A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
Looking into what would a small navy like the RAN would acquire if the government of the day decided to increase in real terms the defence budget and wanted to get back into the carrier role.

The next question is do they go the LHD route and expanded the bukerage and munitions storage capacity and purchase two more Canberra class or a dedicated STOVL ship like the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi (551), each has its own pro and cons. If two are acquired then a purchase of approx 40 F35B need to be purchased 16 airframes per carrier plus an additional 8 for training or aircraft attrition.

Looking at a UK perspective they feel that the time of the small carrier’s time is over with the building of the Queen Elizabeth class with a planed 35/40 F35B and i would imagine Sea King helicopter in the Airborne Early Warning role. Two large carriers doing the job of 3 smaller types.

If Australia was to go down the large carrier would it be in her best interests to follow the UK lead go with the F35B which would still only require about 40 aircraft with 30/35 deployed on the carrier plus third Canberra class which would double as a carrier when the QE is in maintenance/refit. Or the other option is use her as the French where thinking as a CATOBAR capable carrier, we have 24 Super hornets coming on line with an additional buy of 30 F35C aircraft plus E2D Hawkeye, for a compliment of 24 supers plus 12 F35C or 24 F35C 12 supers plus EA-18G Growlers if brought up to spec. In this configuration it would have a larger firepower and range over a STOVL carrier but the down side is we only have one and would put us in the position of it may not be available when required in a short notice deployment unless we had two.

With either option we also have to look at escorts, double the order for the AWD would be a must which would bring us to 6 with a possibility of 4 extra ANZAC MKII,plus extra oilers would be need.

This all hypothetical and not what the RAN is doing i just trying to get ideas of what people idea might be if the RAN got back into the carrier game.

Which would be the best outcome for the RAN?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Garibaldi is too small for an effective F-35B carrier. You'd want something more like Cavour (550).
 

SASWanabe

New Member
I wonder if the budget were to be DRASTICALLY increased if the RAN would ever consider buying the recently decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk, Australia buying a Ship of this size (80,000 tonnes 85 aircraft full load) and configuration (CATOBAR) has its Advantages and Disadvantages... ill list a few for a start:

Advantages:
Massive boost to Australia's military role in the Pacific and possibly the World.
If i recall correctly the pilots currently flying the F/A 18 Super Hornets have already been trained by the USN in carrier ops (As we are buying the Naval variant).
With the Carrier the two LHDs and a couple Replenishment ships, I believe the RAN would move into the "Blue Water Navy" category currently only occupied by the US,UK and France.
Possibly a move for Australia from Middle Power-Super Power.
A wider range of aircraft available rather than just the couple STOVL aircraft in production.
An aircraft carrier may solve the RANs recruitment issues aswel (AIrcraft carriers in my mind are much more attractive to Potential recruits than any other vessel).

Disadvantages:
MASSIVE Crew Requirements (5000 including Air Wing)
Gas Turbine Propulsion = HUGELY expensive
The disadvantages of only having 1, i.e her being unavailable during her repair cycle.
The requirement for more Replenishment Ships (Although the USN has 2 Henry J. Kaiser class Ships sitting in reserve 85 and 95% complete.)



Honestly i doubt the RAN will be capable of Fixed-Wing carrier ops for decades. But i would still love to see it happen as i was born after Melbourne was Decommissioned and have never had the opportunity to see an Australian Aircraft Carrier in the flesh, Well metal....

If anything i said here is incorrect or you have anything to add i'd love to hear it
 
Last edited:

1805

New Member
I wonder if the budget were to be DRASTICALLY increased if the RAN would ever consider buying the recently decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk, Australia buying a Ship of this size (80,000 tonnes 85 aircraft full load) and configuration (CATOBAR) has its Advantages and Disadvantages... ill list a few for a start:

Advantages:
Massive boost to Australia's military role in the Pacific and possibly the World.
If i recall correctly the pilots currently flying the F/A 18 Super Hornets have already been trained by the USN in carrier ops (As we are buying the Naval variant).
With the Carrier the two LHDs and a couple Replenishment ships, I believe the RAN would move into the "Blue Water Navy" category currently only occupied by the US,UK and France.
Possibly a move for Australia from Middle Power-Super Power.
A wider range of aircraft available rather than just the couple STOVL aircraft in production.
An aircraft carrier may solve the RANs recruitment issues aswel (AIrcraft carriers in my mind are much more attractive to Potential recruits than any other vessel).

Disadvantages:
MASSIVE Crew Requirements (5000 including Air Wing)
Gas Turbine Propulsion = HUGELY expensive
The disadvantages of only having 1, i.e her being unavailable during her repair cycle.
The requirement for more Replenishment Ships (Although the USN has 2 Henry J. Kaiser class Ships sitting in reserve 85 and 95% complete.)



Honestly i doubt the RAN will be capable of Fixed-Wing carrier ops for decades. But i would still love to see it happen as i was born after Melbourne was Decommissioned and have never had the opportunity to see an Australian Aircraft Carrier in the flesh, Well metal....

If anything i said here is incorrect or you have anything to add i'd love to hear it
A conventional powered version of the Charles De Gaulle or ever the USS America LH-6 would be interesting. Once India completes its own carrier this would also be an option. These maybe not that expensive to buy if you swapped some of your RAAF F35a for b or c's. Although you still have to crew the ship. The RAN would probably not need another AWD as the F35 would provide additional air defence.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder if the budget were to be DRASTICALLY increased if the RAN would ever consider buying the recently decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk, Australia buying a Ship of this size (80,000 tonnes 85 aircraft full load) and configuration (CATOBAR) has its Advantages and Disadvantages... ill list a few for a start:

Advantages:
Massive boost to Australia's military role in the Pacific and possibly the World.
If i recall correctly the pilots currently flying the F/A 18 Super Hornets have already been trained by the USN in carrier ops (As we are buying the Naval variant).
With the Carrier the two LHDs and a couple Replenishment ships, I believe the RAN would move into the "Blue Water Navy" category currently only occupied by the US,UK and France.
Possibly a move for Australia from Middle Power-Super Power.
A wider range of aircraft available rather than just the couple STOVL aircraft in production.
An aircraft carrier may solve the RANs recruitment issues aswel (AIrcraft carriers in my mind are much more attractive to Potential recruits than any other vessel).

Disadvantages:
MASSIVE Crew Requirements (5000 including Air Wing)
Gas Turbine Propulsion = HUGELY expensive
The disadvantages of only having 1, i.e her being unavailable during her repair cycle.
The requirement for more Replenishment Ships (Although the USN has 2 Henry J. Kaiser class Ships sitting in reserve 85 and 95% complete.)



Honestly i doubt the RAN will be capable of Fixed-Wing carrier ops for decades. But i would still love to see it happen as i was born after Melbourne was Decommissioned and have never had the opportunity to see an Australian Aircraft Carrier in the flesh, Well metal....

If anything i said here is incorrect or you have anything to add i'd love to hear it
We've just had $20bn removed from our defence budget for the next 10 years. We have to save as we have less money. This was not a theoretical removal and an accountant dicking around with the books - its actually removed.

we're no more likely to buy a carrier as we are to buy a 4th AWD - as whatever we buy for any service will have to be pulled from somewhere in the purple space.

its not multiple choice and theoretical for us. its already happened.

no money. no extra big ticket kit.

and we would never have considered "big kitty", she was absolutely shagged and would have completely screwed up force balance, doctrine and forward expenses - let alone cost a motzah for the proper support costs.

people need to understand that the unit cost is sweet ferk all. the hurt comes with through life and doctrinal ancillary costs.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think at any stage (even during WWII manning levels and budgets) we could have operated any US carrier built post WWII. It would take every man and woman in the RAN to man the thing.

I think the ideal carrier would be a cavour with F-35B. This way we could use the LHD to keep pilots trained and also as temporary carriers to keep assets in theater. Also some amphib capability as a roro. If we could form some sort of Asia pacific combined force, then stepping up to a UK cvf partnering with countries like NZ, Singapore, Malyasia, Thailand etc would allow for a full sized carrier and airwing. However the only way I could see that happening is if the US completely collapsed economically

But now Australia has no money for defence (or much else). Just meeting existing commitments and expansions will push things into the very difficult zone. The good news is that atleast most of the impressive things have already been signed off. The LHD's, 3 AWD, Superhornets, C17 etc.

The 4th AWD could still happen IMHO, just not in the next 10-15 year period. If we are building anzac replacements off the AWD hull, then the ship building skills would still be there.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I wouldn't settle for anything less than a Queen Elizabeth, but I am sure many would settle for a Canberra light carrier... Keep in mind the old Melbourne usually carried only nine Skyhawks...

However, at $ 3 billion Australia could afford probably another 30 F-35As if not more... Would you rather have at least another 30 F-35As or a sitting duck? Keep in mind we still haven't spent another $1 billion to buy 10 F-35Bs to put on the flat top...

I'll buy more F-35As... I'm thinking in terms of $100 million per F-35...

Furthermore, why buy one, surely Australia would buy two alike the British... Double the ante... I would prefer to buy 80 F-35s than two sitting ducks and 20 F-35s...

Are two carriers worth more than the combat air wing?
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
We've just had $20bn removed from our defence budget for the next 10 years. We have to save as we have less money. This was not a theoretical removal and an accountant dicking around with the books - its actually removed.

we're no more likely to buy a carrier as we are to buy a 4th AWD - as whatever we buy for any service will have to be pulled from somewhere in the purple space.

its not multiple choice and theoretical for us. its already happened.

no money. no extra big ticket kit.

and we would never have considered "big kitty", she was absolutely shagged and would have completely screwed up force balance, doctrine and forward expenses - let alone cost a motzah for the proper support costs.

people need to understand that the unit cost is sweet ferk all. the hurt comes with through life and doctrinal ancillary costs.




Hi GF0012-AUST
I understand your comments and share your frustration on the current fiscal planning for the larger ADF; it’s all well and good to look for savings in the defence but those saving should go into front line procurements’ assets for all of the ADF.

The hypothetical question i posted is with a real budget increase into the ADF, but for the purposes of this thread was related to the RAN and a shift in doctrine with the RAN to acquire a carrier and what type would best suit the needs of the RAN.

SASWanabe, Kitty Hawk is out of the question not only for her size but manning issue alone puts her out of our league. Having her would not bring us into super power status as only having one you effectively have a large asset for power projection in the pacific and to a certain degree in the greater world area where she was operating from, but Australia could not sustain that effort with one asset which would still leave us in the middle power bracket but albeit a very powerful one.

Getting back to the reason of the thread, if the RAN did get one or two improved designed Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi type they would effectively be there to assist the Canberra class LHD by providing CAS and limited air cover wherever she was operating leaving the LHD to do what it was intended for commanded and control/amphibious operations, the current spec on the Giuseppe Garibaldi indicate a crew of 550 plus 230 air operation staff with automation this figure could quite possibly be brought lower, with a full load displacement of 13370t she is very small and could be easily be built in Australia.

The Queen Elizabeth class would undoubtable be the best bet if Australia wanted to get serious in the support and power projection stakes, but still leaves us in a peculiar position if Australia wanted that capability 24/7 one ship is not enough. With one ship our aircraft needs are the same as two Italian ships. Manning levels would be the decider if Australia where to get her let alone two, a crew of 600 plus and up to 900 air operations staff and a displacement of 65000t would prohibit from be built in Australia, but could have some offsets with being built in the UK with the Australia and UK possibly building multi-role ships in the future and some being built in Australia if possible, if one is only acquired it makes sense that she operate F35B which could also be cross deck with the Canberra if required or as said before a third Canberra built for air ops when QE is laid up. Having two would be the best bet and with EMALS under development with the Americans a CATOBAR carrier would be in Australia best interests having a mix of F18E/F Super Hornets and F35C Joint strike fighter, having SH would keep the cost down to a degree using a mix of 24 SH to 12 F35C one will always be available leaving the government with several option we cannot possible have now, she is more than capably of looking after the a task force incojuction with the LHD or operating alone with escorts where the need arise any where in the world.

Well obviously the EMALS equip Queen Elizabeth would be the ultimate for Australia but would it be the best fit, two Italian STOVL ships also seem like a good idea on paper to complement the LHD if that’s all that’s required of them.

As Swerve pointed out the Italian ship Cavour is also a possibility but i believe it is too similar in size and function to a Canberra class where we be better of with two more Canberra’s in the carrier mode but as people on this forum have stated the it’s not the best solution.
 

stoker

New Member
Hi GF0012-AUST
I understand your comments and share your frustration on the current fiscal planning for the larger ADF; it’s all well and good to look for savings in the defence but those saving should go into front line procurements’ assets for all of the ADF.

The hypothetical question i posted is with a real budget increase into the ADF, but for the purposes of this thread was related to the RAN and a shift in doctrine with the RAN to acquire a carrier and what type would best suit the needs of the RAN.

SASWanabe, Kitty Hawk is out of the question not only for her size but manning issue alone puts her out of our league. Having her would not bring us into super power status as only having one you effectively have a large asset for power projection in the pacific and to a certain degree in the greater world area where she was operating from, but Australia could not sustain that effort with one asset which would still leave us in the middle power bracket but albeit a very powerful one.

Getting back to the reason of the thread, if the RAN did get one or two improved designed Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi type they would effectively be there to assist the Canberra class LHD by providing CAS and limited air cover wherever she was operating leaving the LHD to do what it was intended for commanded and control/amphibious operations, the current spec on the Giuseppe Garibaldi indicate a crew of 550 plus 230 air operation staff with automation this figure could quite possibly be brought lower, with a full load displacement of 13370t she is very small and could be easily be built in Australia.

The Queen Elizabeth class would undoubtable be the best bet if Australia wanted to get serious in the support and power projection stakes, but still leaves us in a peculiar position if Australia wanted that capability 24/7 one ship is not enough. With one ship our aircraft needs are the same as two Italian ships. Manning levels would be the decider if Australia where to get her let alone two, a crew of 600 plus and up to 900 air operations staff and a displacement of 65000t would prohibit from be built in Australia, but could have some offsets with being built in the UK with the Australia and UK possibly building multi-role ships in the future and some being built in Australia if possible, if one is only acquired it makes sense that she operate F35B which could also be cross deck with the Canberra if required or as said before a third Canberra built for air ops when QE is laid up. Having two would be the best bet and with EMALS under development with the Americans a CATOBAR carrier would be in Australia best interests having a mix of F18E/F Super Hornets and F35C Joint strike fighter, having SH would keep the cost down to a degree using a mix of 24 SH to 12 F35C one will always be available leaving the government with several option we cannot possible have now, she is more than capably of looking after the a task force incojuction with the LHD or operating alone with escorts where the need arise any where in the world.

Well obviously the EMALS equip Queen Elizabeth would be the ultimate for Australia but would it be the best fit, two Italian STOVL ships also seem like a good idea on paper to complement the LHD if that’s all that’s required of them.

As Swerve pointed out the Italian ship Cavour is also a possibility but i believe it is too similar in size and function to a Canberra class where we be better of with two more Canberra’s in the carrier mode but as people on this forum have stated the it’s not the best solution.

One only Queen Elisabeth class- two Emals cataputs, level flight deck ( no ski jump)

Buy in another 18 SHornets- 12 F-18F'S & 6 Growlers, buy in 6 E2D AEW's

Airwing would be:- 16 SH F-18F's plus 4 SH F-18 Growlers ( all 2 man crew RAAF pilots)
4 E-2D AEW
6-8 MH60R's ASW plus 3 MH60S's CSAR 9 Navy pilots) or (9 NH-90's)

Buy in one Lewis & Clarke T-AKE modified to a fleet replentishment ship as replentishment escort/supply ship.

Having served on the Melbourne back in the 60's, it was a carrier of limited ability even then, I was glad to see it pay off.

I also appreciate we will never ever have another aircraft carrier, we can not afford one, and basically we have no operational need for one.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...., if the RAN did get one or two improved designed Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi type they would effectively be there to assist the Canberra class LHD by providing CAS and limited air cover wherever she was operating leaving the LHD to do what it was intended for commanded and control/amphibious operations, the current spec on the Giuseppe Garibaldi indicate a crew of 550 plus 230 air operation staff with automation this figure could quite possibly be brought lower, with a full load displacement of 13370t she is very small and could be easily be built in Australia.
But she's too small! Adequate as a Harrier carrier, but not for F-35B. The reason Cavour & Juan Carlos 1 are similar in size is because that was calculated to be what was needed for efficient F-35B operation.
...
As Swerve pointed out the Italian ship Cavour is also a possibility but i believe it is too similar in size and function to a Canberra class where we be better of with two more Canberra’s in the carrier mode but as people on this forum have stated the it’s not the best solution.
Size (Cavour is a bit bigger), but not function: the Canberras are amphibious assault & command ships with the possibility of being converted to auxiliary carriers - but without, in Australia's case, the equipment needed for the role. Spain is buying that equipment. Cavour is a carrier with a secondary role as an amphibious transport/LPH. No dock, 10 knots faster than Canberra, far more powerful sensor suite & self-defence weapons.

Note that the Spanish navy wants a dedicated carrier at least as large as Juan Carlos to replace Principe de Asturias (money permitting).
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The Invincible, PdA, and Garabaldi were built with Harriers in mind, including the lifts. The QEs, JCI, and Cavour are being built 20 or so years later with F-35Bs in mind, again including the lifts...
 

1805

New Member
It is interesting to look at the last fixed wing complement of HMS Hermes in 1970. On 28,000t similar to the JCI; according Wiki:

12 Sea Vixen
7 Buccaneers
5 Gannet
6 Wessex

I'm sure this was overcrowded and the limitation of having to have separate attack and fighters. But the Sea Vixen & Buccaneer both are a little lighter than the F35b but they are actually bigger span/length (although they do have folding bits!)
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One only Queen Elisabeth class- two Emals cataputs, level flight deck ( no ski jump)
Just as a side note, EMALS can be used for a Ski Jump, so does not have to be a flat deck. The manufacturer states this can be done very easily and further improves the system as using the ski jump can mean a slower take off speed due to the ramp further reducing strain and fatigue on the airframe. That combined with AAG, means you would have the ability to launch C variants from smaller decks in the future.
I will have a think about what my suggestion would be for a carrier and post later
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
The Invincible, PdA, and Garabaldi were built with Harriers in mind, including the lifts. The QEs, JCI, and Cavour are being built 20 or so years later with F-35Bs in mind, again including the lifts...
But some harrier carriers should be able to use the F-35 with the minimum of modifications. Invincible's can take the F-35 and in theory the PdA should as they have just enough runway length, and the lifts are big enough (just) and can carry an empty F35.

I could have sworn that the MM was going to modifier GG for the F-35
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
But some harrier carriers should be able to use the F-35 with the minimum of modifications. Invincible's can take the F-35 and in theory the PdA should as they have just enough runway length, and the lifts are big enough (just) and can carry an empty F35.

I could have sworn that the MM was going to modifier GG for the F-35
Even if the lifts could carry an empty F-35B, I do not think the carriers could operate the F-35B. I could be mistaken, but I have thought that most carrier aircraft would have been fueled/loaded/armed prior to them being raised up onto the flight deck? If that is the case, then some changes, likely significant, would be required to allow the fueling and arming of aircraft on the flight line. This would not only require layout changes to the vessel in terms of fuel bunkerage, but also weapon storage and transfer, as well as operational changes to the vessel(s) in question.

From a RAN perspective, while it would be nice for the RAN to be able to project power via a carrier, I do not see it as a viable option any time soon. The costs and requirements for carrier ops would create significant distortion to the ADF force structure.

Assuming that a third Canberra-class LHD was ordered, but instead built as a dedicated/proper CVL (perhaps named HMAS Australia...) it would likely cost something like A$2 billion+. Such a vessel might be able to operate up to ~20-25 F-35B JSF, and here is where significant force distortion commences. Such a figure approximates 20-25% of the RAAF fighter strength. As such, one of two things would have to occur. Either a quarter of the RAAF fighter strength would need to be trained to operate from carriers and operate the more expensive (to purchase and operate) F-35B and even more importantly, be deployed away from Australia at times... Or the RAAF and/or RAN Fleet Air Arm would need to be expanded to maintain the currently planned 100 F-35A JSF as well as the 20-25 F-35B JSF for the carrier, and of course this would require increased training establishments to provide pilots, maintenance and ground/aircrew, etc.

While the first of the two options would be the comparatively less expensive, I do not think it a good idea to risk up to a quarter of Australia's fighter force like that, or spend the significant purchase costs for acquiring the the -B variant as well as a viable dedicated carrier. Nevermind the even greater ongoing operational costs to sustain the carrier force once it has been created.

Now, while the original post did suggest this being done after an increase in the ADF budget in real terms, two things come to mind. The first being, how much of an increase would realistically be required to create and sustain such a force? I could forsee such an expansion of the RAN easily requiring an increase of ~20% to the ADF budget, which I somehow doubt Australian taxpayers being willing to go along with... The second question is, what other capabilities could be purchased instead, if the ADF budget were to be increased and sustained by an additional 1% GDP, and would some of those other capabilities be of even greater value?

Again, I would like the RAN to re-enter the carrier game, and for both operational and historical reasons would like to see the FAA reconsituted with a fixed-wing combat capability. I just do not see it as being realistically worthwhile given the associated costs both upfront and sustained.

-Cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
But some harrier carriers should be able to use the F-35 with the minimum of modifications. Invincible's can take the F-35 and in theory the PdA should as they have just enough runway length, and the lifts are big enough (just) and can carry an empty F35.

I could have sworn that the MM was going to modifier GG for the F-35
Yes, some Harrier carriers could operate F-35B, but not very effectively. It might be OK for the short term, pending the acquisition of a newer, bigger, ship. It doesn't make sense to build a new ship like that.

I doubt that modifying a 30+ year old ship to take an aircraft which it can barely operate however modified would be considered. GG is smaller than Invincible, or even PdA.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, some Harrier carriers could operate F-35B, but not very effectively. It might be OK for the short term, pending the acquisition of a newer, bigger, ship. It doesn't make sense to build a new ship like that.

I doubt that modifying a 30+ year old ship to take an aircraft which it can barely operate however modified would be considered. GG is smaller than Invincible, or even PdA.
If can find it I though the poster Conti de Cavour mentioned that years ago that GG was going to be upgraded for the F-35 (of course it might have changed). I agree though it much better to build a new than upgrade an old ship.

The sad and sorry history of the various RN carriers is a warning from history of the perils of upgrading old ships for modern aircraft
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The GG is a old and very tiny carrier. I think only the Thai carrier rivals it for size.

The f-35b is approximately the same size as a harrier so people assume it can physically fit then all is ok. Its what 100-200% heavier. Lifts would need to be upgraded, decks strengthend etc. All of this at the top of a ship, you can't just increase the mass of live loads several times and not have an impact on the stability of the ship (although the GG is a small enclosed sea carrier).

Fuel load is way larger. While the GG could operate a airwing of 6 harriers, the F-35B will chew that fuel with a single aircraft. The ship does not have lots of free space, I don't know how it could be upgraded to do anything useful with a F-35.

They may keep it around as a training carrier, helo carrier etc. However it would be very limited as a F-35B carrier.
 

1805

New Member
If can find it I though the poster Conti de Cavour mentioned that years ago that GG was going to be upgraded for the F-35 (of course it might have changed). I agree though it much better to build a new than upgrade an old ship.

The sad and sorry history of the various RN carriers is a warning from history of the perils of upgrading old ships for modern aircraft
In fairness to the RN post war carriers, the delay between designed and commission was at a time of astonishing growth in aircraft weight. From Swordfish to Buccaneer in 15 years! Whereas the Forrestals entered service at a simliar time, but with massive stretch designed in so they could carry the bomb, contributing to c40 years life.
 
Last edited:

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The sad and sorry history of the various RN carriers is a warning from history of the perils of upgrading old ships for modern aircraft
The Midway class tells a different story. They were constantly upgraded and modified to use newer and heavier aircraft (except the F-14).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top