Money, time, and compromise. Nothing new about that - but there is nothing new about LCS either; just an under-armed, overpriced, low-endurance, sub-optimal corvette; but we knew that from the start. Looks like a half-decade later when it can't hide behind the PPT anymore, Big Navy is coming around.
One way or another, we will have LCS in the Fleet as for the myriad of reasons we have discussed here - Big Navy is committed. The big question is how we will mitigate the design flaws many identified years ago.
Unlike larger ships though, there simply is not enough performance "white space" to fix problems in such a tightly engineered and arrogantly designed ship. Performance and stability will suffer first as everything they do will impact one of three things; center of gravity, weight, reserve buoyancy - none of which LCS has much wiggle room in.
How long were we told range wasn't an issue?
Another change incorporated into LCS 3 will be the addition of 43 metric tons of fuel to expand the ship's range.Comments about "exquisite vs. robustness"?
After the original handling system contractor filed for bankruptcy, a new vendor, Oldenburg, was contracted earlier this year to build the overhead cranes, launching systems, elevators and hatches.Weight and stability --- did someone mention that?
"We overcomplicated" the original system, North admitted. "We probably got a little too complicated in how we thought we needed to do it, with special servo unloaders and stuff like that."
Another change that could be made to the ships is the removal of the fin stabilization system, which could eliminate as much as 28 tons of equipment. Sea tests will determine whether the fins stay or go, North and Reidel said.... and shut up Front Porch .... the windows are fine.
One of the more visible changes beginning with LCS 3 is the use of a smaller centerline post in the bridge windows. The wide, triangular metal in the middle of the Freedom's bridge was found to be a distraction.Basic seamanship isn't Transformational. You "Gen X type" people don't get modern warfare and systems.
At least for now, one change requested by the crew of the Independence will not be made - the installation of bridge wings to make it easier to navigate the ship in tight spaces.... and so on.
Shouldn't we at least get a consultancy contract retroactively?
Like everything, if you throw enough money at a problem you can make it functional at the lower end of the acceptability spectrum. Even then - she still does not have enough personnel to keep her in proper condition or at sea for long enough. You can fix that too ... as long as you give up speed, range and survivability; but we knew that from the start.
At least the Navy will have fat budgets over the next decade or so to make it work. Ahem.
What a horrible program. A money sponge, huge opportunity cost, and if ever challenged at sea will needlessly kill our Sailors by the score. No accountability.
120 comments:
I'm dying to know...where the hell are they going to put 43 tons of fuel? That's a good size tank. Wonder if they put it in a ballast tank?.
Bridge wings: it ain't the money; it's all that weight at the ends points of the CoG. I hear this boat rolls like a drunken sailor already which brings us to the point of, no fin stabilizers...YGTBSM!
But at least none of the designers, advocates, and program managers made a ghey joke. Which is what is REALLY important to a Global Force for Good.
The Day is coming when due to overall austerity the bright light of shame will destroy any possibility that more than 10 such ships will ever float on the briney. Such a waste, Abe !
Those who will be around in those times will have to look for mention of this vast hidden cave of good intentions.
Byron, its the Austal LCS guys who are looking for bridge wings.
Any more weight, and you kill off the speed...
Kill off the speed, and you kill off the fundamental basis of the ships' Survivability...
Kill off your Survivability...In a battle the enemy kill you quicker.
Hey!
What a Workhorse!!!
Lets trot out 50 of these turkeys!!!!!!!
Giving credit to Comrade Misfit
at http://babesinopen.blogspot.com/2011/08/uss-monitor.html
This is what I found fascinating: The War Department in 1861 opened a public competition to design a new class of warships. The designs had to be submitted in a month. They built the ship in four months. From one end to the other, it was a ship with new technologies and it was in combat a month after that.
A commenter there (jeg430) had this to say:
(The detail that caught my attention was that the designer thought to line the inside of the turret with iron - to prevent shrapnel from the fasteners . . . smart feller!
Now that ship was a real LCS.
While the following applies to aircraft...the principle is the same.
After all...The LCS's aren't hulls...They are "Seaframes" right?
So this should in fact be applicable...According to LCS Logic.
Misconception No. 5: We won't get hit. This is not borne out by
history and current defense trends worldwide do not point to history
reversing itself. Both sides are working very hard on countermeasures,
reduction of radar cross section and additional stealthy components
and tactics. However, as we have seen in every major conflict, we will
get hit and will be damaged. Statistics from the Vietnam war alone
show that even in the midst of a conflict in which we enjoy air
superiority, the U.S. lost more than 5,500 fixed and rotary-wing
aircraft.
Anybody got any inclining experiment data?
Someone needs to remember Phib's words here:
"<span>
What a horrible program. A money sponge, huge opportunity cost, and if ever challenged at sea will needlessly kill our Sailors by the score. No accountability.</span>"
They would be a great epitaph on the artificial reefs the LCS can provide.
Or, summation for the prosecution for charges of derilection of duty or incompetence for those in charge.
Or, for a much deserved FITREP addendum or communication to the selection boards of those who foisted this POS upon the fleet.
If we have to take $400B+ in dod cuts, just kill the whole damn program right now, We would not be much worse off without it than with it. And, if it is not there, it cannot be used as an excuse to avoid going with cheaper, more capable frigates, if indeed we get any new ships in the future.
Per sid's assertion below, today is a particularly appropriate date to reflect that several US destroyers that came close to or exceeded 40 knots on trials litter the ocean floor in the Solomons. Seems they couldn't outrun either the Japanese cannon shells nor the Type 93. And they were built a hell of a lot more robustly than these alunimum tubs.
The existing fin stabilizer equipment on LCS-1 is ineffective at low speeds and must be retracted beofre the vessel makes high speeds...so having that go away makes sense. It will be interesting to see if the existing is replaced by equipment that would get the job done...systems like those being procurred by USCG, for example...
As two planes land at Dover with the bodies of too many of our sailors we have people demanding to know why so many were on one chopper at one time.
How much more will the fury be if one of these bathtub toys tips over or sinks or gets blown up and it becomes known serious questions about this ship had been floating around for years.
Hey Byron, remember the space reserved for those mission modules...?
Yeah, Grandpa, I'd love to see that data...but I bet its buried deep, deep, deep.
Mike, why do ships have bridge wings? Why were they left off LCS?
Here's a silly question: can you have space for mission modules and 43 tons of additional fuel?
Here's another silly question: why design a ship whose primary weapons are speed and the ability to call for help, especially given that you can't outrun the Chinese (for long) and the network will collapse in about five seconds in a real shooting war? I can just head Admiral Adama's raspy voice growling at us: "THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A WARSHIP, RIGHT?"
Or gets intentionally disabled instead of sunk close off a hostile Littoral lee shore...With the foe knowing damned good and well that the one thing a US commander will do is stop whatever else (like offensive operations) to effect a rescue...
And we get caught in a deliberate trap.
LCS won't ever have the numbers to make that CONOPS work...
And nor will the current state of "Battlemindedness" in the USN.
Take some of the mothballed fleet and strip it down to the hull and then install state of the art C4I and weapons systems on it. Is there something wrong with these older hulls? I don't think so.
Maybe throw on some commercial fishing boat stabilizers - ya know, add camoflage too looking like a fishing vessel from afar.
"Stream the tail and put out the birds"...
KILL this program. Do something cheap & smart.
Byron:
On Bridge Wings:
Originally the "bridge" was a catwalk between the paddle "boxes" (covers). The "wheel" (helm) was moved from the quarterdeck (the best place to see the sails and rigging) so the officer with the conn could communicate (shout and be heard by the man at the wheel) which was midships on the bridge. The advantages of an enclosed wheelhouse are evident; voice tubes between the port and starboard ends of the bridge and the helmsman then followed.
What the bridge did was allow the conning officer to see the side of the ship, important in confined waters to accurately estimate the distance to the side of the lock, nearest bouy, bridge abutment, or ship in the same channel, pier, quay (key) or camel.
The advantage to cantilevering the bridge beyond the edge of the hull is that the conning officer can see, at a glance, the entire side of own ship, as well as line handlers on the pier, fuel barge, water barge, tugs and what have you.
Add a pelorus and rudder angle indicator, speaker and microphone jack, and a sound powered phone jack box and shiphandling in confined water is simplified and safety increased. Add a life ring and float light with quick release mechanism for man overboard purposes and one is equipped.
Properly. State of the art....in 1885.
We knew there was a problem when the term "seaframe" was heard instead of "hull".
Wing, of course, just means "the part sticking out past the hull edge".
The ship has increased inherent stability at higher speeds. The fins were designed to increase stability in rough seas at lower speed. The effectiveness of the fins has never been adequately investigated - the ship underwent trials in a mostly calm freshwater lake, and shortly after transiting to the Atlantic, a seawater leak contaminated the entire system, leaving it inoperable. The system is being overhauled and then evaluated. It's probably somewhat effective, but not worth the weight....
Meanwhile the Chinese have already over 80 real LCS (8 ASCMs onboard each)...
they are small and cheap enough to be really expendable, and the command is not hesitating to sacrifice them - plus a few of them can lurk in a radar shade of a big commercial freighter...
and if all of them fire at once even Aegis wont save your bacon, sorry guys, 320 ASCMs even with 90% defence accuracy is going to make a mess of any CVBG!
And this is only one of multipronged ways to kill US CVNs, with subs, TACAIR, long range bombers, ASBMs, and god knows what else we dont know about (as we didnt know about Long Lances until Guadalcanal). Talk about unknown unknowns...
So...
***WHEN*** these ships ***WILL*** be tasked with a mission to escort amphibs, and they find themselves in...oh...seastate 6 or so, then they will be obligated to make speed to maintain thier seaworthiness?
Sure hope their fuel state is up before the weather gets bad...
Been through something similar north of Crete during a Meltemi. The CV only had to make 3 knots to get the wind over the deck. As a matter of fact, they really didn't want to make much more than that because it was too much wind. So, us escorts were obligated to steam the best we could, running in and out of our sectors trying to maintain adeuqate steerageway in those seas.
I'm sure the duty Tango was amused, because, as we manuevered we left "mother" wide open for good chunks of time.
LCS Logic....
better do it quickly, the're (probably at the behest of the builders lobbiests) getting rid of them pretty fast.
C
Stop the build at 24 and then build a nice 6000t frigate like everyone else is. Time to stop trying to make sports cars when we need a nice pickup.
unfair, even cruisers were lost to Long Lances easily... :P
not that eg 650mm wake homer would have different effect today
(did PLAN manage to acquire some from Russia? another unknown...)
Stop the build...NOW
Speed....a characteristic in that generation cruisers so they could stay with the carriers...DID NOT SAVE THEM.
Why?
Because they were the only option when it came time to form a "battle line".
Build even 24 LCS's...And they will be similarly miscast into roles for which they were never designed.
With similar results.
i find it vastly interesting that the coments (short as they were) about the missing center window in the pilot house drew as much blood as they did.
they must be really locked into that with a major structural member to brush it off as they did, otherwise it would have been attended to one after noon with several fitters. and nothing said.
C
look for the Ships Information Book which normally lives in the chengs safe under lock and key.
C
"Probably somewhwat effective and not worth the added weight" <---that is pretty much what I said..and what 'we' said when reviewing that system against other beter options back in the design phase. That said, however, to be perfectly honest, none of the stabilizer solutions would have turned out to be the 'right' choice, because the ship that is sitting in the water bears little resemblance to the one upon which the stabilizer recommendations were being made back then.
<span>Sid,
Your LCS Logic link was something that has scarred me for life. That was really uncalled for; what did anybody on this blog ever do to you?????? </span>
<span><span></span></span><span></span>
So what does Adm. Greenert consider an unsuccessful program? I think the bar has been set pretty low. Cancel the program now. This ship class gives a whole new meaning to "sunken costs". Where is McCain when you need him?
Yah gotta be tough Usual.... 8-)
<span>I should clarify. I should have stated: "That said, however, to be perfectly honest, none of the stabilizer solutions that we included in the mix of possible solutiond for LCS-1 turned out to the 'right' choice for the vessel as it is now. An effective suite of stabilizer equipment can certainly be installed; if it were selected and sized based on the knowledge of the existing ship's parameters....
</span>
That was actually a question asked when developing the inclining package. How does one sally ship a trimaran?
(reaching for eye bleach.) Thanks a whole lot, Sid...
Truncate the program at 24, build at least two new classes one a real 3000 ton frigate, and another a real 1000 ton coastal warship more than a PC Cyclone. See also WW2 PGM or PCE or even PFs
6000 ton surface combatatnts the Navy does not need IMHO
Type 022 are really small FACs (heavy weaps, limited range, lightly built HSVs) and the PLAN sees them as expendable
While I would question about LCS-1 orginal design on both space (i.e. volume and deck area) and weight terms. The real killer is weight, because the original design was already 10% overweight. So I once again wonder WHAT changes have been made to LCS-3/5 et al??? Anybody seen anything specific to hullform changes? Until we see that, can not realy determine if 43 tons of fuel and extra bustles are pluses or more minuses?
Bill?
Inclining rack aboard the old Ok' City....
(non eye scarring link...i promise)
And
An "inclined" trimaran....
Once ...while in company with the Ardent and the Antelope...we came across an overturned catamaran off Monte Cristo. The Brits had divers who went aboard, but no souls found. We then conducted expanding square searches, but that was no joy, and we were eventually relieved of SAR efforts by the Italians.
Never was able to find out the rest of that story...
So happens that I had already learned a valuable Life's Lesson about multihull stability and loading when I once had the better part of the JV cheerleading team invite themselves out for a jaunt on my Hobie 14...
Geek that I was, it was a totally undreamed of circumstance...I thought I had died and gone to Heaven.
Of course, we pitchpoled out on Pensacola Bay....
But I digress.
Just another couple of vignettes about how unpredictable the Littorals can be, and about the inherent slim margins multihulls posess.
Oh....and its was sobering to learn about what happened to the Ardent and Antelope a few years later....
LIttorals...Are the really the "least severe environment anticipated"?
what I saw on both was this:
LCS-1 had a tiny w/t door leading to a removable platform that was only big enough for one person (pilot??). It was a POS design and needed complete revision but it did get one's eyeballs out over the ship's side fore and aft.
on the otherhand, the LCS-2 bridge was much bigger, better laid out, BUT NO wing, instead they had a huge "window" ( 3 ft on a side?) that could be swung in by about two big seamen~ And of course NO view over the side at all.
IF the bridge wings are somehow wrapped up in RCS issues, then the designers need to get their heads examinded and put (stealthy?~~) wings on both classes.
Actually, I was kind of thinking of those "butt cheeks" they welded on here... :)
Inclining reqd before acceptance, so they were done but maybe classified?
technically a monohull supported by amas not a trimaran
Oh come now. There is precedent for this kind of thing. After all, think of all the great things the Jeffersonian gunboats did during the War of 1812.....
.....Yeah.
Still has realtively tight loading margins and declining stability issues inherent to all multihulls....
Currently reading "Neptune's Inferno: The US Navy at Guadalcanal" by James Hornfischer, who also wrote "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors". The Japanese did quite a number on us there in a night time battle using tried and true gunnery methods while we struggled to master the latest technology (radar) and suffered from horrible communications.
WHO's! ready for 40 ship navy!!!!
All of our adversaries....
I PITY THE FOOL WHO THINKS I AM HIS HAIRCUT!
Polish a turd... still a turd.
An aluminum turd. With corrosion.
Oh.... sid. Does diversity include those WITH poo-poo undies (on right) and those without?
Actually the comparison of the LCS to the Chinese type 022 FAC is inaccurate one. A more apples to apples comparison would comparing the LCS to the 054A class frigates which is fast becoming the present and future workhorse of the PLAN
The 054A at full displacement is only 4000 tons, much closer to the LCS to the type 022 which is only a few hundred tons. The frigate itself is nothing revolutionary and a little light compared to equivalent Euro-frigates but it is a major step up compared to the PLAN's older vessels. The PLAN also seems to be very well satisfied with the performance of this frigate as build rates are steady and even increasing. I'm not sure when production will end (the PLAN has a lot of older ships to replace), but the two shipyards producing them are already now launching 4 frigates per year.
Despite the "transformative" capabilities of the LCS, the rather conservative 054A stacks up remarkably well. 76mm dual purpose gun, 32 cell VLS, two 30mm CIWS, 8 anti ship missiles, bow and towed sonar, but only one embarked helicopter. The propulsion is even using similar Pielstick diesels though 4 of them instad of the 2 + 2 monstrous rolls royce gas turbines. Overmanned at 180 crew members compared to the LCS's 40.
The biggest advantage is apparently the cost of the 054A frigate. The ship reportedly costs the PLAN around 250 million USD each which is less than half the unit price of an LCS.
What we need is a ship that has room to grow for 30 years. A ship that has well proven tech so that the cost are not to high. Something that can at the very least DEFEND ITSELF let alone anything else.
LCS delende est. Yesterday would be long overdue.
Basicly the ship we should be building....................
but, but,but it is classic frigate design, not transformational, not networked, not optimally manned...
it is not a LCS!
what Chinese and the PLAN know anyway... they are not a maritime nation... and they are cross-eyed and cant shoot straight... Right?
/sarcasm off/
That's gotta be a pretty big ass, then ... 43 tons of diesel is about 1500 cubic feet ...
Let's be blunt - without a VADM Connolly moment before the SASC, LCS is here to stay. In the meantime, why don't we just buy the damn things from the Russians - and while we're at it, let's buy the BrahMOS and SS-N-27 along with the latter - because we sure as hell don't seem to be making much headway in any aspect of surface warfare, littoral or open ocean.
w/r, SJS
Total displacement of a Project 22350 ship is 4,500 tons; length is 130 meters; beam is 16 meters; draft is 4.5 meters; speed is 29 knots; crew is 210. Armament: 130-mm gun mount A-192; 8 antiship missiles 3M55 Onyx; 8 Medvedka-2 ASW missiles; 24 missiles of Uragan SAM system; Ka-32 helicopter.
good grief 130mm gun, and 8 ASCMs...
it could kill a squadron of LCS without breaking sweat...
Lt Rusty- I passed along your question to several of my old (still working) compatriots and here's two replies so far:
(1)- COMM-LCS (aka LM) is kinda of telling a fib in that they really did not ADD any more fuel tanks to LCS-3 at all. The numerous fuel tanks designed into drawings for LCS-1 by Gibbs and Cox were not all utilized by Marinette Marine and Lockheed onboard USS Freedom since both the prime contractor and their co-horts in crime at Navsea HQ both worshipped the "god" of max speed. So, LCS-1 was built for max impression= full bore wide throttle speed. Since LCS-1 was known to be overweight, and not just from ridiculous fin stabilizers, some of the built-in as designed fuel tanks were not ever completed and used to carry any of that awful stuff that weighs so much: fuel. So, onboard USS Freedom, she has yet to ever be completely fuelled up to 100 percent of designed fuel capacity. LCS-3 can advertize "added" fuel by finishing off and using some of the Gibbs and Cox planned fuel tanks.
another reply suggested (2)- LCS-3 is really going to be capable of carrying (adding if you will) a LOT more than just 43 tons of fuel in the future if they actually built the entire designed fuel tanks.
Either way, Navsea HQ and Lockheed Martin have never been truthful about LCS-1: The spec that says endurance shall be 3,500 nm was NEVER obtainable, no matter what "economical" speed you ran Uss Freedom without those turbines because LCS-1 could not carry (even right now) sufficient fuel to ever achieve the spec of 3,500 nm range. But did INSURV point out this in their report ? Who knows ?
Still today, even with LCS-3: She cannot meet MAX SPEED spec while carrying enough fuel to meet ENDURANCE spec. It's either / or. Is that OK with Navsea ? My old yard friends say that at full speed, Lcs-1 cannot even meet 700 nm endurance range and one old friend relays that max range is less than 500 nm at full bore wide throttles. Perhaps Navsea will log into this blog and give us Americans the Truth, because we can handle the Truth better before 55 of these are deployed all over the World some day. Expecting some more email replies and will pass along the latest info as received.
AAAAARGH! Russians can do it... Chinese can do it... Ask Germans and they will create tailor-made MEKO design for you... Why the US can't make a decent frigate instead of LCS???
NIH reigns supreme!
correction I re-looked at LCS-2 photo, the "window" cranks up and down yes with a big handle just like on some old ships~
as we have noted elsewhere NAVSEA is notoriously "selective" in what information it provides ("pronounces") about LCS. Goto PEO Ships website and you will be underwhelmed. Goto builders individual websites for a little more in prerels and photos.
BUT remember the USN controls public information dissemination on ships acquistions by contract rqmt.
Original design had the larger windows and afforded a full view. NAVSEA insisted on a beefed up structure because they wanted it to withstand impact loads of green water at the top of the bridge.
xanax online xanax withdrawal jail - xanax pills color
buy xanax online cheap xanax 1 mg street value - order cheap xanax no prescription
diazepam online buy diazepam 10mg bulk - diazepam online no prescription
alprazolam mg xanax overdose amount - xanax withdrawal tremors
ambien zolpidem zolpidem tartrate side effects blood pressure - buy zolpidem no prescription overnight
buy ativan ativan overdose prognosis - what are ativan withdrawal symptoms
buy xanax online generic xanax .25 - xanax order online no prescription
diazepam for dogs diazepam xanax stronger - diazepam 10 mg fass
cheap lorazepam ativan dosage dogs - ativan hospice
diazepam online que es mejor myolastan o diazepam - buy valium online europe
diazepam 10 mg diazepam trade name - diazepam 5mg buy line
buy ativan online ativan sublingual 1mg dosage - ativan overdose seizures
cheap ativan ativan no prescription online pharmacy - ativan dosage chart
ativan medication ativan uses dosage - cheap ativan online
buy soma online coupons for soma - buy soma fedex
buy ambien online ambien generic 10mg - side effects to ambien cr
soma online pharmacy kind drug soma - buy somatropin injection
valium no prescription overnight cheapest valium online buy - buy viagra valium
buy soma side effects to carisoprodol - soma type of drug
buy generic valium online what do generic valium pills look like - dosage of valium by weight
viagra online without prescription purchase female viagra - easy buy viagra online
buy soma soma for sale cheap - soma online discount code
buy soma soma san diego all ages - soma 11211
buy soma smoking soma pills - soma tab
discount soma soma for muscle spasms - buy soma online overnight delivery
buy soma buy soma seeds - soma 250 pill
soma buy soma muscle relaxer while pregnant - soma compound 350 mg
soma pills soma 150 pills - buy soma usa
cheap tramadol online tramadol 50 mg bivirkninger - tramadol hcl 50 mg recreational use
buy tramadol tramadol 50 mg prospect - tramadol 50 mg 377
generic xanax buy xanax online consultation - buy xanax bars 2mg
xanax online xanax dosage for high - xanax overdose prognosis
generic xanax buy xanax in uk - low dose xanax for anxiety
purchase xanax xanax show up on drug test - xanax and alcohol mixed effects
tramadol 100 tramadol 717 - tramadol 325 dosage
xanax online buy xanax online no prescription with mastercard - xanax withdrawal after 3 weeks
xanax online what does generic xanax look like - 2mg of xanax first time
xanax 1mg xanax side effects if you stop taking - xanax recreational use side effects
discount cialis cialis everyday price - buying cialis online legal
tadalafil 20mg typical price cialis - generic cialis discount
cialis online buy cialis online cheap - viagra or cialis reviews
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#96430 tramadol for dogs seizures - tramadol hcl 50 mg street value
order tramadol online mastercard tramadol 50mg tablets uses - can i order tramadol online legally
klonopin online no prescription overnight klonopin withdrawal after 3 weeks - better high klonopin xanax
buy tramadol 180 need to purchase tramadol - buy tramadol online overnight
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#96430 tramadol addiction 2012 - tramadol withdrawal migraine
carisoprodol 350 mg carisoprodol 350 mg ndc - soma carisoprodol tablets dosage
carisoprodol 350 mg carisoprodol soma high - drug classification for carisoprodol
more than frequently than not, wе incline the best Bеsеt
Potteг games to buy? How dо I fix entire coѵeгt compelling strategy/RPG cuгio and odyѕѕey that dеfіes
easy verbal dеѕcription. both sides of the engаgement
is to Receіve Tiggеr jump on them.
my webpаge ... game
Thank yоu for the auspicious writeuρ.
It in fact was a amusement account it. Looκ advаnced to more aԁdеԁ agгeeable
from yοu! By thе way, how сan we cοmmunіcate?
My wеb рage - shophanghieu123.com
One such matter other o'er the Online. Various persona-playing games RPG are the Best way to and that is catered to different age groups. deliverance the immense, huge, huge distances, I baseball glove has calamitous dots under it. squid: The squid on the ice Snowman greeting and Love an interactional See with some of their favorite Disney characters. privileged this example is a customs trophy way that is this game you motivation to Avail the Whos check the Grinch from stealth their presents. Be forewarned though, if commencement such game was called DUNGEN.
Also visit my blog post http://3d.sociallife.org/
Post a Comment