Navy sinks destroyer Spruance in training exercise - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Navy sinks destroyer Spruance in training exercise (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/20/2006 10:01:35 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't they have ships mothballed that have been sitting around for decades? If so, why not shoot THOSE up before you sink something out of service for a year?

Because the same boxy aluminum superstructure that was a design plus in the 70s is now a huge deficit in the era of radar-guided anti-ship weapons and stealthy ship architecture.

That was a cost savings plus, not a design plus. It was a hell of a lot cheaper to build it square like a great big radar reflector (which they were) than to build it slightly stealthy with obtuse angles, etc. We had the technology but not the $$. The $$ problems in the Navy wre immense back then. In any case the thinking was that if anything got that close to them with radar seekers things were going to be in the shitter anyhow and we'ld rather have them catching missiles than "high value targets".

Posted: 12/20/2006 10:33:29 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is a good thread. Thanks for your service fellas. Great stories and pics.

Midnight? In a thunderstorm? You Navy guys have some stones.

yeah, I know it sounds like BS. I'll try to dig up the LOC & scan it so you can read it.

No need to go through any trouble authenticating your story. I didn't mean it sounded like BS. It was a simple thanks and a "man that's hardcore" from a dude that ain't gonna jump in the ocean any time soon.

Posted: 12/20/2006 10:59:12 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn. I feel old again.

Let me help...I served on the Midway.

My barber served on the Midway too..... but I think it was during 'Nam......

Posted: 12/20/2006 11:14:02 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn. I feel old again.

Let me help...I served on the Midway.

The ship or the island?

The ship ya plebe.

I too remember when they were the "new" ships.

My experience with the Spruance class was doing overhauls out of the Charleston Naval Yard where I went after my hitch.

While I was there I did an antenna radiation pattern test on new super ship. For a radar/fire control tech it was a work of art, like Disneyland. It was called Ticonderoga and it was fresh from the builder and full of Plank Owners. She was deconned in '04 and is up for auction as a museum.

Posted: 12/20/2006 11:22:52 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
With steel prices at an all-time high, I don't understand why we don't cut-up old ships and recycle the steel...

Why the fuck do we drop thousands and thousands of tons of steel to the bottom of the ocean ???

Because the information leaned from sinking those ships is priceless to the Navy…

ANdy

Posted: 12/20/2006 11:36:15 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't they have ships mothballed that have been sitting around for decades? If so, why not shoot THOSE up before you sink something out of service for a year?

Because the same boxy aluminum superstructure that was a design plus in the 70s is now a huge deficit in the era of radar-guided anti-ship weapons and stealthy ship architecture.

That was a cost savings plus, not a design plus. It was a hell of a lot cheaper to build it square like a great big radar reflector (which they were) than to build it slightly stealthy with obtuse angles, etc. We had the technology but not the $$. The $$ problems in the Navy wre immense back then. In any case the thinking was that if anything got that close to them with radar seekers things were going to be in the shitter anyhow and we'ld rather have them catching missiles than "high value targets".

Remember when the theory was that the missles of the day would do less damage if they just went through the superstructure?

Posted: 12/20/2006 11:48:08 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I served aboard her right out of high-school, from 1985-1989. I was an M-60 gunner on the focsle in the Persian Gulf, on mine watch after the Iranians nearly blew the Robert's in half; ships diver when we ran aground in the Azores in the middle of the night in a storm; searched for LT Walker when our Seahawk went down - taking him to his grave in water over 2 miles deep; taking over the Vincennes patrol area after they shot down the Iranian Airbus, & our Battle Group almost starting an International incident in Naples, Italy when we finally got a port call after over 3 consecutive months at sea. 3 captains in 4 years, 290 days a year at sea 3 years in a row (which led to the highest suicide & divorce rate, and lowest retention rate in the Navy at the time - and I had the time of my life. My time & experiences onboard the USS Spruance helped me become the man I am now. I knew when I saw the Arleigh Burke & Bunker Hill roll out of Ingalls shipyard that the Spruance class was not much longer for the Navy. I wish they would have sunk her as an artificial reef, like the Oriskany, so I could dive her.

RIP DD 963

We tread some of the same waters. I was in the gulf on the Texas CGN-39 in '85. Sept./Oct if I recall. 45 days at wartime steam and 12 on/12off. Sucked ass except watching the Iraqi's and the Iranians battle it out in the air on radar.

Posted: 12/21/2006 4:30:21 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't they have ships mothballed that have been sitting around for decades? If so, why not shoot THOSE up before you sink something out of service for a year?

+1000 - she was far from outdated, with the Vertical Launch System (Tomahawks), Sea Sparrow missles, Mk486 (Fixed it for ya...!) Torpedos, 5 inch guns, Phalanx CIWS (20 mm gatling guns) SQQ-53, 89, & 28 Sonar systems, which I personally punished the most advanced Soviet submarines in the world with, and ironically Harpoon missles, which they used to sink her. The Anti-submarine platform is not as desirable as it was during the cold war. The Arleigh Burke class Aegis ships are the trend, as ASW is now tasked to attack subs.

Posted: 12/21/2006 4:57:58 AM EDT

[#9]

Here's a Spruance memory.

We were OPFOR for the JFK battle group. We were sent to get as close to the JFK as possible. Spruance's job was to keep us away.

We had manuevered to where the Spruance was off of our port quarter and the JFK was several miles beyond the Spru-can. Our plan was to slow a bit, causing the Spruance to come closer and then a hard 270 degree turn to starboard to get behind the Spruance and a straight shot to JFK. Well once we started to turn, the Spruance did so too. In fact, the turned inside out turning radius! I'll be damned if we weren't looking at her some 50 yards away in a tight starboard turn. That's when we called it off. I couldn't believe the could pull it off, but those hull forms were sweet when it came to speed and manuevering.

All thing being equal, I'd still rather go to war on my BURKE-class than a Spru-can, but they sure were some graceful greyhounds!

Posted: 12/21/2006 7:50:34 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
All thing being equal, I'd still rather go to war on my BURKE-class than a Spru-can, but they sure were some graceful greyhounds!

Can't blame you - in todays climate, the current threats can't touch your AEGIS platform. I was an STG3(SW) & we were the test platform for the SQQ-89(V1) TACTAS (Tactical Towed Array Sonar), & SQQ-28 LAMPS system, where the Seahawk was deployed on a contact bearing from passive sonar detection on the TACTAS. I would sit on my stack & comm directly with the AW in the back of the helo, directing them when to drop active pinging sonobuoys in triangular patterns to get an exact range & bearing. The Seahawk could then drop a "fish" (MK46 torpedo) virtually on top of the contact. We ran this scenario countless numbers of times (up to but not including the torpedo

). Soviet sub commanders would all but panic trying to evade us, and we would chase them all the way to the icecaps, then the US Nuke that was always stealthily lying in wait would take over. We compiled a massive data collection on tapes that were used to train the rest of the ASW community. Tom Clancy heard of our accomplishments and came abord for a week while preparing for a novel (Red storm rising, I believe) but I left several days before they got underway with him as it was time for my seperation. I must assume that Aegis platforms & carrier battlegroups are always deployed with an attack sub for ASW protection. North Korea, using Akula - class fast attack subs could be a serious threat.

Posted: 12/21/2006 8:32:32 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't they have ships mothballed that have been sitting around for decades? If so, why not shoot THOSE up before you sink something out of service for a year?

Because the same boxy aluminum superstructure that was a design plus in the 70s is now a huge deficit in the era of radar-guided anti-ship weapons and stealthy ship architecture.

That was a cost savings plus, not a design plus. It was a hell of a lot cheaper to build it square like a great big radar reflector (which they were) than to build it slightly stealthy with obtuse angles, etc. We had the technology but not the $$. The $$ problems in the Navy wre immense back then. In any case the thinking was that if anything got that close to them with radar seekers things were going to be in the shitter anyhow and we'ld rather have them catching missiles than "high value targets".

Saving money IS a design plus. :)
And as for taking incoming hits, that's what a Destroyer Screen is for.

Posted: 12/21/2006 12:33:14 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
While I was there I did an antenna radiation pattern test on new super ship. For a radar/fire control tech it was a work of art, like Disneyland. It was called Ticonderoga and it was fresh from the builder and full of Plank Owners. She was deconned in '04 and is up for auction as a museum.

I woke up many mornings to see the Ticonderoga on the Horizon, and it made me feel really good. She was IKE's (CVN-69) bodyguard for a while. Great looking ship.

Posted: 12/21/2006 12:39:29 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

...Called a "sinkex,"...

Brought to you by the people who created the term "vertrep" to describe replenishment of supplies by helicopter.

Man, I love that Navy talk!

Posted: 12/21/2006 2:01:51 PM EDT

[#14]

UNREP is when we did it sideways! (refueling underway).

Posted: 12/21/2006 2:20:56 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

UNREP is when we did it sideways! (refueling underway).

Actually, UNREP is a more generic term. It's UNderway REPlenishment and includes both STREAM (Standard tensioned replenishment alongside method), Astern refueling and CONREP (Connected replinishment).

Posted: 12/21/2006 2:22:00 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

www.charlestonnavalshipyard.com/files/P4064946.JPG

989 USS Deyo. My current CO was a former Deyo CO.

Posted: 12/21/2006 2:27:49 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

UNREP is when we did it sideways! (refueling underway).

Actually, UNREP is a more generic term. It's UNderway REPlenishment and includes both STREAM (Standard tensioned replenishment alongside method), Astern refueling and CONREP (Connected replinishment).

In 1990 I took a Tiger Cruise on the USS Fort Fisher (LSD-40, man), and had the pleasure of witnessing both VERTREP and UNREP in person. The most fun was shooting all of the Marines' weapons.

I think watching a SINKEX live would completely kick ass.

Posted: 12/21/2006 2:57:52 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't they have ships mothballed that have been sitting around for decades? If so, why not shoot THOSE up before you sink something out of service for a year?

Because the same boxy aluminum superstructure that was a design plus in the 70s is now a huge deficit in the era of radar-guided anti-ship weapons and stealthy ship architecture.

That was a cost savings plus, not a design plus. It was a hell of a lot cheaper to build it square like a great big radar reflector (which they were) than to build it slightly stealthy with obtuse angles, etc. We had the technology but not the $$. The $$ problems in the Navy wre immense back then. In any case the thinking was that if anything got that close to them with radar seekers things were going to be in the shitter anyhow and we'ld rather have them catching missiles than "high value targets".

Things are really tight now! Nowadays, they try implement designs, that have the lowest TOC and still meet all of the KPP.

The Platform and its systems would be designed in such a way to minimize Down Times during Tech Refreshes.

Ideally if the PM follows what is stipulated in the DAG, then the Logistics Footprint for the platform's systems will be as small as possible, and a strategy will be implemented to handle DMSMS issues.

Posted: 12/21/2006 4:22:27 PM EDT

[#19]

BT97 - thanks for this thread. Sorry if I kinda hijacked it at points. I e-mailed my old Sonar Chief & a couple other old shipmates about it last night, & they didn't know about it either. Invited Chief to Arfcom - said he's coming

-Shark

Posted: 12/21/2006 5:41:15 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
BT97 - thanks for this thread. Sorry if I kinda hijacked it at points. I e-mailed my old Sonar Chief & a couple other old shipmates about it last night, & they didn't know about it either. Invited Chief to Arfcom - said he's coming

-Shark

Well as long as they don't start every post with "This ain't no shit...".

Posted: 12/21/2006 8:09:46 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn. I feel old again.

Let me help...I served on the Midway.

The ship or the island?

The ship ya plebe.

trimmed][/quote]

Plebe!!! Plebe!! I'll have you know I had a University education![;)

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

Posted: 12/21/2006 8:42:23 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

Posted: 12/21/2006 11:46:17 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
All thing being equal, I'd still rather go to war on my BURKE-class than a Spru-can, but they sure were some graceful greyhounds!

Can't blame you - in todays climate, the current threats can't touch your AEGIS platform. I was an STG3(SW) & we were the test platform for the SQQ-89(V1) TACTAS (Tactical Towed Array Sonar), & SQQ-28 LAMPS system, where the Seahawk was deployed on a contact bearing from passive sonar detection on the TACTAS. I would sit on my stack & comm directly with the AW in the back of the helo, directing them when to drop active pinging sonobuoys in triangular patterns to get an exact range & bearing. The Seahawk could then drop a "fish" (MK46 torpedo) virtually on top of the contact. We ran this scenario countless numbers of times (up to but not including the torpedo

). Soviet sub commanders would all but panic trying to evade us, and we would chase them all the way to the icecaps, then the US Nuke that was always stealthily lying in wait would take over. We compiled a massive data collection on tapes that were used to train the rest of the ASW community. Tom Clancy heard of our accomplishments and came abord for a week while preparing for a novel (Red storm rising, I believe) but I left several days before they got underway with him as it was time for my seperation. I must assume that Aegis platforms & carrier battlegroups are always deployed with an attack sub for ASW protection. North Korea, using Akula - class fast attack subs could be a serious threat.

Do the NorKs have Akulas now?

And Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite books of all time!

-K

Posted: 12/22/2006 11:13:06 AM EDT

[#24]

I'm out of the ASW loop now, but the fall of the USSR led to a virtual garage sale of one of the largest submarine forces in the world (among many other weps/platforms). Some strategists theorize that the Akula would be a lucrative boat for NK, as it is/was the fastest submarine ever built, and the speed advantage would help to overcome the technical advantage we have with our boats, at a discount price. Also it would be ideal for coastal protection, especially in shallow waters, should any "Invaders" show up with a battle group. I have no evidence that NK has the Akula class, but wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Posted: 12/22/2006 11:26:03 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

Give us a shout and we'll lend a hand with our new VDS…

Link

ANdy

Posted: 12/22/2006 12:41:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I'm out of the ASW loop now, but the fall of the USSR led to a virtual garage sale of one of the largest submarine forces in the world (among many other weps/platforms). Some strategists theorize that the Akula would be a lucrative boat for NK, as it is/was the fastest submarine ever built, and the speed advantage would help to overcome the technical advantage we have with our boats, at a discount price. Also it would be ideal for coastal protection, especially in shallow waters, should any "Invaders" show up with a battle group. I have no evidence that NK has the Akula class, but wouldn't be surprised if they did.

I don't believe the Russians are giving away their nuke boats.

The Iranians do have some Kilos though.

Posted: 12/22/2006 2:50:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm out of the ASW loop now, but the fall of the USSR led to a virtual garage sale of one of the largest submarine forces in the world (among many other weps/platforms). Some strategists theorize that the ~~Akula~~ Alfa would be a lucrative boat for NK, as it is/was the fastest submarine ever built, and the speed advantage would help to overcome the technical advantage we have with our boats, at a discount price. Also it would be ideal for coastal protection, especially in shallow waters, should any "Invaders" show up with a battle group. I have no evidence that NK has the Akula class, but wouldn't be surprised if they did.

I don't believe the Russians are giving away their nuke boats.

The Iranians do have some Kilos though.

Russia reportedly sold or leased a Type 971 Akula to India.

Posted: 12/22/2006 6:32:27 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

There's a difference between a tail and a VDS. Tails are basically a long towed array of hydrophones (a very smplified description) that use complex signal processing techniques to detect and track objects, and a VDS is a Variable Depth Sonar that is lowered on a tether from a platform to a depth near or below the layer depth to take away a hiding place from subs. (Layer depth (simply) is a sound propagation phenomona, due to a temperature, presure or salinity gradient, where the sound waves from an active sonar aimed at shallow angles tend to follow out straight from the ship and stay above a certain depth. Sound "beams" aimed at steeper angles curve deeper. This leaves a nice wedge of ocean that a submarine can hide in. You drop a sonar below that gradient and you can eliminate that wedge or make it much smaller. That's how we called them back in my day.

The LAMPS birds (and other helos) have/had a dipping sonar, which is similar but IIRC they can't dip them all that deep. But they can also be effective in getting around layer depth issues because with moving around they can move their wedge or available search pattern to cover the wedges of other units.

Posted: 12/22/2006 6:51:23 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

There's a difference between a tail and a VDS. Tails are basically a long towed array of hydrophones (a very smplified description) that use complex signal processing techniques to detect and track objects, and a VDS is a Variable Depth Sonar that is lowered on a tether from a platform to a depth near or below the layer depth to take away a hiding place from subs. (Layer depth (simply) is a sound propagation phenomona, due to a temperature, presure or salinity gradient, where the sound waves from an active sonar aimed at shallow angles tend to follow out straight from the ship and stay above a certain depth. Sound "beams" aimed at steeper angles curve deeper. This leaves a nice wedge of ocean that a submarine can hide in. You drop a sonar below that gradient and you can eliminate that wedge or make it much smaller. That's how we called them back in my day.

The LAMPS birds (and other helos) have/had a dipping sonar, which is similar but IIRC they can't dip them all that deep. But they can also be effective in getting around layer depth issues because with moving around they can move their wedge or available search pattern to cover the wedges of other units.

We relied heavily (hourly) on XBT drops for layer/CZ info, and periodically changed ship speed to vary TACTAS depth with great success. LAMPS was only deployed based on TACTAS contacts. Again, I can only assume that fast attack boats have taken over the ASW arena, and must be deployed with any battle group or high value target. Does anyone know with any certainty if this is the case, and if not which platform is shouldering the ASW load? - Shark

Posted: 12/22/2006 7:20:51 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

There's a difference between a tail and a VDS. Tails are basically a long towed array of hydrophones (a very smplified description) that use complex signal processing techniques to detect and track objects, and a VDS is a Variable Depth Sonar that is lowered on a tether from a platform to a depth near or below the layer depth to take away a hiding place from subs. (Layer depth (simply) is a sound propagation phenomona, due to a temperature, presure or salinity gradient, where the sound waves from an active sonar aimed at shallow angles tend to follow out straight from the ship and stay above a certain depth. Sound "beams" aimed at steeper angles curve deeper. This leaves a nice wedge of ocean that a submarine can hide in. You drop a sonar below that gradient and you can eliminate that wedge or make it much smaller. That's how we called them back in my day.

The LAMPS birds (and other helos) have/had a dipping sonar, which is similar but IIRC they can't dip them all that deep. But they can also be effective in getting around layer depth issues because with moving around they can move their wedge or available search pattern to cover the wedges of other units.

Duoh! I stand corrected. For some reason I read your post and thought "towed array" instead.

I had been doing some reading on them (and the newer Burkes lack thereof) a few minutes before I read your post and that must of been stuck in my head.

I suppose for littoral operations the towed array might be a hindrance, with the chance of becoming an expensive dredge.

On a somewhat related note, I once did a sidescan survey of the wreck of a jackup drilling rig lost during a hurricane, and was amazed at the detail. It was almost like looking at a picture, we could pick out railings, pipes, the dredge marks on the seabed from where the cans were pushed 40 feet sideways by the storm's force, and even the gear teeth on the legs.

Posted: 12/22/2006 10:15:08 PM EDT

[#31]

here's something I found after a little googling:

"The suite is being upgraded to SQQ-89(V)15 to allow deployment of the Lockheed Martin AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System.

USS Momsen (DDG 92) was the first vessel to be fitted with the AN/WLD-1 RMS which will feature on all subsequent vessels. AN/WLD-1 includes a Remote Minehunting Vehicle (RMV) that tows the AN/AQS-20A variable depth sonar (VDS)."

I'm assuming by the context that the VDS in this case is more for minehunting, but who knows? (I sure don't)

ETA: [thinking out loud] Now, I believe that mine hunting sonar is higher frequency (and thus shorter range) than ASW dedicated gear, but it sure would be an interesting capability if the VDS had a setting to allow it to effectively hunt for subs also, you might could use it to "flush the quarry to the hunter", so to speak. Would probably be a pretty good force multiplier, a Burke, a LAMPS, and the RMV all on the hunt. [/thinking out loud]

Posted: 12/22/2006 11:06:25 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really drifting off course now, but do any of the current cans have a VDS? Taking away the layer depth hiding capability can really cramp a sub's style.

From what i understand the flight IIa Burkes don't have a tail, but I suppose the embarked LAMPS make up for that.

There's a difference between a tail and a VDS. Tails are basically a long towed array of hydrophones (a very smplified description) that use complex signal processing techniques to detect and track objects, and a VDS is a Variable Depth Sonar that is lowered on a tether from a platform to a depth near or below the layer depth to take away a hiding place from subs. (Layer depth (simply) is a sound propagation phenomona, due to a temperature, presure or salinity gradient, where the sound waves from an active sonar aimed at shallow angles tend to follow out straight from the ship and stay above a certain depth. Sound "beams" aimed at steeper angles curve deeper. This leaves a nice wedge of ocean that a submarine can hide in. You drop a sonar below that gradient and you can eliminate that wedge or make it much smaller. That's how we called them back in my day.

The LAMPS birds (and other helos) have/had a dipping sonar, which is similar but IIRC they can't dip them all that deep. But they can also be effective in getting around layer depth issues because with moving around they can move their wedge or available search pattern to cover the wedges of other units.

We relied heavily (hourly) on XBT drops for layer/CZ info, and periodically changed ship speed to vary TACTAS depth with great success. LAMPS was only deployed based on TACTAS contacts. Again, I can only assume that fast attack boats have taken over the ASW arena, and must be deployed with any battle group or high value target. Does anyone know with any certainty if this is the case, and if not which platform is shouldering the ASW load? - Shark

We did a lot of ASW when I was on the Monterey CG-61, we had a SQS-53D and deployed our tail often. When I colocated to the Obannon ( 53C) we did even more ASW. On there previous deployment they had snagged there tail on a TYPE 209 twice with bad results. MY wife was a plankowner on DDG-80, the second FLTII Burke ( 53C no tail). They did alot of cooperative ASW with the HELO det. Without the FFG and DD's the CG"s and DDG's as well as the fast attacks are going to have take over ASW.

Posted: 12/22/2006 11:42:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
With steel prices at an all-time high, I don't understand why we don't cut-up old ships and recycle the steel...

Why the fuck do we drop thousands and thousands of tons of steel to the bottom of the ocean ???

So we can then buy Chinese steel.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Navy sinks destroyer Spruance in training exercise (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us