Author Topic: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations  (Read 15399 times)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2016, 12:36:28 AM »
Funny you should post that: I've been contemplating ways of keeping more 9 x 6" cruisers in the RN post-war and one idea I had was for the Canadians to take a pair of Improved Didos in place of the Uganda/Quebec and Minotaur/Ontario, which they struggled to man and didn't keep in service for very long. The Imp.Didos had 200-300 fewer crew each, 900 miles MORE cruising range, and flag facilities: perfect for an ASW fleet flagship on each coast.

In real life two of the four surviving Imp. Didos (Black Prince and Bellona) went to NZ in 1946 and two went into reserve (Royalist and Diadem). Then in 1956 Bellona was replaced in RNZN service by the refitted Royalist and then scrapped, while Diadem was sold to Pakistan. Had the reserve ships gone to Canada instead, the consequences would have been easy to resolve: Bellona could have been refitted instead of being scrapped and both her and Royalist could have served the RNZN into the mid-late 1960s. The sale to Pakistan of Diadem just doesn't go through: she was converted into a training ship within two years of being sold anyway, which indicates she was a bit of a white elephant. Two or three destroyers would probably have been a better purchase for the Pakistani navy.

What this all achieves is to get the RN three relatively new large 6" cruisers (Minotaur, Swiftsure and Superb) available for radical refits later in the 1950s/early 1960s.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2016, 11:42:38 PM »
Australia actually went the opposite way to what I am suggesting and instead of using small light cruisers to replace pre war heavy and light cruisers as well as destroyers they effectively used their large destroyers (Tribal/Battle/Daring classes) as cruisers and attempted to keep the pre war cruisers while converting war emergency destroyers into fast ASW frigates.  It took another three generations but after knocking back successive large designs they are finally settling on 6000t plus major combatants, i.e. the cruiser sized multi-role vessels that are capable of independent as well as fleet operations.

My thinking is the Arethusa hull, while not ideal, if available would have made the perfect alternative to ships that were just too old and manpower intensive (Australia and Hobart) to be worth keeping post war, let alone into the 50s, as well as several generations of destroyers that were just too small to do what was needed.  Once the RAN decided to have a high end air defence system, helicopter, medium calibre gun and satisfactory command and control systems in one hull they found the very smallest they could go was the Spanish F-100.

Down side, they would have required more manpower than the destroyers and frigates in service but would have been far more capable and flexible.  Other factors though would have been a reduced logistics and training burden through having common platform and platform systems, lower sustainment costs again due to platform commonalities, as well as plenty of space and weight for future upgrades and modernisations.

I imagine a viable fleet could have had two or three squadrons each existing of a carrier, a command configured 6" CL, a CLAA, a GP CL/DL and an ASW CL/DL plus a couple of Type 15s then Type 12s.  Two squadrons would have required eight CL/DLs and three squadrons twelve of them, plus four and six frigates / DEs respectively.  The idea would be these small cruisers could over whelm a surface raiding Sverdlov (I.e. Battle of the River Plate) while being cheaper than maintaining a number of heavy cruisers or even battleships and unlike the large combatants they could be useful for ASW (in particular once large ASW helicopters and longer range stand off weapons became available).

The original idea behind the smaller cruiser was to increase the number of useful cruisers the RN could acquire under the various naval treaty tonnage limits in place at the time.  The Arethusas were designed as the smallest capable trade protection cruiser with sufficient speed and sea keeping for fleet operations, and could be built at a ratio of six Arethusas to five Modified Leanders while remaining within treaty limits. 

Australia bought the three Modified Leanders from the RN but maybe instead Australia could have begun building Arethusas at Codoc, hoping to avoid the issues with the Town Class cruiser HMAS Adelaide where her completion was delayed several years by the loss of her British build machinery in transit during WWI, facilities to produce armour, turbines and armament were developed locally as part of the project.  This would make sense as there was the need to replace Adelaide coming up and also war clouds had begun to gather so the need for additional ships would have been foreseen.  A plan to build three plus one ships locally could then have led to a decision to build additional examples instead of the planned battleship the government desired to build locally in 1939, then instead of the planned eight Tribal class destroyers (or in addition to them if the increased shipbuilding was up to it) they could have built Didos in both 5.25" and 4.5" variations.

Codoc could have become a cruiser factory of sorts, completing some ships entirely themselves and sending other hulls to other locations for outfit.  The yard could have even been expanded and connected to the harbour shore (as was done with Garden island) with hard stands, building halls, dry docks and slipways.  With the war going badly in Europe and Japan an ever present danger it would only make sense that many more ships would be ordered, hence the large number of hulls under construction at the end of the war, as well as several near new cruisers in service.

I'm actually keen to try and build a wartime Arethusa and a post war CCL version, as well as a CLAA, CLG, DL and DLG using progressively more US equipment as time goes by.

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2016, 09:00:52 PM »
Another thought I just had is a cruiser mine layer version with three 4.5" BDs in A,B and X positions and a large fully covered mine deck.  This design would address the main issue with the Abdiel class, range at top speed.

During the war the success of the minelayer version as fast transports would lead to a cruiser APD (APC?) being developed.  This version would have the twin 6" of Arethusa forward in A and B, the mine deck converted to troop accommodation, davits for four LCVPs and multiple twin 4", Bofors/Pom Poms and Oerlikons.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2016, 11:57:43 AM »
Hey Volkodav: LOTS of interesting pics of RAN ships and equipment on this Flickr account:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/page13
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2016, 03:39:12 PM »
Thanks for that, Weaver! :) :D
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #65 on: October 05, 2016, 09:29:15 PM »
Yes thankyou

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #66 on: October 16, 2016, 09:24:51 PM »
Just had a thought that my be worth buying an MT Minatures County to try out.

How about when the small ship, Leander based Seadart ship got out of hand and morphed in to the Bristol, a highly specialised carrier escort, the RN decided to cut their losses and cancelled it in favour of a Batch III County with Seadart in place of Sea Slug. 

As the Batch II Counties were still being built at the time this could have been a significantly cheaper option.  They could have had other improvements such a COGOG/COGAG/CODAG propulsion instead of COSAG, Seacat dropped in favour of Seawolf or even opted for a twin 30, 35, or 40mm instead (based on experience from the Confrontation).  With the lower impact of the Seadart a full wide hanger and large flight deck would have been a no brainer and there would have been sufficient space for both Ikara and Exocet, while retaining at least one Mk6 or Mk8 4.5" gun.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #67 on: October 16, 2016, 11:23:00 PM »
Just had a thought that my be worth buying an MT Minatures County to try out.

How about when the small ship, Leander based Seadart ship got out of hand and morphed in to the Bristol, a highly specialised carrier escort, the RN decided to cut their losses and cancelled it in favour of a Batch III County with Seadart in place of Sea Slug. 

I never understand the argument that HMS Bristol was 'over specialised' and didn't have a mission after the CVA-01 carriers were cancelled. The Type 82 was a platform for three new weapons, Sea Dart, Ikara and Mk.8 gun, together with Limbo that was already in widespread use. ALL of those weapons were subsequently introduced into RN service on smaller platforms: Ikara on the Batch I Leanders, Sea Dart on the Type 42s and Invincibles and Mk.8 guns on the Type 21s and Type 42s, so what were they doing that the Type 82 wasn't?

Just about the only feature of the Type 82 that was influenced by it's carrier escort mission was the lack of a helicopter, since those were supposed to be provided by the through-deck cruisers that would be the carriers' other escorts. However after CVA-01 was cancelled the through-deck cruiser survived to become the Invincible class, so a Type 82 escorting an Invincible would have been no more short of helicopters than if both of them were escorting a CVA-01. it's also worth pointing out that lack of a helicopter is by no means unusual in an air-defence-oriented ship where centreline space for radars and missile launchers is at a premium. The Charles F. Adams class didn't have one, nor did the Jacob Van Heemskerks and even the Flight I Arleigh Burkes (twice the size of the latter two and bigger than HMS Bristol) didn't have one either.


Quote
As the Batch II Counties were still being built at the time this could have been a significantly cheaper option.  They could have had other improvements such a COGOG/COGAG/CODAG propulsion instead of COSAG, Seacat dropped in favour of Seawolf or even opted for a twin 30, 35, or 40mm instead (based on experience from the Confrontation).  With the lower impact of the Seadart a full wide hanger and large flight deck would have been a no brainer and there would have been sufficient space for both Ikara and Exocet, while retaining at least one Mk6 or Mk8 4.5" gun.

The below-decks shape of Sea Dart is so radically different to Sea Slug that you'd have to change fundamental things about the design, like bulkhead spacing, in order to accomodate it, rather than just plugging different weapons into the holes in the deck. Likewise, the COSAG arrangement on the Counties had a rear engine room arrangement of (side-to-side) small gas turbine (GT), shaft, GT, GT, shaft, GT. There isn't enough room to put two Olympus in between the shafts, so you'd need to move them further apart, and probably design new gearboxes too, since the front inputs to them were for high and low pressure steam turbines.

Sea Dart only has a 'lower impact' in terms of the size of the launcher and it's magazine, however the radars are every bit as bulky. The Type 909 was supplied on a pre-fitted 'office' and you can't just elevate the aerial to put two of them close together because there's a rotating 'cage' full of un-weatherproofed electronics that hangs down into the office from the aerial. To fit a normal hanger on the County hull, you'd have to swap the positions of the radar and hangar, and elevate the radar to see over the hangar, thereby increasing topweight. You'd then have to find a space forwards for another 909 and it's 1.5 deck high office, wich would means a major reconstruction of the forward superstructure.

All of these factors would reduce the commonality with the County design and thus reduce any advantage from using it. A Batch III Country wouldn't have been significantly cheaper than HMS Bristol.

It's spooky that you should come up with the idea of Confrontasi getting the RN interested in guns again, because last week I had exactly the same idea! You know those twin 30mm BMARC Oerlikon GCM-A03 mountings that the RN adopted after the Falklands War? Well they were on the market as far back as 1967 so the RN could quite easily have decided to adopt them then if they'd been interested. You might imagine them adopting 30mm as a compromise between 40mm and 20mm, with twin guns replacing the Bofors mountings and single guns (similar to the later DS-30B which used the same gun) replacing the 20mm Oerlikons.

I also imagined a more ambitious scheme in which the RN commissions BMARC (which was the UK subsidiary of Hispano-Suiza and later Oerlikon, so British jobs) to develop a fully enclosed and unmanned twin 30mm turret for new builds, which would have a large capacity drum magazine below it. It would be rather like a 3/4 size version of the Breda-Bofors Fast Forty mount. In fact, Breda produced exactly such a 30mm "3/4-size" mount in the 1980s, the only difference being that theirs used Mauser cannon. Now when the post-Falklands CIWS boom got underway, Breda teamed up with Marconi to offer a system called Sea Cobra, which was the twin 30mm turret with a Marconi model 440 radar on top of it (this was the same radar used in the Marksman SPAAG). This got as far as prototypes being tested on UK ranges in 1988, but nobody bought it. If the RN had bought a BMARC twin 30mm turret in the 1970s, you might very well imagine this as an upgrade path for it.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 11:53:47 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2016, 08:38:14 PM »
I love Bristol as a ship and design and believe its a shame that government policy stopped the class at one (actually that UK government policy wasted so much money by flipping between global expeditionary and Atlantic convoy war / ASW centric every couple of decades) but was trying to look at it more holistically, i.e. moving to an evolution of a destroyer rather than an evolution of a frigate.  Basically rip Sea Slug out of the Counties and you free up a phenomenal amount of space internally and topside.

Realistically the front 25-30% of the B III County could have remained identical to B I & II, or alternatively could have been altered to fit either Ikara, or Seadart, (even Tartar for my RAN DLG) in B position (which could be cut down as there is no need for super firing guns).  If she stays COSAG then the steam plant stays the same, if not, who cares, maybe the steam plant could be replaced with Olympus and the Metrovicks are retained, or maybe she could switch to a COGAG with three Olympus, two forward and one aft between the shafts, or my favourite option, four Olympus, each with their own funnel that they can be withdrawn through.  Yes its a lot of redesign work to some compartments but the County has a lot of space to play with, a lot more than a Leander, what's more is the County B III could also be factored as a DLGH with minimum or two or preferable three Seakings, that could have been built instead of converting the Tigers (the RN looked at DDH options based on Bristol but County could have been as good or better an option).

I know the 909 has the office underneath, it actually sort of makes it easier to install on large platforms with plenty of space and weight to spare plus fits well with some of the ideas I have.  What I am thinking requires the County hull but everything else is flexible, i.e. a Daring style after deck for a Mk6 and Limbo (or RAN style Ikara) and Seadart forward, or maybe flight deck aft and large full width hanger where the current flight deck is, the Seadart where the 901 is and the 909(s) in place of the original hanger (possibly Seadart forward too).

I have bitten the bullet and joined Shipbucket, no to publish my own designs but to access their data base and experiment with their bits and bobs like you do.  I want to do a range of designs, RN options and RAN options, single and double ended Tartar and Seadart and will work out the back story as I go. i.e. the Batch III County could have had its origins in a Tartar County redesign for the RAN.  According to a post on Secret Projects the RAN desired for and aft guns for 360deg coverage in littoral archipelag and riverine environments and specified such in their desired Tartar County, they also desired multiple Wessex helicopters and Ikara would have been a no brainer.  Their DDL concepts had many of these features too, also rapid fire auto cannons 30+mm, Seacat then Tartar, as such it is conceivable had the RN been keen to design what the RAN wanted they could have had all the building blocks they required for a Batch III county by the time a decision on Bristol was required.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2016, 02:43:32 AM »
I don't really see the distinction between 'evolved from a destroyer' and 'evolved from a frigate' to be honest. They're both 'generic modern warships' using the same components and construction techniques and facing the same problems. The role names are pretty much arbitary and if they tell you anything, it's about the operating navy's tactics, organisation and traditions, rather than any distinctive physical characteristic of the ship. Look at the way the USN's Leahy, Belknap and Coontz classes started out as 'frigates' in the 1960s but then the two former classes were reclassified as 'cruisers' and the latter as 'destroyers' in the 1970s. The design and mission of the ships didn't change in the slightest: they were still 6000ish-ton Terrier+ASROC-armed carrier battle group escorts.

The Type 82 might have had a 'frigate-ish' type number, but that was just some administrative/political maneuver within the RN/MoD (possibly apeing the USN). It was a clean sheet of paper design in every way that mattered and was always intended to do the role of the Country class 'destroyers'.

The thing that strikes me about radical re-design proposals for County class hulls is that the 'Trigger's Broom' effect ("I've had this same broom for twenty years and in all that time it's only had five new heads and three new handles") kicks in fairly sharply. The ship is so specialised around Seaslug and the shape of a Seaslug installation is so different from almost anything else you might replace it with that the ship is going to require significant redesign of the basic structure. Once you get to that point, any advantage of a common hull goes away: you're going to need pretty much the same design time and first-of-class costs as an all-new design, yet you'll still be making compromises to retain some percentage of the old one.

That's not to say there isn't anything you can do with a County. The Chilean DDH conversion was sensible and useful. Alternatively you could keep the original quarterdeck and helo pad and fit RAN-style Ikara into the Seaslug space easily enough with room to spare. Sea Dart is always going to be a problem though: it really is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or in this case, a three-deck deep 'vertical' installation into a one-deck high 'missile hangar'.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2016, 02:55:00 AM »
Shipbucket has internal layouts for some weapons now, which is very helpful (assuming that they're accurate of course, but they're a pretty pedantic lot over there). A while back I did some overlays of alternative weapons onto County hull to illustrate the problems. I'm pretty sure you've seen them before, but I'll post them again for convenience:







« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 02:59:28 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2016, 08:08:00 AM »
Thanks for posting those again.

They actually do illustrate what I was discussing quite well as all of the options I put forward do fit.  In ship building the long horizontal Seaslug magazine was more of a structural and survivability issue than any of the vertical mags or guns on other designs as most of the ships structural strength comes from longitudinal and transverse framing / bulkheads.  The County Class DLGs high freeboard actually gives her a potentially much stronger basic hull than many smaller, especially short forecastle designs.

The great advantage with the Counties design is once the Seaslug system is deleted additional framing and bulkheads can be added with ease, compartments taken up by vertical missile magazines or larger GTs diesels etc. can be relocated to space freed up by deletion of Seaslug.  One way weight and stability is calculated (and the disposition of equipment determined) is to carve the ship up into length ways sections, which is much easier to do with vertical magazines than horizontal.  From a naval architecture POV County (derived from Battle/Daring, through the unbuilt Super Daring sketches) would be a much easier proposition to redesign than the Type 12 starting point of the Type 82 (seriously the Bristol is a stretched Leander hull).

On the frigate vs destroyer thing, the USN frigates, that were reclassified as cruisers (except for the Farraguts that became DDGs), were actually DL/DLGs or Destroyer Leaders.  They were larger more capable fleet escorts than destroyers and effectively replaced light or AA cruisers in carrier groups, both the Counties and French Suffrens were considered DLGs, while the Italians called their Terrier armed Andrea Dorias and Vittorio Veneto cruisers.  The USN referred to their equivalents to the RNs frigates as DEs or Destroyer Escorts.  When the US developed a guided missile destroyer escort they ended up with the Brooke Class, which is what the Type 82 was initially meant to be equivalent to, while the DL(G)s evolved through the Norfork, Mitsher, Farragut, Leahy (Bainbridge), Belknap (Truxtun), California and Virginia, much larger more capable ships.

Looking at it holistically the RN looked at building new cruisers that would have been equivalent to the USN Boston and Cleveland class conversions, built the County Class equivalents to the DLGs, considered Tartar conversions of the Battles and Darings that would have been equivalent to the Forrest Sherman DDG conversions, considered new build Tartar Super Darings that would have been equivalent to the Charles F Adams Class, also Tartar was looked at for the Tribal Class Sloops and a version of the Leander that would have been equivalent to the Brookes.

What I am tempted to do, but I will need a new lap top to do it, is reactivate my old copy of Autodesk Inventor and convert the Shipbucket images into 3D models and really go to town on the ideas.  For instance I suspect that the double ended Seadat version

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/DDG%20County%20UK%20SAMs.png

Could actually have the aft Seadart located further forward with the launcher where the 901 is, especially if she has port and starboard funnels, with a large hanger same height as the 901 deckhouse aft of it and a flight deck aft of that.  I am quite proficient with various CAD and 3D modelling packages but suck at Paint, I just don't know where to start but have studied and worked in engineering drafting.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2016, 04:57:16 AM »
One of the 10 inch L/32 main guns onboard the Qing Chinese Beiyang Fleet cruiser Yangwei.

It is...... cute.  :-*
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 05:00:10 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Online Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #73 on: June 09, 2017, 10:50:17 PM »
Interesting news from the US in relation to modernising and returning some FFG-07s to service to speed up progress to the hoped for 355 ship navy.  Mentioned was the successful upgrade of ships of the type by overseas navies (i.e. Australia) with new combat systems VLS etc.  As the USNs reserve FFGs have had their Mk-13s removed this makes the fitting of a larger VLS than on the RANs ships a possibility, at least two eight cell strike length modules would fit in the space formerly occupied by the Mk-13 GMLS and the RAN ships show an eight cell point defence (ESSM) unit can fit forward of that for an easy total of 24 cells without major structural work.  Canister launched anti ship missiles (what ever is selected for the LCS) could also be fitted between the superstructure and the VLS for a total of 32 ESSM, eight ASvMs and sixteen cells for SM-2/6, Tomahawk, VLASROC etc.

Offline exkiwiforces

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #74 on: July 21, 2017, 09:15:43 PM »
I like some of the ideas here, but photobucket crap is giving the shits.