt that their ability to project power into certain areas without major risk has been severely impacted in recent years by the development of area-denial capabilities by adversaries, such as China and its hypersonic missile capabilities that the US Military has admitted in some ways surpasses current US technology (in addition to being longer range than what US forces are currently equipped with). Many recent reports I've read have stressed the need to develop new missile technologies and platforms to outrange the enemy (in this case, China), whereas currently US ships themselves can be outranged). These defects are most prominent in any action closer to China's coastal waters.

The most interesting and important aspect of the US Navy's development and transformation today is the creation of the FFG(X) program, which will produce large quantities of small and relatively cheap frigates that will take on the duties currently performed by destroyers, relieving the current mission burden those vessels are saddled with while opening up the possibility to new missions and tactical/strategic possibilities with larger vessels. This new program also can give some insight into how the US Navy views any future potential conflict with China, Iran, etc. and the needs such conflicts will create for smaller, nimble, and more numerous vessels.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 14
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 11:19:49 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13657
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
We're going to need submergible aircraft carriers, those aircraft being drones, and we're going to need a lot of them.

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 15
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/16/2019 11:35:29 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13622
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

The carriers still have a role to play, but there is no doubt that their ability to project power into certain areas without major risk has been severely impacted in recent years by the development of area-denial capabilities by adversaries, such as China and its hypersonic missile capabilities that the US Military has admitted in some ways surpasses current US technology (in addition to being longer range than what US forces are currently equipped with). Many recent reports I've read have stressed the need to develop new missile technologies and platforms to outrange the enemy (in this case, China), whereas currently US ships themselves can be outranged). These defects are most prominent in any action closer to China's coastal waters.

The most interesting and important aspect of the US Navy's development and transformation today is the creation of the FFG(X) program, which will produce large quantities of small and relatively cheap frigates that will take on the duties currently performed by destroyers, relieving the current mission burden those vessels are saddled with while opening up the possibility to new missions and tactical/strategic possibilities with larger vessels. This new program also can give some insight into how the US Navy views any future potential conflict with China, Iran, etc. and the needs such conflicts will create for smaller, nimble, and more numerous vessels.

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.

The great advantages the US has are a great Information/Command/Control capacity and better/more reliable weapons that other countries. What it lacks is manpower and numbers of those fantastic weapons. It also lacks the stomach for heavy losses or lengthy wars.

China may not have the greatest of stuff, but it has population to spare and a mindset that does not cringe at expending a lot of it. The only country with a chance of holding China in check is India, but it lacks the industrial capacity and political unity to be a real opponent at this time.

Western interests would be better served if we stop thinking we can hold China in check by military means and start using diplomacy and common interest to get their world view into the community of nations model instead of the "dominant power" model. If global warming devastates the world's food and fresh water supplies, there will be no chance of getting nations to share and cooperate.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 16
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 12:21:10 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2523
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.


I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.

quote:

The great advantages the US has are a great Information/Command/Control capacity and better/more reliable weapons that other countries. What it lacks is manpower and numbers of those fantastic weapons. It also lacks the stomach for heavy losses or lengthy wars.


The US has the raw manpower, but it is not trained nor in the military. The people who make the decisions would rather spend the money on other things unless the defense money is being spent in their district. Then they are for the defense spending, whether or not it is needed.

quote:

China may not have the greatest of stuff, but it has population to spare and a mindset that does not cringe at expending a lot of it. The only country with a chance of holding China in check is India, but it lacks the industrial capacity and political unity to be a real opponent at this time.


True. I read somewhere with the one child policy and the overwhelming number of boys to girls in some areas that China has 75 million more men than women. Cannon fodder . . .

quote:

Western interests would be better served if we stop thinking we can hold China in check by military means and start using diplomacy and common interest to get their world view into the community of nations model instead of the "dominant power" model. If global warming devastates the world's food and fresh water supplies, there will be no chance of getting nations to share and cooperate.


Use Sun Tsu's concept of war which I am sure that the Chinese are using. As far as global warming goes, the start of the modern Industrial Age coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age. 2000 years ago, the Earth was about 7 degrees F or about 4 degrees C warmer than today. Regular wine grapes could and were grown in what is now England. Then, around 500 AD, the climate changed when the Sunda Straight was formed.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 17
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 12:59:26 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15642
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.


I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.



Correct. Originally, there was enough force to fight offensively on 2 fronts (Europe and Asia). The force reduction changed that to fighting offensively on one front while defensively on the other. I'm not sure which place I'd rather be. That was ~5 years ago, so I'm not sure what the plan is now. I do know the military is once again training for large scale conflict. I trained that way most of my career. Then we trained for nation building. Cycles...

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 18
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 2:01:06 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2523
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
I personally trained for large scaled conflicts. But after the Cold War was supposedly over, the people who should have known better should have realized that there was no other large political and economic power like the US and its Allies (which sometimes have different agendas than the US) to keep minor powers in check.

I was also against nation building but that recently occurred after I became a PFC. Helping the humanitarian donations get to the people who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should not have changed into nation building.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 19
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 10:45:31 AM   
tarkalak

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
...

2000 years ago, the Earth was about 7 degrees F or about 4 degrees C warmer than today. Regular wine grapes could and were grown in what is now England. Then, around 500 AD, the climate changed when the Sunda Straight was formed.


There goes the thread again.

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 20
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 2:08:48 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8730
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
...

2000 years ago, the Earth was about 7 degrees F or about 4 degrees C warmer than today. Regular wine grapes could and were grown in what is now England. Then, around 500 AD, the climate changed when the Sunda Straight was formed.


There goes the thread again.


I mean, if we're talking about temperature history... this actually isn't true. There isn't a point in the history of human civilization (within the last 10,000 years) where the global temperature was 4' C higher than now. About 8,000 years ago, it looks to have been roughly 1' C warmer than it was in the Little Ice Age in the 1800s. And it is hotter now than it was 8,000 years ago. Here's a good page for a graph: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

That's not to say that grapes couldn't have been grown in England. I do actually remember a source for that, but grape growing is not necessarily linked with climate. They grow grapes and make wine a-plenty in Iowa, which has a colder climate (on the whole) than England. Wine was grown in England because the Romans took it there, not because the people there always wanted to grow grapes and just couldn't because it was too cold. But for the sake of argument, let's agree that sure, growing grapes in England had something to do with climate - the Medieval Warm Period (which was not a global event) in the northern hemisphere was still only as warm as about 1950-1970.

(in reply to tarkalak)
Post #: 21
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 2:11:16 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8730
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.


I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.



Correct. Originally, there was enough force to fight offensively on 2 fronts (Europe and Asia). The force reduction changed that to fighting offensively on one front while defensively on the other. I'm not sure which place I'd rather be. That was ~5 years ago, so I'm not sure what the plan is now. I do know the military is once again training for large scale conflict. I trained that way most of my career. Then we trained for nation building. Cycles...


Y'all know more than me, but my impression is that the hardware is still mostly there. It's just that we're lacking in "wetware", right? (And "greenware", i.e. appropriated funds to activate the reserve hardware and pay for more people.) That's a relatively easy problem to fix if we needed to fix it, but training takes a few years, yeah?

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 22
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 2:48:53 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15642
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.


I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.



Correct. Originally, there was enough force to fight offensively on 2 fronts (Europe and Asia). The force reduction changed that to fighting offensively on one front while defensively on the other. I'm not sure which place I'd rather be. That was ~5 years ago, so I'm not sure what the plan is now. I do know the military is once again training for large scale conflict. I trained that way most of my career. Then we trained for nation building. Cycles...


Y'all know more than me, but my impression is that the hardware is still mostly there. It's just that we're lacking in "wetware", right? (And "greenware", i.e. appropriated funds to activate the reserve hardware and pay for more people.) That's a relatively easy problem to fix if we needed to fix it, but training takes a few years, yeah?


You're absolutely correct, Loka. The training does take some years, but there's also the mindset. Most of the youngsters in the military have never trained for large scale conflict. All they know is nation building. The old farts just need a bit of refresher training to brush off the cobwebs. Again, my knowledge is 5 years old. I work with quite a few current military members and know the trend has swung back toward large scale conflict, but that is a recent change. That's a new type of training for a fair chunk of the military right now. Fortunately, most, if not all of the leadership has had that training in the past.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 23
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 2:57:04 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
What a thread!

Global warming, defence spending, global strategic policy, AND English wine making all in a single thread!!

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 24
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 3:52:50 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1999
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
Getting back to the topic, I should note that the carrier still very much serves a need, otherwise the Chinese wouldn't be building their own carriers. Along with the Liaoning which they purchases from Ukraine and refit, the Chinese will have their first domestically produced variant of the Kuznetsov-class commissioned this year (better launch catapults, etc.) with a newer class set to be commissioned in 2023. This would bring the number of Chinese carriers to three by that time. However, their role is more limited in today's age, acting as tools of power projection for nations with ambitions or security needs beyond their own shores, especially in areas they can't readily reach by other technologies.

For China, this means being able to project its power into surrounding areas and more readily pushing its aggressive claims to territory and borders far beyond its shores (Spratly Islands, Philippines, the East Indies, the Indian Ocean); for the USA, this means supporting its security alliances in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. If some think that China only wishes to "control their shores" and protect themselves, they may well want to ask why China is so rapidly building blue water, power projection capabilities. This becomes more ominous when coupled with China's increasingly aggressive stance as to what constitutes and doesn't constitute Chinese territory.

But make no mistake, the carrier is no longer the single, dominant arbiter of naval power, subject as it now is to risks from increasingly dangerous adversarial technologies. It is one tool among many.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 5/17/2019 3:53:30 PM >

(in reply to ian77)
Post #: 25
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/17/2019 8:46:04 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 966
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Getting back to the topic, I should note that the carrier still very much serves a need, otherwise the Chinese wouldn't be building their own carriers. Along with the Liaoning which they purchases from Ukraine and refit, the Chinese will have their first domestically produced variant of the Kuznetsov-class commissioned this year (better launch catapults, etc.) with a newer class set to be commissioned in 2023. This would bring the number of Chinese carriers to three by that time. However, their role is more limited in today's age, acting as tools of power projection for nations with ambitions or security needs beyond their own shores, especially in areas they can't readily reach by other technologies.

For China, this means being able to project its power into surrounding areas and more readily pushing its aggressive claims to territory and borders far beyond its shores (Spratly Islands, Philippines, the East Indies, the Indian Ocean); for the USA, this means supporting its security alliances in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. If some think that China only wishes to "control their shores" and protect themselves, they may well want to ask why China is so rapidly building blue water, power projection capabilities. This becomes more ominous when coupled with China's increasingly aggressive stance as to what constitutes and doesn't constitute Chinese territory.

But make no mistake, the carrier is no longer the single, dominant arbiter of naval power, subject as it now is to risks from increasingly dangerous adversarial technologies. It is one tool among many.



American CVNs are not dispossile though. The Chinese have a very different view of platforms. If it means securing Taiwan they'll gladly sacrifice their CVs.

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 26
RE: US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman - 5/20/2019 4:53:17 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8730
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Getting back to the topic, I should note that the carrier still very much serves a need, otherwise the Chinese wouldn't be building their own carriers. Along with the Liaoning which they purchases from Ukraine and refit, the Chinese will have their first domestically produced variant of the Kuznetsov-class commissioned this year (better launch catapults, etc.) with a newer class set to be commissioned in 2023. This would bring the number of Chinese carriers to three by that time. However, their role is more limited in today's age, acting as tools of power projection for nations with ambitions or security needs beyond their own shores, especially in areas they can't readily reach by other technologies.

For China, this means being able to project its power into surrounding areas and more readily pushing its aggressive claims to territory and borders far beyond its shores (Spratly Islands, Philippines, the East Indies, the Indian Ocean); for the USA, this means supporting its security alliances in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. If some think that China only wishes to "control their shores" and protect themselves, they may well want to ask why China is so rapidly building blue water, power projection capabilities. This becomes more ominous when coupled with China's increasingly aggressive stance as to what constitutes and doesn't constitute Chinese territory.

But make no mistake, the carrier is no longer the single, dominant arbiter of naval power, subject as it now is to risks from increasingly dangerous adversarial technologies. It is one tool among many.



American CVNs are not dispossile though. The Chinese have a very different view of platforms. If it means securing Taiwan they'll gladly sacrifice their CVs.


"Gladly" - I doubt it. Just because Chinese domestic politics are authoritarian doesn't mean they're immune to domestic politics.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman Page: [1]
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

0.160