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: Naval and Defense News

 
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 >> RE: Naval and Defense News Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/9/2016 6:34:18 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
Citing the People's Daily, it is claimed that this 12k ton ship is built to military standards and is capable of slamming into a 20.000 tonne ship (and a 9000 tonne ship - subtle hint at the Japanese Shikishima-class coast guard cutter) without incurring major damages to itself. A 5000 tonne ship can be sunk 'to the ocean floor'.

This is literally a media outlet stoking an uneducated public's nationalism. Remember when the a minor collision in undisputed Japanese waters caused a major diplomatic issue? Can you imagine how bad that would have been if the Japanese actually sank the fishing vessel in that incident? Imagine the Japanese reaction if the CCG rammed and sank one of their vessels? That seems like a hugely escalatory move that would not be in China's interests; the fastest way to get more USN assets deployed to your front door would be to attack Japan.

No, the reason the vessel is larger is so that the CCG can maintain longer deployments at Senkakus. They don't have the forward bases there to refuel like in the SCS; by keeping their ships there longer they can create an image of de-facto control.

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 601
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/9/2016 6:54:59 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
In other word, more maritime confrontation than actual conflict sparkling.

Yet Japanese media claimed that 'recently armed' CCGs are the sight or dangerous plays, considering how China really put more efforts to cruise Diaoyu Island with them.

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 602
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/10/2016 2:10:42 AM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
A 12k ton ship is needed. Since China's previous CGCs were rather small and worse armed, they stood no chance against the huge and very well armed Japanese cutters.
In any way, China always stood to lose. If the japanese purposely sank a smaller Chinese ship by ramming while it violates the japanese claimed waters, China's only option would have been to swallow that loss without any physical retaliation (because the USN). So, the obvious answer is to pit a larger ship that cant be easily sunk by ramming attacks by the now-smaller japanese vessels, and thus allowing China to assume full control over the escalation level, so that the entire conflict wouldnt even come to this. If the Japanese feel that they cant drive off two 12.000 ton ships off-course by ramming and pushing, they have two options: Retreat in shame or try to light them up with their 20 and 35mm guns. The second option will be very risky, because these 12k ton ships are better armed with a 76mm rapid firing gun, as well as possibly two 30mm chainguns. So, the only way for the Japanese to sink them is by calling an JMSDF Destroyer to sink them with heavy weapons. And this would mean war, which isnt in the interest of both countries. This is clearly brinkmanship, but it is exactly what the Hawkish President of China, Xi Jinping, actually wants now. The slow, but steady increase in China's nuclear arsenal (especially now after the reform and creation of the "Rocket Force", which also would command organic sea-based and air-based nuclear assets), as well as the fast growth of the navy and airforce, is basically aimed to provide China with the big gun that can be pointed at the rival's head while both of them are arm-wrestling and pushing with their bellies, until one of them blinks.

All in all, China's decision to escalate the island dispute with Japan wont change the balance all too much, since the USN is already there in force with 3 more carrier groups. The USN wont start a war with China when coast guard ships are bumping each other. Anyone who thinks otherwise isnt being realistic tbh. And with the 12k ton ships, there wont be much bumping going on after all, because of reasons stated above. I'd rather expect a mini arms-race to break out, with Japan responding by building 20.000 ton coast guard cutters, that are to be answered by Chinese 40.000 ton coast guard cutters "armed" with a reinforced ice-breaker hull and so on and so forth.

@Dysta

Where do you get the stats for the 12k tonne class? I never read anything about its maximum speed. Anyway, speed isnt even needed to enforce a maritime claim, if you have the displacement and armament to resist all hostile attempts to evict you with physical means. If you are an elephant, the hunter cant play bumping with you anymore, but either have to resort to the elephant-gun (AShMs), or retreat in shame.



(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 603
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/10/2016 3:06:42 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

@Dysta

Where do you get the stats for the 12k tonne class? I never read anything about its maximum speed. Anyway, speed isnt even needed to enforce a maritime claim, if you have the displacement and armament to resist all hostile attempts to evict you with physical means. If you are an elephant, the hunter cant play bumping with you anymore, but either have to resort to the elephant-gun (AShMs), or retreat in shame.


I got the reference from china.com in simplified Chinese:

http://military.china.com/important/11132797/20160108/21103137.html

Well, if speed is really matters, then lighter and nimble LCS will do far better jobs than 10k ton of cutters (you may say LCS is a warship, but for military perspectives, coast guard ship is also a warship). Freedom and Independence classes will immediately answer the 76mm deck gun with Griffons and Hellfires, and forget about the title of Coast Guard, Navy, or whatever the name was fashioned. Like you said, war ensures if it really happens.

Technically, any vessel from just a crew holding a pistol, or a ship mounted with a CIWS, are also classified as an armed unit that Coast Guards shouldn't be fooled with. If the fastest coast guard ship acknowledge these threats, it will be the first to response with, be it tail-gating (ramming at stern area, since slower ship cannot escape with inferior speed), water cannon exchange, or even uplink target to Navy/Air Force with FCRs.

This logic applied for both JCG and CCG, if pitting each other happens, both sides of military will definitely intervene, and that's rarely matters which side of Coast Guard ships escape first.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 1/10/2016 4:11:38 AM >

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 604
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/10/2016 9:16:12 AM   
xavierv


Posts: 517
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
1st Phase of AGM-158C LRASM Anti-Ship Missile Inflight Tests on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Completed
The U.S. Navy's NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) just released a new picture showing a Super Hornet from Patuxent River’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 facility carrying a model of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) during a flight test Jan. 6 over Patuxent River, Md. This flight completed the first phase of inflight loads testing for the weapon program. With load testing completed, the U.S. Navy will now focus on noise and vibration tests.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3447

< Message edited by navyrecognition -- 1/10/2016 10:19:07 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 605
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/10/2016 10:22:17 AM   
DeSade

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline
At least some teeth:

http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/navy-aims-to-install-over-the-horizon-missile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016

timeline seems unusually fast...

(in reply to xavierv)
Post #: 606
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/10/2016 8:14:40 PM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeSade

At least some teeth:

http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/navy-aims-to-install-over-the-horizon-missile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016

timeline seems unusually fast...



w00t!!! I wonder if the NSM can be launched from the existing Mk 141 4X launcher used by the Harpoon? If so, this could seriously increase the ASuW and land attack capabilities for the USN, (and probably most of the civilized world) almost instantly.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DeSade)
Post #: 607
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/11/2016 10:42:26 PM   
Triode

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline
So, news,news, news !

1. Project 22800 "Karakurt"
"Almaz-Antey" vs KBP
Instead of Pantsir-M "Almaz-Antey" want to install "small Redut" with 9M100 missile only(8 cells module,in each cell one 9M100 ,unknown quantity of modules)


10-15 km range
10 km height
~1000 m/s
three spectre head (IR,near IR ,UV) and command guidance
can fit 4 in 1 Redut cell
This "small Redut" supported by one of "Arbalet-D" AESA radar station
small ships variant:

or corvette variant:



"Almaz-Antey" have support from "Almaz" design bureau
good things in "Almaz-Antey" proposal ,
- 9M100 "smarter" than 57E6 (57E6 only command guided, 9M100 have three spectral head and command guidance)
- more channels than in one Pantsir module
- VLS , so simultaneous attacks from different directions can be deflected (in this case Pantsir can atack 4 target in 45° or 2 in 90°)

KBP Pantsir also have good things
- price of Pansir module + Pozitiv radar is better than 9M100 VLS + Arbalet radar + Pozitiv radar (for Pantsir module + Pozitiv
(with 32 57E6 included)~650 millions rubles , for "Almaz-Antey" proposal it is somthing like ~700millions only for radars )
- range of 57E6 5km better than 9M100
- price of 57E6 better than 9M100 (4 vs 18 millions rubles)
- KBP pomise new missile with 24km range ,soon
- Did I mention low price?

So , how 22800 will look like in reality is very interesting question
Pansir module?

or two AK-630 + this "Poliment-Redut Minor" ?

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/2689878/2689878_original.jpg

This battle still ongoing

2.New SR-10 plane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5vek4J-86E

There is people in VVS who dont like Yak-152 as "first day" trainer plane
they main arguments :
- propeller-powered aircraft as "first day" trainer give wrong habits
- Yak-152 have problem with engine ( plan to install german engine and now dont know what to do ) , SR-10 use AL-55 (one, in Yak-130 there is two AL-55)

So , this is SR-10



vs Yak-152


3.project 1155 Admiral Tributs
From state contract 0173100000813000679
According to state contract for repair of Admiral Tributs, MR-145 "Lev" (Kite Screech) removed from ship,

and MR-123 "Bagira-M" will be installed instead

here is simple MR-123 "Bagira" ,also in variant MR-123.02 mod 3 included in "Bagira-M",:


and here is AESA MR-123 "Bagira-M" with "Sfera" (optical and IR channels,laser rangefinder )



But most intresting part is work for battle information managment system "Sigma":
"7. Conjugation lines of targeting for radars MR-123.02 mod.3
"Bagira" L/S and P/B, MR-123 "Bagira-M", SAM "Kinzhal" (nose,
stern) and PUS "Purga";"

possibilities, possibilities ,anyway Admiral Tributs will be first project 1155 with AESA radar (maybe this radar even can guide Kinzhal missiles, who know what this "conjugation" means )





< Message edited by Triode -- 1/12/2016 12:15:14 AM >

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 608
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/11/2016 11:13:32 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Triode

vs Yak-152




Russia isn't alone with this development:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_Yakovlev_CJ-7

Yet it seems neither China nor Russia are really interested in Super Tucano-ski. As you stated, a bad start for new pilots.

And using them as the cheaper manned bomb truck against IS doesn't fare much of purpose either.

(in reply to Triode)
Post #: 609
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/12/2016 10:28:06 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
http://defence-blog.com/news/photos-of-chinese-military-gyrocopter.html

Rumor said that PLA has adopted Sino-Gyrocopter, named "Hunting Eagle", after nearly 2 years of test.



The footage of live demonstration can be found on YouTube, which is started at 2014:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKcpZJwZAPM

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 610
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/12/2016 4:40:36 PM   
Vici Supreme

 

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeSade

At least some teeth:

http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/navy-aims-to-install-over-the-horizon-missile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016

timeline seems unusually fast...



w00t!!! I wonder if the NSM can be launched from the existing Mk 141 4X launcher used by the Harpoon? If so, this could seriously increase the ASuW and land attack capabilities for the USN, (and probably most of the civilized world) almost instantly.

Almost sure it can't. At least not without major modifications to the launcher itself.

_____________________________


(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 611
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/14/2016 12:11:32 AM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
New Seeker Allows Tomahawk Block IV to Engage Targets Moving on Land or at Sea:
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-13-Raytheon-completes-active-seeker-test-for-Tomahawk-cruise-missile
B-52H Now Able to Drop 8 JDAMs from Weapons Bay:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2016-01-13-Boeing-Delivers-Six-Enhanced-B-52-Bomber-Weapons-Bay-Launchers#assets_117

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 612
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/14/2016 8:35:23 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
So Tomahawk IV will uses better active seeking radar for the next batch. It is now a Harpoon in steroid. But what about the fate of LRASM?

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 613
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/14/2016 11:10:09 AM   
Tailhook

 

Posts: 293
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

So Tomahawk IV will uses better active seeking radar for the next batch. It is now a Harpoon in steroid. But what about the fate of LRASM?


LRASM development and integration continues (the USN mounted it to a Super Hornet just last week). Tomahawk anti-ship developments have been a stop gap effort.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 614
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/14/2016 10:16:58 PM   
jtoatoktoe

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/9/2013
Status: offline
LRASM is approved for Air Launch and has been tested with VLS so it will work.

The OASuW Increment 2 (Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare) competition will be completely open and start by FY 2017.It is expected the LRASM will compete against the joint Kongsberg/Raytheon offering of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for air-launch needs and an upgraded Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile for surface-launch needs and anything else that may sneak in.

(in reply to Tailhook)
Post #: 615
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/15/2016 3:52:28 PM   
Triode

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline
Metal thingy :

Not so long ago I request adding RLK "Zaslon" on project 20385 ships (4 X-band, 4 S-band ,AESA, 200 km range, datalink for 9M96D)
based on this pictures from MSMS-2014



now we can compare 3D to reality ,installation of RLK mast on "Gremyaschiy":




(in reply to jtoatoktoe)
Post #: 616
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/15/2016 6:08:11 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
2nd LRIP specimen of the J-20 appeared, code numbered 2102. The first LRIP 2101 appeared just 25. Dec last year. Things will go quite fast now, as these LRIP planes go to the PLAAF Flight Test Regiment for the development of combat doctrines, crew and maintenance familiarization/manual-creation and the training of the first batch of flight instructors.

An IOC by 2017 seems plausible.




The J-10B, which was in a similiar state back in 2011-12, had a LRIP batch of 8 planes. I would expect roughly as many for the J-20 LRIP batch too.

< Message edited by Hongjian -- 1/15/2016 7:10:14 PM >

(in reply to Triode)
Post #: 617
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 1:17:53 AM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
Chinese Su-35(SK?) to be delivered by Q4 2016!

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2588456

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 618
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 10:52:44 AM   
Triode

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Chinese Su-35(SK?) to be delivered by Q4 2016!



4 plane , hull numbers 0319,0320,0401,0402 (first two number of series , in each series there is 20 airframe)

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 619
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 3:09:31 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Triode


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Chinese Su-35(SK?) to be delivered by Q4 2016!



4 plane , hull numbers 0319,0320,0401,0402 (first two number of series , in each series there is 20 airframe)


Yeah, still damn fast of a delivery. The PLAAF seems to urgently need more advanced 4.5 gen planes until the J-20 is deployed in numbers.

(in reply to Triode)
Post #: 620
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 3:13:19 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
A good comparisson between the Type 093B SSGN left (or "093G") and the Type 093 SSN right.

The 093B SSGN looks considerably fatter and slightly bigger/longer than its predecessor... Wasnt there the technical notion that bigger nuclear submarines are quiter, due to having more space for internal noise dampening?



Some leakers say that the 093B could have 1000 tonnes more displacement than the 7000 tonne standard 093/A.

< Message edited by Hongjian -- 1/16/2016 4:43:01 PM >

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 621
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 3:51:07 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Look at the stern section of right 093, I think it submerge a little bit more than the left one, so to make it looks a bit smaller.

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 622
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 5:19:55 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
Tomahawk Missiles Will Get Twice As Deadly By Blowing Up Their Own Fuel
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18994/tomahawk-missiles-fuel-air-explosion/

This is actually somewhat interesting, because the closer to the target you fire the missile, the more damage it does?

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 623
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 5:44:25 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

This is actually somewhat interesting, because the closer to the target you fire the missile, the more damage it does?

The missile's solid fuel is a propellant, not a dynamite. If it have to be a part of the damage, I believe it need to be penetrated into the ship hull/building, and caused the fuel-air effect of explosion when warhead is detonated. The external combustion/detonation will be just as weak as the secondary damage.

Problem is, can Tomahawk withstand huge amount of kinetic impact to keep all the fuel intact until the ENTIRE missile is inside the target, and detonate as planned? If the target is a heavily protected/armored, such chance of destruction is very less likely happens. Except the missile is smart enough to drill through a window, or hanger gate to make such of havoc.

In that case, CMANO also need to simulate the missile's actual penetration of target, and the remaining fuel of missile to summarize the total damage.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 1/16/2016 6:51:35 PM >

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 624
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/16/2016 6:32:07 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
Dysta,
If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that Tomahawks are powered by small jet engines, which burn JP-10, a very energy-dense liquid fuel. And the article addresses the questions you asked.

Furthermore, even without modifications, TLAMs burn quite well when they hit their targets.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 625
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/17/2016 12:15:44 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Wow. Liquid fuel and Turbojet? That'd be more powerful and volatile than the solid based counterpart.

But still, if the remaining fuel isn't inside the target and being combusted, then the FAE is too weak at outdoor, and only the warhead to deliver the raw damage.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 1/17/2016 1:16:56 AM >

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 626
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/17/2016 8:31:00 AM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
Dysta, there was never a solid fuel counterpart- the tomahawk has always been an air-breather. The VLS, and ground based varients do use a solid fuel booster to launch and orient towards the target, but after that the booster motor falls away and the weapon deploys its control surfaces and intake and continues down range.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 627
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/17/2016 9:54:56 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Haha, I said counterpart means a general design of missiles after the Cold War. Since they are built to be smaller and fly further with more fuel mass and lower air frictions, and more rely on kinetic kills than bigger warheads.

Tomahawk is always liquid fueled, as I get that, that is why I was little confused of how they can deliver extra damages.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 628
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/17/2016 12:42:00 PM   
AlmightyTallest

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline
The FAE incorporation into the Tomahawk is interesting. Here's a video of the kind of shock or overpressure damage a BLU-96B FAE bomb does when it goes off next to a house.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRASCHJe2Q


In other news:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/01/15/Raytheon-Excalibur-N5-fired-from-5-inch-naval-gun-during-test/5841452882998/?ref=yfp

quote:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Raytheon's new Excalibur N5 projectile was fired from a 5-inch naval gun during a flight test at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona.

The Excalibur N5 is a 5-inch variant of Raytheon's Excalibur extended range precision projectile. The projectile is currently in use by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, in addition to other armed forces. The company expects the N5 variant will triple the effective range of naval gun munitions currently in use, while maintaining the same accuracy.

The new sea-based projectile is designed to be used for naval surface fire support, anti-surface warfare, and engaging fast attack craft.


Video of test fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70q4ZXkSgJE


< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 1/17/2016 1:52:36 PM >

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 629
RE: Naval and Defense News - 1/17/2016 1:50:49 PM   
cf_dallas


Posts: 303
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Grapevine, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Tomahawk Missiles Will Get Twice As Deadly By Blowing Up Their Own Fuel
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18994/tomahawk-missiles-fuel-air-explosion/

This is actually somewhat interesting, because the closer to the target you fire the missile, the more damage it does?



"Burning vapor produces an exhaust like a jet engine, and when the flame front reached the trees, it accelerated to high speed. The irregular branches and twigs made the smooth flow turbulent, mixing the vapor cloud with air so it burned far more rapidly and with much greater force."

Science is so fracking cool!!!

_____________________________

Formerly cwemyss

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Naval and Defense News Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

0.969