Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 54

Thread: LPH's (mistral, Ocean, etc)what are your views on them

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    362

    LPH's (mistral, Ocean, etc)what are your views on them

    I thought about starting this for a while and today is the day.
    How valuable do people see the landing platform helicopters in today's environment? We now have new ships like the Mistral class from France and the Jan Carlos from Spain. Australia has bought 2 from Spain also. Older ships like HMS Ocean for the RN and USN has there large ships like tawara and wasp classes and the new America class. I kind of think the USN ships are in a class of there own due to the size and crew requirements of them.
    For some reason i don't really like the Mistral. When comparing it to Jan Carlos on looks i prefer the Spanish ship. The mistral's were cheap but does that effect build quality? Does anyone else feel the same or can someone sell me the mistral. I am prepared to have my mind changed. I will have good points put i don't know that much about it.
    I like the multi role ability of these ships especially ones with the ski jump like Jan Carlos. It can fulfil lots of different roles but does this make it a jack of all trades and a master of none? For HMS ocean i like it. I've always liked the Invincible class for looks. Someone has suggested for the RN they should build a couple of updated Ocean's. I think this is a brilliant idea.
    With this ships would people say they are adding a brand new capability or are they replacing the old LSD, etc. For Australia are they not replacing HMS Tobruck and there other landing ship with the Jan Carlos? One thing i think is it right to go down the road of replacing more smaller ships with a couple of big ships. The Royal Navy i wouldn't include in this as they appear to have done a one for one swap almost. HMS Albion and Bulwark for HMS Fearless and Intrepid. four bay class ships for 6 Sir class ships Also there are the four extra Point class RO RO ferries.
    My point would be: would you prefer more smaller ships with the same carrying ability or the route of a few big ships? Putting all your eggs in 1 basket springs to mind. Are these ships just to big? over 20,000 tonnes and America's over 40,000 tonnes. Is this the size that is required when building this type of ship? It's a big juicy target for an enemy especially if you knew they only had 1 and the invasion was off if you hit it.
    I've never seen inside any of these ships so i don't know what space is like inside. When comparing them to the ski jump carriers that were built outside of America in the last 30 years these ships are bigger than them! Spain, Italy, uk, thailand.
    For an actual aircraft carrier i prefer the idea of Cavour more than Jan Carlos. I understand though that for Spain the Jan Carlos are a second carrier for when there other 1 is in refit. An exciting development will be to see what Spain are going to build to replace there current carrier. any idea's. Also is Italy's Cavour to replace the current carrier or will that be getting replaced at a later date?
    One last thing does anyone understand the codes and can they explain them. (LPH, LPD, LHD, LST, LSD etc etc
    Mistral Class


    Jan Carlos 1


    HMS Ocean


    Wasp Class

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    My point would be: would you prefer more smaller ships with the same carrying ability or the route of a few big ships? Putting all your eggs in 1 basket springs to mind. Are these ships just to big? over 20,000 tonnes and America's over 40,000 tonnes.
    this depend the budget constraint of a country
    some major country prefer big ships (much better for projection)
    some minor country prefer small or medium design (much better for regional use)

    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    It's a big juicy target for an enemy especially if you knew they only had 1 and the invasion was off if you hit it.
    escort with DDG or FG (or CG for US)

    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    I've never seen inside any of these ships so i don't know what space is like inside.
    many view inside exist on the web
    the french mistral were well know to be very spacious inside (some US officers were well surprised by this !)

    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    One last thing does anyone understand the codes and can they explain them. (LPH, LPD, LHD, LST, LSD etc etc
    LPH= landing platform helicopter
    LPD= landing platform dock
    LHD= landing helicopter dock
    LST= landind ships tank
    LSD= landing ships dock
    LCT= landing craft tank
    .............
    Visit my blog on news about all combat fleet of the world !
    http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Amphib forcible entry (as the ultimate expression of naval power projection) beyond a pure raider capability is highly complex and beyond the scope of such a post. Currently I don't see the Europeans capable of doing it; even the U.S. is caught in a doctrinal fog. These European ships sure give a limited raider capability against an undefended coast, but that's about it. Basically something like the Maersk Afloat Forward Staging Base

    http://www.maersklinelimited.com/PDF...AFSB_FINAL.pdf

    with a LASH crane aft could do the same.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    You've conflated two different types of ship.

    LPH - Landing Platform, Helicopter. HMS Ocean is the only purpose-built example of this class of ship these days, though some carriers have either been built or modified for the role (e.g. Cavour, HMS Illustrious - & the CVFs will be), & any carrier can do it, though less efficiently. An amphibious helicopter carrier. Meant for launching heli-borne assaults. No dock. Any landing craft have to be carried on davits.

    LHD - the D stands for Dock, & that's the crucial difference between them. A through-deck amphibious ship with a helicopter hangar & a dock for landing craft, either conventional, or air-cushion. The USN is the largest operator of such ships. Juan Carlos & Mistral are of this type.

    The Mistral class is about the same size as the Invincible class carriers. Cavour (one of the ski-jump carriers) is larger, bigger than Juan Carlos.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    362
    So is there some kind of big advantage over having a dock on your helicopter carrier and not having one? The USN have just launched their 1st helicopter ship not to have a dock i think. The Royal Navy have lots of ships with docks on them and that is why i don't think the Helicopter assault ship needs one. I watched a programme on channel 5 recently about the navies deployment on operation Taurus (i think) and they had bits filmed on Ocean. She is an impressive ship but it was disappointing to see her on a far east deployment with only 4 merlins. On the programs only 1 of these was working for a period of time due to break downs and spares etc. Then this merlin needed repaired. It just showed how even with 4 helicopters you still can't provide decent cover. Some politicians should learn from this. One thing i saw was the Merlin ASW being used to transport troops to Jungle in Brunei. Has anyone seen how many seats this has in it and its capacity. I'm yet to decide if this is a good thing or bad. The fact using a £50 million ASW helicopter for transport duty seems a bit risky in a warzone. It's a big asset to loose and could leave them vulnerable to submarine or surface attack. On the other side though i am glad to see the RN making full use of what it's got.
    If the RN could get 2 new updated with lessons learned from HMS Ocean and bigger if needed replacements for HMS Ocean i would say that the RN Amphibious dept has good equipment for its role. (just the rest of the fleet to sort out now!) A price of say £500-750 million would be a good price and well worth the investment. If possible without increasing the price to much make sure they are able to handle a operate with F35B and maybe have a detachable ski jump. So long as they are not seen as carriers but can be used in that role if need be. Say a falklands part 2 situation somewhere in the world. The RN only has 1 CVF to be deployed but is able to fit all it's equipment and troops that are required on the Bays and Albion, bulwark and the point ships. Then load up Oceans replacement with helicopters and F35's and this makes CVF not so vulnerable. Then hurry up the refit on CVF 2 and Ocean replacement 2 and you have back up if needed. With only 2 CVF's any country will no if they can take out 1 carrier or make it to dangerous for it to deploy the RN won't proceed. (now if only the politicians could see this) The main thing building replacement ships will count on is how much space and time is available in the ship yards?

    Has anyone here ever served or been on any Amphibious ships? The Round table or Sir class that the RN had seem to have done ok on the export market. I believe Australia has HMAS Tobruk that is based on a round table design. India seems to build her own version of these ships (or has in the past). I'm not sure if India ever operate any of the RN ships or how many of her own design she has in commission. How much variation the ships in foreign service bear to the original design i'm not sure of. The RN had one of them that had a major SLEP and the ship that came out was quite different to the 1 that went in. Anyone have any idea's if any of the Round table class were sold on to other countries and are any of them still operating. I heard 1 was in the hands of a private company but i can't remember details of who or what role it played.
    Last edited by F35b; 25th November 2009 at 14:34.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    362
    I've saw this photo on wiki of Sir Percivale with this description: An aerial port bow view of the British logistic landing ship RFA SIR PERCIVALE (L 3036) at anchor during the NATO Southern Region exercise DRAGON HAMMER '90.
    When looking at the photo i noticed the ramp/jetty thing at the back of this ship. Is this all from the ship or is it maybe a jetty? It Looks quite impressive.


    I liked this photo of Sir Tristram being carried home after the Falklands war. I show's how much damage can be caused by fire and being hit. It always amazes me when you see a ship being carried by another ship (MV Dan Lifter i think). I'm yet to see one in person but it must be a site.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    You can't put heavy stuff ashore by helicopter. For putting tanks & other heavy stuff ashore before you can secure a port, a dock is a big advantage. It can operate in much worse weather than unloading via a rear ramp onto Mexeflotes or the like, or lifting heavy vehicles into landing craft via crane & lowering landing craft via davits. Dock landing ships are therefore a Good Idea.

    But - you don't have to have only dock ships. If your navy is only big enough for two amphibious ships, then LHDs may be best (see the RAN). If you have a larger navy, with multiple amphibs, then you're probably fine with LPHs & LPDs or LSDs, like the RN. The USN moved away from LPHs & LSTs towards LHDs & LPDs many years ago, but now seems to favour more aviation-oriented ships to go with its LPDs.

    Spain expects to have one ship operating as a STOVL carrier, plus two dock landing ships, operating at any one time. An LHD which can function as an auxiliary carrier, for when the main carrier is in refit, makes sense in that context.

    So . . . it depends on what other ships you have.


    India has built, IIRC, 5 Round Table based landing ships, spread over >20 years since 1987. The last three are to a modified design, & built fairly rapidly. None bought secondhand from the UK. Brazil has a couple of ex-RN Round Tables, Garcia D'Avila (ex Sir Galahad) & Almirante Saboia (ex Sir Bedivere).
    Last edited by swerve; 25th November 2009 at 15:02.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    I've saw this photo on wiki of Sir Percivale with this description: An aerial port bow view of the British logistic landing ship RFA SIR PERCIVALE (L 3036) at anchor during the NATO Southern Region exercise DRAGON HAMMER '90.
    When looking at the photo i noticed the ramp/jetty thing at the back of this ship. Is this all from the ship or is it maybe a jetty? It Looks quite impressive.
    Looks like a Mexeflote to me. Google it.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    The USN have just launched their 1st helicopter ship not to have a dock i think.
    The 60's era Iwo Jima class LPH's didn't have a dock.

    The America class isn't even in production yet, let alone launched.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    You've conflated two different types of ship.

    LPH - Landing Platform, Helicopter. HMS Ocean is the only purpose-built example of this class of ship these days, though some carriers have either been built or modified for the role (e.g. Cavour, HMS Illustrious - & the CVFs will be), & any carrier can do it, though less efficiently. An amphibious helicopter carrier. Meant for launching heli-borne assaults. No dock. Any landing craft have to be carried on davits.

    LHD - the D stands for Dock, & that's the crucial difference between them. A through-deck amphibious ship with a helicopter hangar & a dock for landing craft, either conventional, or air-cushion. The USN is the largest operator of such ships. Juan Carlos & Mistral are of this type.

    The Mistral class is about the same size as the Invincible class carriers. Cavour (one of the ski-jump carriers) is larger, bigger than Juan Carlos.
    Excuse my ignorance, but what LHA stood for? Tarawa class was called LHA right? (from the top of my head)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Noite Escura View Post
    Excuse my ignorance, but what LHA stood for? Tarawa class was called LHA right? (from the top of my head)
    Landing Helicopter assault. An LPH in all but name.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    Except that all the LHAs built so far have docks, while the America-class will not. Confusing? Certainly!

    Nobody except the USN uses the term, & it might be better if they hadn't.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    between the mountains and the desert
    Posts
    3,489
    USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) off the coast of South Vietnam, 1965.





    USS New Orleans (LPH-11).




    7 of the class, first commissioned 1961, last decommissioned 2001.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Merewether, NSW
    Posts
    1,024
    I don't like the way Mistral is arranged. Vehicle Deck's and Hanger are all at the stern above the dock, with the entire front half of the ship turned over the troops.

    I like the Arrangment of the JCI/Canberra with a full length hanger/vehicle deck better.
    Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Mistral is more a sea base than an assault platform. Long range at medium speed, a little bit of everything in terms of capabilities. Mistral even lacks the speed to be a good raider. What they do is to pack the assault - reenforce - sustain phases into one ship. Not really flexible, doesn't scale, isn't survivable (or very expensive).

    A real assault platform would trade in range and endurance for dash speed, and would be optimized for one spasmic assault jump. The USMC's EFV has the right idea (speed), enabling the compression of the 2D and 3D assault, minimizing the exposure of the ship to enemy counter measures.

    With a ship like Mistral, and with those large and slow LCUs they use they are not capable of amphib assault in a non-cooperative environment. And in addition the French don't have naval fire support platforms (but who has these days!).

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Mistral is more a sea base than an assault platform. Long range at medium speed, a little bit of everything in terms of capabilities. Mistral even lacks the speed to be a good raider. What they do is to pack the assault - reenforce - sustain phases into one ship. Not really flexible, doesn't scale, isn't survivable (or very expensive).

    A real assault platform would trade in range and endurance for dash speed, and would be optimized for one spasmic assault jump. The USMC's EFV has the right idea (speed), enabling the compression of the 2D and 3D assault, minimizing the exposure of the ship to enemy counter measures.

    With a ship like Mistral, and with those large and slow LCUs they use they are not capable of amphib assault in a non-cooperative environment. And in addition the French don't have naval fire support platforms (but who has these days!).
    Distiller, you've always been a bit harsh on the Mistral IMHO.

    First, speed is a non-issue, since Mistral's speed is in line with amphibs in other navies, including the RN and RAN. Only the USN builds "fast" amphibs, and these only do 22 knots, so about 15% faster.

    Speed of vectors is much more relevant, and Mistral will soon be operating LCATs (4 ordered so far), which are at least as good of a vector as LCM-1E or LCAC in terms of ship-to-shore throughput.

    That leaves the Mistral's internal arrangements, which AFAIK (according to some Aussie forumers) didn't impress the RAN. The vehicle ramp in particular came under criticism as a potential bottleneck. I still don't understand this. There is enough space in front of the dock to store each wave of vehicles while they wait for the landing craft to come back from the previous wave. So the ramp should be a non-issue.

    The only alternative, putting the vehicle deck in front of the dock, would have led to a ridiculously small vehicle deck, as in the British Albion LPDs. This layout works for Juan Carlos/Canberra, but only because they are much longer.

    So IMHO, Mistral doesn't seem any less of an assault platform than other LPDs. As for flexibility, any LPD is inherrently more flexible than an LPH/LHA, so that's hardly a fair criticism.
    Last edited by H_K; 27th November 2009 at 17:09.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,982

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Tango III View Post
    Looks very much like a shortened Cavour.
    Last edited by kev 99; 14th December 2009 at 09:15.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    Quote Originally Posted by kev 99 View Post
    Looks very much like a shortened Cavour.
    Same builder. Makes sense to recycle as much of the design as possible.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Same builder. Makes sense to recycle as much of the design as possible.
    Yeah I know, just a rather obvious observation.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by kev 99 View Post
    Looks very much like a shortened Cavour.
    Na, more like a San Giorgio on steroids. Cavour is totally different (and much nicer to the eye). Assault ships are so boxy!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Wanshan View Post
    Na, more like a San Giorgio on steroids. Cavour is totally different (and much nicer to the eye). Assault ships are so boxy!
    The island is very similar.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    112
    On Fincantieri website there's another rendering with small difference. 2 Elevator and aft 76mm on the same position of Cavour



    000451_foto1_orig.jpg HI RES

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    657
    I wonder if the older Tarawas or Wasps later on would be made available for sale as second hand small carriers for allied navies. Since the large nuclear Nimitz class is out of question. I believe the non-nuclear Kitty Hawk was offered for sale to India for free, provided they would refit it and buy new Super Hornets for it, but it would prove far too costly even so.

    I think that at "only" 40-50 thousand tones and perhaps certified with F-35Bs, would be a nice proposal, instead of scrapping. Age might be an issue of course, but then again, INS Viraat and NAe Sao Paolo have lived to this day after half a century and still survive...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    between the mountains and the desert
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by HAWX ace View Post
    I wonder if the older Tarawas or Wasps later on would be made available for sale as second hand small carriers for allied navies. Since the large nuclear Nimitz class is out of question. I believe the non-nuclear Kitty Hawk was offered for sale to India for free, provided they would refit it and buy new Super Hornets for it, but it would prove far too costly even so.

    I think that at "only" 40-50 thousand tones and perhaps certified with F-35Bs, would be a nice proposal, instead of scrapping. Age might be an issue of course, but then again, INS Viraat and NAe Sao Paolo have lived to this day after half a century and still survive...
    Ummm... since you are new here, I'll be gentle.

    The Kitty Hawk story was the fevered invention of an Indian journo who confused his delusions with reality.

    Indian government/military officials said India never asked & the US never offered, the US Secretary of Defense said India never asked & the US never offered... and no one could ever find any evidence the offer was made/asked, or anyone (other than the journo, and those who blindly parroted his lies) who said that the offer was ever real.

    As for the Tarawas, they are pretty worn out, and are not being offered for sale.

    * USS Tarawa (LHA-1) (decommissioned, Category B reserve), San Diego, California, Years from Commission to Decommission: 32.8
    * USS Saipan (LHA-2) On October 28, 2009 departed Philadelphia under tow for the International Shipbreaking Ltd yard in Brownsville, Texas, for scrapping.
    * USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) Expended as a target, 13 July 2006
    * USS Nassau (LHA-4), In commission, Norfolk, Virginia
    * USS Peleliu (LHA-5), In commission, San Diego, California
    Last edited by Bager1968; 10th January 2010 at 21:09.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bager1968 View Post
    Ummm... since you are new here, I'll be gentle.

    The Kitty Hawk story was the fevered invention of an Indian journo who confused his delusions with reality.
    The USA took a long time to issue a denial because the story was considered too silly to need denying. The US Secretary of Defense laughed out loud when he was asked directly (by an Indian journalist), & as soon as he'd stopped laughing, denied it unequivocally. He stated that he had never heard such a thing even suggested.

    I tried tracking the story back, & every report that had a source linked back, as you say, to one Indian story, which appeared to be based on imagination applied to an off-the-cuff remark by a relatively junior USN officer, stated at the time to be hypothetical, & merely to illustrate a theoretical scenario. Sort of "if we were ever to offer India a carrier, e.g. Kitty Hawk . . . ".
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Quote Originally Posted by HAWX ace View Post
    I wonder if the older Tarawas or Wasps later on would be made available for sale as second hand small carriers for allied navies. Since the large nuclear Nimitz class is out of question. I believe the non-nuclear Kitty Hawk was offered for sale to India for free, provided they would refit it and buy new Super Hornets for it, but it would prove far too costly even so.

    I think that at "only" 40-50 thousand tones and perhaps certified with F-35Bs, would be a nice proposal, instead of scrapping. Age might be an issue of course, but then again, INS Viraat and NAe Sao Paolo have lived to this day after half a century and still survive...
    Those flat bottom LHA/LHD don't really make good carriers. Not very stable in rougher seas.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    The USA took a long time to issue a denial because the story was considered too silly to need denying. The US Secretary of Defense laughed out loud when he was asked directly (by an Indian journalist), & as soon as he'd stopped laughing, denied it unequivocally. He stated that he had never heard such a thing even suggested.

    I tried tracking the story back, & every report that had a source linked back, as you say, to one Indian story, which appeared to be based on imagination applied to an off-the-cuff remark by a relatively junior USN officer, stated at the time to be hypothetical, & merely to illustrate a theoretical scenario. Sort of "if we were ever to offer India a carrier, e.g. Kitty Hawk . . . ".

    OK, I believe I got the picture...

    Found these threads too: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...tty+Hawk+india

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...tty+Hawk+india
    Last edited by HAWX ace; 11th January 2010 at 12:37.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Those flat bottom LHA/LHD don't really make good carriers. Not very stable in rougher seas.
    Since this is purely theoretical, why is that; I mean, why would someone want to use them in rough, open seas?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,814
    You'd want to be able to operate a carrier in as wide a range of conditions as possible. What if you're under attack by long-range bombers, or surface vessels, far from land? A real carrier would be able to fly off its fighters for air defence or anti-shipping strike in much worse conditions than a Tarawa or Wasp.

    For their role of amphibious assault, this is not a great deficiency. An amphibious assault necessarily implies being close to shore, not in open ocean, & would not go ahead in extreme weather, & therefore there would be no need for air support from STOVL fighters operating from the assault ships. The trade-off against increased hull capacity is worthwhile.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES