Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+61
lancelot
Podlodka77
GreyHog
Finty
slasher
lyle6
Backman
Hole
walle83
owais.usmani
Cyberspec
mnztr
marcellogo
The-thing-next-door
Rodion_Romanovic
Tsavo Lion
kvs
LMFS
Singular_Transform
hoom
SeigSoloyvov
Big_Gazza
d_taddei2
Odin of Ossetia
Teshub
Godric
ATLASCUB
nomadski
PapaDragon
OminousSpudd
KiloGolf
VladimirSahin
Isos
sepheronx
JohninMK
max steel
Werewolf
AlfaT8
Book.
Mike E
KoTeMoRe
AirCargo
F-15E
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
Hannibal Barca
Hachimoto
Flyingdutchman
andalusia
nemrod
GarryB
War&Peace
NickM
Mindstorm
TR1
Sujoy
Viktor
George1
Admin
oleg nik
Russian Patriot
65 posters

    US Navy ships and weapon systems

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:57 pm

    AN SLQ 32 in sufficient numbers ( which we have ) can jam any incoming hostile missile .

    Funny you say that because of the large Kh-22M missiles to be carried by the Tu-22M3 in naval combat they pretty much had three main types... active radar homing, passive radar homing, and tactical nuclear with inertial guidance to a coordinate.

    The thing is that after any initial attack a carrier group will be using radar to detect threats at max range so it can deal with them so the standard strategy was to launch active radar homing missiles to find the elusive carrier group... of course these missiles also have a home on jam capability so using the SLQ 32 would allow the active radar homing missiles to switch from active radar to passive HOJ guidance. Of course active jammers emit a lot of noise so most Soviet platforms nearby will now know exactly where the emitter or emitters are so an enormous range of weapons will start closing in on the emitter/s.

    Unless that vessel or group of vessels want to be totally blind however they will need to turn on a radar or two, to get information to plan their defence... plenty of older Russian antiship missiles were fitted with backup IR guidance systems.

    The point is that after the first wave of missiles have hit there is no advantage to emcon and the second wave will likely include ARM equipped missiles too.

    For example, the fake signal creation by the Granit? How does it even detected an incoming missile? Is the false signal accurate?

    Maybe I have been a slacker on my reading, but I have never even hear of this before.

    Granit is three times the weight of Onyx, and was a very capable missile. Think how far computer technology has moved on... today a palm top computer can perform better than a 1970s mainframe.

    An incoming missile with active radar homing can be detected from the radar signal coming from its nose. A SARH missile can be "detected" by the change from "scanning" to target marking mode.

    The ancient Styx in Soviet service had a back up IR guidance system and it would not be impossible for Granit to have something similar to detect the IR plume of an incoming missile.
    Sujoy
    Sujoy


    Posts : 2286
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Sujoy Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:42 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Single destroyer or frigate ? Shocked Shocked

    I talk of an entire Carrier Battle Group -CVBG - not of a single ship .
    That's what I am talking about as well . Let's be more precise and say the 7th Fleet ( which was sent against India during the 1971 conflict) Very Happy . Understood Very Happy

    Mindstorm wrote:Maybe some words from the someone of the US Navy's insiders involved will disperse a bit of mist:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714

    Mindstorm , please note that we need to take those observations with more than just a pinch of salt. Most of the time they may these assertions to get bigger defense grants from the Govt. Lobbying groups are working with them . This is not Russia where if you make un warranted comments you loose your job.

    Mindstorm wrote:Sorry Sujoy, but i are uncapable to understand what you mean here.

    I begin with the premise that swarming a fleet of sea vessels with super sonic cruise missiles is an option which on today's date Russia has and to a lesser degree China has . Now let's take a adversary who is weaker like say Iran , North Korea , Venezuela or even India . Can these countries overpower the EW systems of US fleet ??? Certainly NOT . As they simply do NOT have as many super sonic cruise missiles . I am assuming they will need at least 3 cruise missiles to take out one ship in the fleet . Now there are 50 - 60 ships in the US 7th Fleet . So at least 180 - 200 cruise missiles will be required . In the recently concluded Zuhai Air Show in China Chinese simulations showed a swarm of WZ-600 'Blue Shark' UCAVs armed with stand off missiles attacking en masse the INS Groshkov (Vikramaditya) . You get the picture ? Swarm of UCAVs for just 1 air craft carrier.


    Mindstorm wrote:None of the EW systems you mentioned employ any revolutionary measure or solution, rather some are even badly outdated Very Happy

    Would appreciate if you can explain this . My point is , if we take quantity out of the equation ( in this case a swarm of cruise missiles ) then how do you de grade the adversary's E system ?? I could't find any except for a few inconsequential ones like improved EMI shielding , elimination of dissimilar metals and improving communication bandwith . The US Navy's new program called Integrated Topside is designed to drastically improve the AN/SLQ-32 but will remain ineffective against a swarm of cruise missiles.

    So how does countries like the ones I have mentioned above who do NOT have a whole lot of cruise missiles in their arsenal deal with such EW threats .

    Remember MAKS 1997 ? Remember Moscow-based AviaKonversia Co? Remember their exhibition of a GPS jammer that cause GPS receivers to malfunction and to display the last coordinates calculated prior to jamming. This Russian invention caused quite a stir all over the world and terrified military users . OK so this is the type of technology I am talking about . Makes sense ?

    I am talking about these type of technologies to deal with EW systems like AN/SLQ 32 . Unfortunately , I do NOT think such systems exist . One plausibility as I had stated earlier is to use a program like "SUTER" to disturb the AN/SLQ-32
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Mindstorm Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:49 pm


    Mindstorm , please note that we need to take those observations with more than just a pinch of salt. Most of the time they may these assertions to get bigger defense grants from the Govt. Lobbying groups are working with them . This is not Russia where if you make un warranted comments you loose your job.


    If possibel this is the exact opposite of what happen in reality.

    American military Psy Warfare's principles have, historically, always stressed on self-boosting and over-selling of its military capabilities while ,contextually, "bashing" at maximum and tarnish while possible anything related to any not allied advanced nation (also with the aid of Us funded NGO and media operating in the nation ).


    Those so called "support/counter-will" operations have a duplice function :


    1) Spread an -enormously inflated- image of strenght among internal and allied public opinion basis so to mantain high support ,cohesion and confidence in the ultimate success of any military operation and in the decisions taken at the higher echelon levels.
    Naturally in order to be credible this type of operation must be continous in the time , coordinated and ,above all, must have empirical elements on which stand ; from that come from the habit to engage in war only immensely inferior nations uncapable to inflict any serious material or human loss (and even then ,very often ,only after having insulated them ,attacked in big Coalition with allied nations and after long periods of embargo !! Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes ) employ tactics and means operatively and economically inefficients but capable to reduce at minimum material adn live losses (at example using for months exclusively Air Forces against those inferior enemies,naturally at stellar costs ,when a joint ground operation would have resulted in the victory in few days and at a very little fraction o the costs) and "sell" those easy victories as great military achievements, where US military machine has demonstrated its great strenght Laughing Laughing Laughing

    2) Persuade "enemies" people that it live in a crumbling nation/system ,that is military structure is failed and uncapable to achieve victory and that attempt to beat the "american" structure are doomed to fail Very Happy (in that this process reproduce perfectly the comical representation of facts and reality present in theirs media and movies.)

    Those principles of Psy/Info War are very simple and could appear even childish to an attentive analysis ,but theris secret ingredient is that them operate on very elementary psycological levels which slip under the most complex adn evolute process of critical thinking .


    Returning to the subject in question is important to highlight that technical shortcoming are at the basis of those enormous difficulties by part of US Navy to design efficient defnses against complex high supersonic ASCM , them lack even only the theoretical and engineering basis to design infinitely less performant and complex target drones .
    this document can provide to you a picture of the situation:

    http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf


    Zuhai Air Show in China Chinese simulations showed a swarm of WZ-600 'Blue Shark' UCAVs armed with stand off missiles attacking en masse the INS Groshkov (Vikramaditya) . You get the picture ? Swarm of UCAVs for just 1 air craft carrier


    If you employ stand-off ammunitions (capable to be delivered outside the effective range of interception of carriers' aicraft screening group) you don't need UCAV -the unique advantage of which is to avoid to put pilot's lives in danger) you need ,instead, the faster delivering platform you have at disposition, capable not only to reduce the useful interception range of the defending screening air squadrons but ,synergically, increase also drammatically the enagement range of the ASCMs delivered.

    Sujoy have you a link for this video ?
    I am very curious to observe what is the strange CONOPS at the basis of a similar odd system's selection for that task.



    EMI shielding , elimination of dissimilar metals and improving communication bandwith


    What about multi-composite target picture resulting from cooperative exchange of target's poositional and data validation coming from both active (with two different different bands of emissions), inertial (with authomatic exclusion of "incoherent" target positions in respect to : missile's position/speed ,target maximum speed and target maximum degree of bank) space based (Legenda constellation at the time) and passive sensors present on each missile of the "salvo-swarm", shifting from one to the other in a totally random way and illuminating (when active elements operate) any target and decoy from very different angles of incidence....all of that while the in-built 3Б47 "Кварц" create false missile radar returns for enemy's interceptors and radar sensors ?


    I repeat the design of P-700 was ,under a strict technical point of view, a true alien for the time; was IT at represent the technological novelty that need to be countered (and you have seen now what was the situation in reproducing much simpler ASCM menaces in USA at....end of 2005 !!), to the contrary AN/SLQ 32 represent the most typical ship-based EW defensive system not offering any type of particular solution.

    Sujoy
    Sujoy


    Posts : 2286
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Sujoy Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:31 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Sujoy have you a link for this video ?
    I am very curious to observe what is the strange CONOPS at the basis of a similar odd system's selection for that task.

    Right now only a link ( not a video link ) . If I get the video link I will post it here.

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG03/311190001/China-Challenges-West-Arms-Trade

    a video was shown of the futuristic Blue Shark UCAV diving for an attack on the Indian Navy aircraft carrier Vikramaditya.


    Mindstorm wrote:What about multi-composite target picture resulting from cooperative exchange of target's poositional and data validation coming from both active (with two different different bands of emissions), inertial (with authomatic exclusion of "incoherent" target positions in respect to : missile's position/speed ,target maximum speed and target maximum degree of bank) space based (Legenda constellation at the time) and passive sensors present on each missile of the "salvo-swarm", shifting from one to the other in a totally random way and illuminating (when active elements operate) any target and decoy from very different angles of incidence....all of that while the in-built 3Б47 "Кварц" create false missile radar returns for enemy's interceptors and radar sensors ?

    The AN/SLQ-32 ( V5) now uses a jammer called "Sidekick" . The Sidekick system achieves EW objectives by providing full threat band frequency coverage, instant azimuth coverage, high probability of intercept and simultaneous response to multiple threats. Therefore,it can detect aircraft search and target radars well before they detect the ship. Unfocused noise from output traveling wave tubes is coupled into the AN/SLQ-32A(V) receivers affecting both Electronic Attack and Electronic Support functions.When the AN/SLQ-32(V) is performing electronic attack (EA), some of the radiated energy is reflected from the superstructure and detected by the Electronic Support (ES) receivers. The AN/SLQ-32(V) employs a process called Dynamic Threshold Leveling that prevents radiated energy from being perceived as a new emitter.

    R17 software changes AN/SLQ-32A(V) operation in the system operation, and threat engagement areas. Among these changes are Deceptive EA and Decoy Integration algorithms that allow for system control of decoy launches and coordinated engagements.

    Therefore, Mindstorm as I have said the problem will not be for Russia as it has a huge arsenal of sea skimming cruise missiles but other "weaker" nations . The chances of US/NATO going to war against Russia in the near future is Very slim . However, there is a genuine possibility that Iran , Venezuela and maybe even India can be attacked by NATO/US or China .
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Mindstorm Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:43 pm


    The AN/SLQ-32 ( V5) now uses a jammer called "Sidekick" . The Sidekick system achieves EW objectives by providing full threat band frequency coverage, instant azimuth coverage, high probability of intercept and simultaneous response to multiple threats.


    Sujoy AN(SLQ-32(V5) is NOT the most advanced EW system mounted on US Navy's ships , it was simply a rushed improvement on the AN(SLQ-32(V2) intended for medium class surface combatants the jammer of which (Sidekick) has an average jamming energy output and frequecy agility equal to almost HALF of that present on AN(SLQ-32(V3)
    Is AN-SLQ(V3) -after failure in 2002 of the AIEWS "Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System" program- at represent the benchmark for EW systems in US Navy's blue water surface ships.

    Among these changes are Deceptive EA and Decoy Integration algorithms that allow for system control of decoy launches and coordinated engagements.

    And...?
    Any relatively modern EW system of any advanced nation worldwide has integrated decoy laucher control , it is a standard amaong any system in the category


    http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/MP-407-naval-Electronic-CounterMeasures-ECM-system-Russian-Federation.html


    Do you know American PR has been successful in all those years in inject in public imaginary this strange ,subliminal message, leaving the feel that USA enjoy some sort of "magic" lead in anything even by far linked to the "not-kinetic" warfare Laughing Laughing

    Them have literally sold ,in particular through controled media, the lead them enjoy in a particular ,limited, sector of data processing microcircuits and in production of some type of RF transistors ,as a sort all-encopassing lead in anything related to all not-kinetic systems Razz Razz Razz

    Reality is not only very far from that ,but often the exact opposite .
    The greater difference are in the historical principles of "information warfare" of its main opposing Nations, stressing on the exact opposite : downplay itself when possible leaving under total silence any critical military.related technological lead enjoyed on the enemy.

    Some of the institutions operating perfectly within US Psy-warfare principles(such as Jamestown Foundation ,Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and dozen of NED funded organization), for Russian standards in Information Warfare, wouldn't appear simply comical ,but would be considered ,for theirs "self boosting" aptitude and the usual habit to highlight and "oversell" any domestic military-related achievement or advantage enjoyed over competitors, even a true menace to National Security !!
    Sujoy
    Sujoy


    Posts : 2286
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty By far the greatest challenge that the Russian navy will face is in the EW domain because the following US EW systems

    Post  Sujoy Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:50 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Sujoy AN(SLQ-32(V5) is NOT the most advanced EW system mounted on US Navy's ships , it was simply a rushed improvement on the AN(SLQ-32(V2) intended for medium class surface combatants the jammer of which (Sidekick) has an average jamming energy output and frequecy agility equal to almost HALF of that present on AN(SLQ-32(V3)
    Is AN-SLQ(V3) -after failure in 2002 of the AIEWS "Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System" program- at represent the benchmark for EW systems in US Navy's blue water surface ships.

    Mindstorm , I am under no illusion that the AN/SLQ 32(V5) is a perfect system . There are several shortcomings :

    (1) limited number of threats that can be engaged with onboard active EA.
    (2) limited elevation coverage
    (3) limited polarization diversity
    (4) high sidelobe levels
    (5) high RCS
    (6) transmitter-to-receiver isolation issues

    Now for a moment just for the sake of this argument imagine that you are not Russian Smile but a Serbian or Iranian or North Korean or Indian or Vietnamese , in short the so called "third world" countries that NATO / China loves to bully . What do you do then to take out an EW system like the AN/SLQ 32(V5) without resorting to overwhelming the EW system with cruise missiles(since you can't afford it) ? For every 6 or 7 cruise missiles that you fire at a NATO/China Warship at least 2 or 3 will be intercepted and the remaining 3 or 4 will hit the warship . You will have to ensure your own protection as well because the enemy will also fire a volley of cruise missiles at you .

    So you realize now how difficult the situation might be for a Iran , India , Vietnam etc . Right ?

    As I said earlier that it is a far better option to exploit the 6 shortcomings that I have listed above. Question is how ?

    One possible solution that I can think of is that Modern air defense at sea doctrines need to consider the emerging technology of software-defined radar. In this manner the surveillance and tracking abilities of imaging radar are implemented in software. Concurrently there exists the need to forge the other side of the same coin. The Software-defined Radar Countermeasure System can prove to be a solution for confusing adversary radar operators .The simulator approach for imaging radar countermeasures is preferred because it provides a bespoke generation of the required signals valid for a diverse set of adversary observers, which are considered to be Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar systems

    I would say that as a defensive measure against hostile cruise missiles there is a need for a more rigorous integration of optical technologies with microwave technologies that enables the deployment of off board microwave decoy systems . For offensive measures the only possible weapon against EW systems like the AN/SLQ 32(V5)is the use of cyber weapons .

    Mindstorm wrote:Do you know American PR has been successful in all those years in inject in public imaginary this strange ,subliminal message, leaving the feel that USA enjoy some sort of "magic" lead in anything even by far linked to the "not-kinetic" warfare Laughing Laughing

    I am happy to announce that for tragic stories with comic ending we Indians do NOT rely on American PR Smile . Our preferred choice is Bollywood Very Happy and we have had great success in exporting it as well Very Happy
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Are US navy vulnerable to the new stealth hardware ?

    Post  nemrod Tue May 13, 2014 5:35 pm


    Is it information, or as usual hype ?
    I prefer to tell the second.


    http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear

    Flyingdutchman
    Flyingdutchman


    Posts : 535
    Points : 551
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Flyingdutchman Tue May 13, 2014 7:48 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Is it information, or as usual hype ?
    I prefer to tell the second.


    http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear


    It would be very dangerous for the US navy in a conflict.



    As it looks here you wont need much.
    The dutch submarines did it!!

    While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

    During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

    Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.

    As you can see they are vunerable.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Wed May 14, 2014 8:49 am

    The main problem with most diesel electric subs is that they tend to be much smaller and cheaper than nukes and have rather less endurance and speed.

    AIPs is changing the situation with endurance but lack of speed is still an issue.

    The new Lada class subs had such a long development period because their sonars and sensors and systems are nuke attack sub class systems which makes them more expensive, but also rather more capable and with UKSK launchers they will also have a range of capabilities most conventional subs don't have.

    With the Lada-M with new propulsion, Lithium-ion batteries, and AIP the will be VERY capable vessels.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  nemrod Thu May 15, 2014 2:04 pm

    Flyingdutchman wrote:
    As you can see they are vunerable.

    I never meant they are unvulnerables. They are far to be unvulnerables, if someone studies lessons during the previous wars, anyone could easily realize that war ships are very, very vulnerable. Why did America gave up an attack against Syria ? Because of -one among several reasons- SSNX 26-27-28-29.
    - After the six days war, Egypt easily sank israeli destroyer Eilat, with an SSN-3 Shadock. During the war of the Vietnam, US Navy managed to set their aircraft carriers out of reach of North Vietnamese anti naval batteries. They knew very well what would be the desastrous consequences.
    - During the Falklands war, old argentinian Mirages with Exocet missiles sank 2 british destroyers, and Argentina lost one cruiser.
    - During Lebanon war in 1983, US managed to stay out of range of syrian batteries because of SSNX-22.
    - During the Lebanon war 2006, Hizbollah sank -?- or badly damaged the Hanith destroyer.

    The warships are well known to be very vulnerables.


    Garry wrote:
    With the Lada-M with new propulsion, Lithium-ion batteries, and AIP the will be VERY capable vessels.
    I don't know very much about submarines technology, I know only that titanium structure help more in order to be stealthy. Moreover recently, an algerian -russian origin-submarin kilo class successfully managed to be undetectable in mediteranean sea, and successfully approched  US navy task force, this submarine could easily sunk any US warship including aircraft carriers. This incident triggered a great shock and huge concern in Washington, and in US Navy staff.

    My remarqs during my first message concerning the fact that US military often cry in order to obtain more credits from the tax payers. This hype was successfully experimented during the cold war. Each time, the congress assessed to increase credits. US navy does not need any credits, as most of the third world -non developped countries- could not afford to confront US Navy. However, US navy is useless against great powers like China, Russia, India, Japan.

    This hype is intended to increase the number of warships and their modernization. US could not rivalize Brics, but they prefered instead to extend their empire by destroying every countries that won't obei to them.[/quote]
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Sat May 17, 2014 12:14 pm

    Titanium only reduces magnetic signature, so MAD boom on aircraft and helos have more problems detecting the Sub.

    However MAD detection is final detection and is very inefficient for searching for a sub... it is more normal to use some other method like Sonar (active or passive) to find the general location of the sub and then use MAD to detect the precise location due to the effect of all that metal on the Earths magnetic field. Titanium has a much weaker effect on the earths magnetic field so is much harder to detect using MAD.

    Titanium is mainly used because it is light and strong and allows deeper depths to be achieved than with steels or other metals.
    avatar
    andalusia


    Posts : 724
    Points : 786
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Does US Navy control the world's oceans?

    Post  andalusia Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:16 am

    I want to know does the US Navy control the world's oceans? Moreover, is the US Navy invincible? During the Cold War did the US Navy and Soviet Navy share power?
    Flyingdutchman
    Flyingdutchman


    Posts : 535
    Points : 551
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Flyingdutchman Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:06 am

    The U.S Navy doesn't control the world oceans, there are too much other powerfull navies for that.

    With an aircraft carrier stationed there they are maybe in control of the persian gulf.


    And the Pacific is controlled by the U.S for the most part, but in future the chinese will be in control of a large part, as that is their goal.

    Take the atlantic, US is in control for most part but as soon as Russia starts building nuclear carriers and stations them at the northern fleet they will probably sail far in to the atlantic as well.
    And remember the U.K. Has a navy aswell Wink 

    And the Med. Is divided between european and african countries, i would say the most powerfull navy in the med. Is France.

    And the indian ocean is controlled by India and chinese subs...
    Aswell as the arabian gulf.
    avatar
    Hachimoto


    Posts : 142
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2013-02-08
    Age : 39

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Hachimoto Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:48 am

    andalusia wrote:
    I want to know does the US Navy control the world's oceans?

    No one can say Yes, no one can say No.

    But if you count US allies it's an absolute Yes.

    It is sure the most powerful navy in the world by far, it has a monstrous attack power but they for sure not invulnerable and that also by far.

    The most spectacular part is their Naviation.

    andalusia wrote:is the US Navy invincible

    Nothing made by humans is invincible, past present and future.

    andalusia wrote:During the Cold War did the US Navy and Soviet Navy share power?

    To be brief they had different views on how to build powerful navy based on what are their needs of the navy forces, you just not build something for the sake of building it.

    So comparing their power will result in comparing on how both were doing their jobs, and i think they both did great.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:50 am

    International waters are controlled by international law, but at the end of the day it comes down to who has what and where they have it.

    In the Black Sea for instance the Soviets and Russians can generally get away with more than a foreign to the region navy could get away with.

    there are a few very obscure rules of the sea including one that states something like if you are sailing from point A to point B and that line of travel is inside the territorial waters of another country you have the right to sail that line or some such rubbish.

    The US Navy tried to test this idea in the Black Sea and tried to sail through Crimean waters when they were Soviet.

    This was the result:



    Funny really... we were talking about the big US cruisers like the Ticonderoga class (USS Yorktown) and the Arleigh Burke vs new Russian Frigates... this was a little Krivak class Frigate vs a 9K ton US cruiser...
    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca


    Posts : 1443
    Points : 1451
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Hannibal Barca Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:40 pm

    Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans. Their surface navy is unparalleled and will remain unparalleled the next 10-20 years although the size of China's navy when finalized should be even bigger than what american navy is now and given the extremely hard economic times US is going to suffer it is highly unlikely that US navy will remain anything more than a small fraction of what it's current size.

    Furthermore the combat effectiveness of surface ships nowadays is highly disputed. They are large, non maneuverable, slowing moving targets, relatively small in total numbers, really expensive and difficult to replaced when lost. This is precisely the kind of target which missile and torpedo technologies specialize not to mention the ever better aviation capabilities and range. So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:16 am

    Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans.

    So any piracy that occurs off Africa or the Pacific is with the say so of the US Navy?

    Saying the United States Navy controls the sea because it is big and powerful and has x number of carrier groups is like saying the New York Police department controls New York and there is therefore no crime in New York.

    The US has a big powerful navy but only controls some parts all the time and some parts some of the time and other some parts never.

    So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.

    Naval forces are the ground forces of the sea. They tend to be more expensive and when used badly can cost more lives, but at the end of the day are far more capable and useful than air power alone.

    Needless to say it wasn't aircraft that was going to defeat the UK in WWII, it was a powerful sub fleet, which in the end was undermined by better use of surface vessels and air power.

    Having said that a single modern sub with vertical launch tubes for a few dozen anti ship missiles could strangle most island nations fairly quickly... not needing to zip around the place launching torpedoes from close range.

    Relatively small Kh-35 sized missiles could be carried in their hundreds on even a modest size vessel and the latest model with a range of 250km would allow even spread out transport ships to be decimated.
    avatar
    Vann7


    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5485
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Vann7 Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:50 am

    Hannibal Barca wrote:Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans. Their surface navy is unparalleled and will remain unparalleled the next 10-20 years although the size of China's navy when finalized should be even bigger than what american navy is now and given the extremely hard economic times US is going to suffer it is highly unlikely that US navy will remain anything more than a small fraction of what it's current size.

    Furthermore the combat effectiveness of surface ships nowadays is highly disputed. They are large, non maneuverable, slowing moving targets, relatively small in total numbers, really expensive and difficult to replaced when lost. This is precisely the kind of target which missile and torpedo technologies specialize not to mention the ever better aviation capabilities and range. So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.

    You cannot who controls what unless there is a war and Russia NAvy is blocked from traveling any place.
    A fishing boat with Kalibrs missiles can sink a Ticoderoga Cruiser , or a container with same missiles in a transport ship can do the same or sink and aircraft carrier.  So you can't say who controls what unless Russia cannot travel
    to any place. . For me the biggest danger for Russia is not the US navy , i really think Russia can kick the ass of United States in a naval combat.. that is 700km Kalibers vs 120km tomahawks missiles. Warships in reality are just mobile launchers.. the way they need to be seen. What kills are the weapons.  US with subsonic tomahawks made in the 80s  have no chance to penetrate Russian defenses with Kashtan gatlin gun that fire 10k projectiles per minute.



    Because US have naval numbers superiority like 10 to 1.  Russia needs to go on the offense and kill fast. US aircraft carriers and destroyers.  But all this battles are unrealistic. because Russia will never go far away of its territory against the US navy.  US navy fighting in the black sea for example no matter how big it is.. will be at disadvantage.. because Russia territory can become a Giant Aircraft CArrier. but that do not sink. And airplanes of Russia air force can wipe the US and NATO navies launching waves of antiship missiles ,while S-400s missiles shield
    Russia from attacks.  Far from Russia coast.. however they will be at disadvantage ,because Russia airforce cannot help. In Syrian war for example Russia was in a huge disadvantage to defend Syria with its navy.. because will had to fight Turkey airforce + Israel Airforce + Jordan + US navy. The only way Russia could stand a chance away of its land is having a big army in the land they want to defend.. and moving their S-400s and a BIG airforce to the land they defending.

    Russia major treat from US is not is navy  that Russia can keep away with superior cruise missiles.. but its naval airforce. This is why Russia needs a new stealth cruiser armed with S-400s /S-500s long range and 400km missiles and this one escorted by 6-8 Gorshov Frigates and a couple of submarines.  That will be good enough to open a naval blockade by sea anywhere in case of war.  Smile

    Naval blockades using territory is however more harder.. like the Turkey strait. Russia will need to declare war on them attacking their land and use force against them to unblockade it.

    When it comes to China. they already have 70% the size of US NAVY. not fishing boats but modern Warships.
    In 5 years is expected China navy will surpass US navy size. And their warships Use state of the art Russian weapons .

    about the question who control world oceans? No one..
    Atlantic is too big to be controlled , Same with Pacific. you can only control straits and small parts of water.
    Russia pretty much can control the entire black sea in a war..but Turkey controls the strait. And Russia have no competition is the caspian sea .is isolated sea ,that NATO cannot enter. The baltic sea in the other hand is more harder to defend if NATO deploys a powerful navy in Kaliningrad coast that is Far from Russia and more harder to defend by Russia airforce because the land is separated from Russia.
    avatar
    andalusia


    Posts : 724
    Points : 786
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Does US Navy control the world's oceans?

    Post  andalusia Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:37 am

    I like all of your responses especially Vann 7. Is the US navy overrated? Read these two articles:

    http://www.transasianaxis.com/showthread.php?304-Is-the-US-Navy-Overrated

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:59 pm

    Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.

    The problem is to finance the military budget much of the money has to be borrowed, but what if the people lending money to the U.S. stops all the lending? This is actually quite a feasible scenario, the default risks caused by Republican political leadership in Congress trying to prevent a budget coming in to place could possibly wreck the Dollar as a world reserve currency, combined with the fact that within 2 years the U.S. would of accumulated a foreign held debt of over $20 trillion USD...lenders will start wondering if they'll ever get their money back. Journalist Pepe Escobar has documented that the U.S. Dollar was involved in 55% of the worlds trades circa the year 2000, but has greatly receded down to being involved in 33% of world trades by 2010, and if the current trend continues than by the 2020's the U.S. Dollar trades will in all likeliness dip below 20% which may warrant losing it's World Reserve Currency status. If such a feasible scenario happens, and as sensationalist as this may sound the massive U.S. military and budget will in all likelihood greatly recede and be a fraction of what it is today!

    Garry you live in New Zealand right? That means you live in the British Commonwealth, so you know how massive British Naval fleets used to be. Compare how massive the Royal Navy was in the early 1900's to how minuscule they are now, the Royal Navy is forced to share an aircraft carrier with France...now compare Russian military (which was always mainly a land power) circa the Napoleonic wars to Russian military of contemporary times, the  Russian military has maintained it's massive land power status even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the navy greatly receded. The pattern shows that massive navy's are more susceptible of having their bubbles burst, and greatly receding in size while military ground forces are more likely to maintain their size. Ironically the U.S. ruling class is leading America on the very same path ideologically, economically, politically, military as the British Empire, and the massive U.S. military/budget (just like the British Empire's military/budget) maybe be greatly receding (a feasible scenario no matter how sensationalist it may sound) within a couple of decades (especially if the U.S. defaults on it's debt).
    Flyingdutchman
    Flyingdutchman


    Posts : 535
    Points : 551
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Flyingdutchman Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:14 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.

    The problem is to finance the military budget much of the money has to be borrowed, but what if the people lending money to the U.S. stops all the lending? This is actually quite a feasible scenario, the default risks caused by Republican political leadership in Congress trying to prevent a budget coming in to place could possibly wreck the Dollar as a world reserve currency, combined with the fact that within 2 years the U.S. would of accumulated a foreign held debt of over $20 trillion USD...lenders will start wondering if they'll ever get their money back. Journalist Pepe Escobar has documented that the U.S. Dollar was involved in 55% of the worlds trades circa the year 2000, but has greatly receded down to being involved in 33% of world trades by 2010, and if the current trend continues than by the 2020's the U.S. Dollar trades will in all likeliness dip below 20% which may warrant losing it's World Reserve Currency status. If such a feasible scenario happens, and as sensationalist as this may sound the massive U.S. military and budget will in all likelihood greatly recede and be a fraction of what it is today!

    Garry you live in New Zealand right? That means you live in the British Commonwealth, so you know how massive British Naval fleets used to be. Compare how massive the Royal Navy was in the early 1900's to how minuscule they are now, the Royal Navy is forced to share an aircraft carrier with France...now compare Russian military (which was always mainly a land power) circa the Napoleonic wars to Russian military of contemporary times, the  Russian military has maintained it's massive land power status even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the navy greatly receded. The pattern shows that massive navy's are more susceptible of having their bubbles burst, and greatly receding in size while military ground forces are more likely to maintain their size. Ironically the U.S. ruling class is leading America on the very same path ideologically, economically, politically, military as the British Empire, and the massive U.S. military/budget (just like the British Empire's military/budget) maybe be greatly receding (a feasible scenario no matter how sensationalist it may sound) within a couple of decades (especially if the U.S. defaults on it's debt).

    UK doesn't need to share a carrier with france, you mean tht france joined the UK with designing the QE class but France won't build the carrier :/.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:04 am

    Garry you live in New Zealand right? That means you live in the British Commonwealth, so you know how massive British Naval fleets used to be.

    An excellent example for this thread... Britannia did rule the waves... they needed to because they had a global empire to maintain. The point was that in 1939 despite all her territories she could not wage a war in Europe and protect all of her colonies, so no even impressive Navies cannot rule all the worlds seas and oceans at one time.

    The pattern shows that massive navy's are more susceptible of having their bubbles burst, and greatly receding in size while military ground forces are more likely to maintain their size.


    You could come to that conclusion, but you could also say that the influence of a country can be gauged by its navy... the British, the Spanish, the French had powerful navies and now the US has a powerful navy and while they had powerful navies they had global influence and power. As their power waned for whatever reason their navy waned but you could say it was the waning of the navies that led to the waning of their influence.

    I don't think Russia wants to become a big superpower like the Soviet Union was and so an enormous fleet able to cover the globe at a few days notice is not really what they need, but a small powerful navy is always useful and air power is integral to that.

    UK doesn't need to share a carrier with france, you mean tht france joined the UK with designing the QE class but France won't build the carrier :/.

    No... a carrier is a large expensive item and has three phases of operation... the most useful is operational where it is on call ready to deploy at a moments notice to do the job it was designed for. The second phase is training... the people on board need to practise what to do in different situations and things need to be tested and checked that they work properly. The third phase is maintainence and overhaul and upgrade and is spend in dry dock in port.

    Very simply having two boats means you can ensure that one vessel is always either in training or operational and they both are not being repaired or upgraded or refitted at one time.

    Ideally you have 3 boats so you can always have two vessels available at a push if you need them.

    The agreement between Britain and France is basically if their carrier is being serviced or in refit that they can borrow a carrier from the other.

    It is a cheap way of ensuring that after spending all that money on a carrier that one will actually be available when needed.

    the cost of course is that you might end up risking your carrier in some stupid action the other country has gotten embroilled in... ie sent to the Black Sea or Pacific Island to fight a conflict that is important to the other country but might seem like a waste to you.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18221
    Points : 18722
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  George1 Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:08 pm

    US Navy's Cruiser Problem

    The cruiser Mobile Bay handles air defense for the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis. The Navy has no clear answer on what type of ship will escort deployed carriers when the current cruisers leave the fleet.
    The cruiser Mobile Bay handles air defense for the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis. The Navy has no clear answer on what type of ship will escort deployed carriers when the current cruisers leave the fleet.

    WASHINGTON — The US Navy and Congress are in a sort of faceoff over the fleet’s cruiser force. To extend their service lives, the Navy is asking to take half its cruisers — CGs in Navy-speak — out of service now and gradually bring them back starting in 2019. Congress, fearful that Pentagon budget-cutters will instead decide to cut costs and reduce the force, is insisting the ships be modernized now and kept running.

    A level of discomfort — if not outright distrust — has been created as the service changed its original 2012 request to decommission seven cruisers under a spending reduction strategy to one where the Navy wants to keep them, but temporarily inactivate 11 its 22 Ticonderoga-class CGs under a modernization plan. Many on the Hill suspect that behind the rhetoric, there lurks a desire to save money by killing the ships.

    Meanwhile, production of new DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers continues. To some, the DDGs, equipped with more up-to-date versions of the same Aegis combat system that equips the cruisers, seem up to the task of replacing the older CGs. But the Navy insists it needs its cruiser force, and the issue brings up some fundamental questions: What is a cruiser, what’s the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer, and what ship will protect the fleet’s aircraft carriers in the 2030s?
    Riding Shotgun

    A US aircraft carrier on deployment is never alone. Like a protective bodyguard, there’s always a dedicated warship hovering nearby, rarely beyond the horizon, watching out for any threat and ready to strike if necessary.

    The destroyers in the carrier’s strike group often will disperse — sometimes on tasks that take them hundreds of miles away. But a missile cruiser is always riding shotgun, commanded by a senior officer acting as the strike group’s air warfare commander — a critical role in the defense of the carrier.

    But the Navy’s force of 22 cruisers is aging, and with lifespans of about 35 years, the last of the ships will wear out and leave service by the end of the 2020s — long before replacement ships are in service to guard the fleet’s flattops.

    No cruiser replacement is in the works. The Navy had begun development of the CG(X) next-generation cruiser that would have taken over the air defense role, but the program was canceled in 2010 after the projected ships grew too big and too expensive.

    It was then hoped that a new Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke destroyers might fill the role. Equipped with a new air missile defense radar, the Flight III would have significantly greater electrical power needs than existing DDGs, and the Navy debated building a larger version of the ships. But in October, the service announced its decision to put the air missile defense radar on standard DDG hulls, and the ships will be poorly suited to embark the extra staff and provide proper command and control facilities for the air warfare commander.

    “So the question is, who is going to fill the air defense commander void?” asked Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the Navy’s director of surface warfare.

    Under the proposed modernization plan, Rowden said, the reduction to 11 active cruisers means a destroyer would fill the secondary role. But the DDGs are somewhat limited in taking on that mission.

    “We have done air defense with missile destroyers before,” Rowden said. “And clearly, we could take our destroyers and to a certain extent increase the level of expertise on those ships by putting a captain in charge. But the density of the ship, the ability to add staff to the ship, the reduced command, control and communications equipment on our destroyers really makes them not as optimal an air defense commander ship as our cruisers.”

    Rowden ticked off other factors. Destroyers, he pointed out, have only one radar transmitter, and all four radar arrays are on a single deckhouse. The cruisers split the radar arrangement, with two arrays and a transmitter in each of two deckhouses, providing redundancy in case of battle damage. And cruisers have more missile cells than destroyers, with four target illuminators rather than three.

    Cruiser communication suites — “radio circuits, satellite communications circuits” — are greater than a destroyer’s, Rowden noted. Extra space for the air defense commander’s staff also is available on a cruiser — space in the combat information center, with 20 consoles compared with a destroyer’s 16, and space in accommodations areas.

    Operationally, destroyers are called upon to defend other fleet units, including amphibious and logistics ships — not a role for cruisers, Rowden said.

    “It does not make sense to me to take a cruiser and all of the capability, capacity and expertise on that ship and use it to defend logistics, the sea lanes, the communications to bring support materials as they operate forward. But I see that as a significant role for the destroyers,” Rowden said.

    Capt. David McFarland, Rowden’s deputy in the Surface Warfare Division, is an experienced cruiser and destroyer commander.

    “You can use a DDG as a shotgun, but only in a tactical sense, not a command-and-control sense,” he said. “As a destroyer captain, I’ve been shotgun for a carrier, and I did it well, it’s just maneuvering. But I was also the area air defense commander when a cruiser wasn’t around and that is extremely difficult.”
    The future

    Work on a CGR replacement cruiser isn’t expected to start for at least a decade, Navy leaders point out, with funds increasingly committed to design and build nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio class. That means a CGR isn’t likely to be fielded until the mid-2030s, at the earliest.

    The phased modernization plan, Rowden said, would essentially stop the lifecycle clock of inactivated ships. Refurbished and modernized cruisers would be returned to active duty in time to replace older ships as they reach the end of their service lives.

    If nothing is done, the Navy had planned for the final CGs to leave the fleet by 2028. Under the phased plan, the 11 ships returned to service would leave active duty between 2035 and 2045, providing a significant window to develop and deploy a new design.

    But buying in to the plan remains difficult on Capitol Hill, where opposition is widespread. The change in the rationale to inactivate the ships, along with the Navy’s tardiness this spring in presenting its phased modernization plan to Congress, has made it tough for some to swallow.

    “They wanted to get rid of them, then overnight they came up with this plan,” said one staffer, who noted that the Navy briefed the Hill on details of the plan only just before the 2015 defense bill markups began, making it difficult or impossible to incorporate its implications. And the latest version of the 30-year shipbuilding plan, sent to Congress July 1, provides few details of the proposed plan.

    “The track record on a variety of issues is not great,” complained the staffer of the Navy.

    Compounding the communication problem, the Navy is striving to indicate the cruisers would not be officially decommissioned , only put into some sort of caretaker status pending their modernization and reactivation. The search for a proper term has been difficult — there is little precedent for inactivating ships yet continuing to count them on the active roster.

    “You can’t guarantee that Navy leaders won’t look at that [inactivated] ship downstream and think ‘I don’t want to pay to bring that ship back in service,’ ” said another congressional staffer. “That ship will look old to them by then.”
    avatar
    F-15E


    Posts : 103
    Points : 94
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Littoral Combat Ship:

    Post  F-15E Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:38 pm

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant/

    Sponsored content


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2024 1:48 pm