• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Precision Guided Artillery Munitions

Y

Yard Ape

Guest
One of the key areas that is supposed to make armies smarter & more lethal is precision artillery munitions.  I think we've all heard grand presentations about 155 mm rounds that are going to identify armour on the ground, discriminate between friend/foe, and guide itself in to kill static & moving targets.  Other types could be directed by laser designators as are used to spot aircraft targets.

I think these munitions have a fair amount of promise.  Especially in the Canadian army, these will be necessary if we are to have success with the MMEV/TUA/MGS direct fire systems.  Unfortunately, the countries with the $$$ to develop these munitions all use 155 mm howitzers and 120 mm mortars.  Canada may be moving toward all 105 mm howitzers and 81 mm mortars.  Does anybody know of precision munitions being developed for our smaller caliber weapons, or will we be forced to used pasted dated artillery technologies?

 
You mean like SADARM/Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunitions? Which have been tested, an admittedly are very cool, but are extremely expensive an some report say they are not capable of defeating heavy armor . I can't see are army even buying those, even if we did retain the 155s. Maybe the cheaper Copperhead-type projectile, that need target designation by an observer, but then why not just fire conventional rounds accurately. An Copperheads aren't exactly cheap either at (I've read) $500k a piece. A few of those rounds an we could have another 105mm Gun.

It should be possible to make a laser guided round for 105, but it wouldn't have as much of a punch(155 Copperheads weigh 130Lbs+). I don't think any country with the $ sees it feasible right now to do that, the 155 is a fairly balanced round with the right dimensions for a good payload an range.

I would be nice, but again, this army buying rounds that cost more then the vehicles they are supporting?

EDIT: http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm the LAHAT is a 105mm Anti-armor round fired from light guns mounted on armor vehicles like the LAV-III
So I imagine some modifications woud be needed to fire this from a gun.

PS Do you have any info on the 120 Mortar projectiles that utilize guided rounds?
 
Only word of mouth & a Powerpoint show put together by the Arty school about 1 1/2 years ago.  The 120 mm mortar munitions are supposed to do all the same sexy things as the 155 munitions, but with less range.

The technology was presented as the universal solution to battle field problems & on the verge of becoming readily available.  While I am sceptical of either claim, I cannot see our "medium direct fire systems" achieving the required effeciency without this type of indirect fire support.
 
Take a look at the bottom of this page.
http://www.wendel.se/rswa/artillery.htm
I had some more info on BAM (Brilliant Artillery Munitions) projects going on in the States and Germany and will see if I can dig it up.
 
Although I have read that the Copperhead has been used succesfully, and can see the benefit of a projectiles ability to do inflight corrections. I am still skeptical of the BAT/BAM stuff. I figure the idea of it came before UAVs proved there capabilities. They can travel ahead of, an stay over the battle field for much longer an carry more munitions, they are also more cost effective an offer commanders so much more.

 
There are quite few PGMs for artillery out there.  Copperhead being the oldest that I can think of (its even been fired in Gagetown by visiting US units).  They pretty much all use top attack to make up for their lack size.  This combined with the fact that most projectiles contain two or more submunitions helps to improve its effectiveness.

Copperhead and Strix are straight shaped charges with no submunitions.

LAHAT is a tank fired munition.  105mm would be at the very low end of efficiency for PGMs regarding payload and leathality.  The Brits did work on a 81mm guided round (Merlin) but I believe it has been cancelled.

Yes UAV's could carry more ordnance.  The one problem I could see with on call UAVs is if the weapon loaded doesn't suit the target, the UAV would have to be recalled and rearmed and sent back (didn't the Japanese run into this at Midway?).  With arty you pick your round and fire it.  Unfortunately with increasing progress towards us getting rid of the 155, the arty will be left with HE and Smk and no real option to beg, borrow, or steal PGMs from our allies.
 
UAVs are great pieces of kit, but they've got limitations. To add to AmmoTech90's comment, another huge problem with reliance on UAVs for fire support is the same you get with manned aircraft - they are heavily dependent on weather. If there's bad weather, or it's excessively hot, or the altitude is too high (like in Kabul right now) then the amount of fire available from the air will drop drastically.

Artillery, by contrast, works in all weather and all conditions. And the sheer weight of fire it can provide can't be matched from the air - at least in a cost-effective fashion. Finally, a gun with a 20km range can hit a target, shift to another target several kms away, hit that one, shift back or to a third target, and fire again. not to mention that you can change ammo at any time. You don't get that kind of flexibility in any aircraft.

UAVs will make great surveillance platforms, and I have no doubt that in the future they'll be extremely effective attack platforms. But they'll never supplant field artillery, for the same reasons manned aircraft never did. The grunts up front don't want to wait 15 minutes to an hour for an airstrike, whether by UAV or manned aircraft. An artillery battery in range, with current technology and a sharp observer, can have rounds on target - accurately, within the lethal radius of the round - within two minutes (and without requiring adjusting rounds anymore). PGMs will only enhance this capability...

And more attention is being paid to 105mm artillery. There are already 105mm DPICM rounds... As technology improves (and miniaturizes) I see no reason why GPS- and laser-guided 105mm rounds will not become common in the future - especially given the popularity of the 105 as a rapid-reaction force tool...
 
I'm sure that 105 could become a PGM.  The one concern I have is the payload.  One thing that can be shrunk a whole lot is the ammount of explosives needed to punch a hole in something.  A 105 shaped charge with a target sensor would probably to a good job on top of just about any vehicle.  The US is going for a lightweight 155mm and I have a bad feeling most R&D will go towards trying to sell Uncle Sam new stuff.  Innovations in 105 are going to have to home made I think.

-Slightly OT...
I realize the troops in ISAF are not actively engaged in combat and if they were I'm sure the process below would go a bit faster but...
In the last Bulletin from the Army Lessons Leared Centre, available at http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ALLC/Downloads/bulletin/Vol_10/Bulletin_Vol10No2Eng.pdf BGen Devlin describes it as taking 42 minutes for air and ground clearances to be given to fire 105mm Illum rounds.  Question for the gunners here, is that a good time frame?
 
Armed UAVs have a role to play however they can supplement and aid the artillery not replace it. Used as recce and target designation platform UAVs will increase the effectiveness of the artillery. If the UAV can illuminate the tgt for a first round hit by a round like the copperhead what would stop the UAV from designating dozens of tgts in a single mission as ordnance load would not be a factor and it would have to be comprised of smart munitions anyway to ensure effectiveness on point tgts like tanks.
 
AmmoTech90 said:
I'm sure that 105 could become a PGM.   The one concern I have is the payload.   One thing that can be shrunk a whole lot is the ammount of explosives needed to punch a hole in something.   A 105 shaped charge with a target sensor would probably to a good job on top of just about any vehicle.
Could the same be said of a 105 mm PGM designed as a bunker buster?

AmmoTech90 said:
The US is going for a lightweight 155mm and I have a bad feeling most R&D will go towards trying to sell Uncle Sam new stuff.  Innovations in 105 are going to have to home made I think.
This is what I fear.
 
Laser guided INDIRECT weapons... seems like an oxymoron ... perhaps in the direct fire role...

The 120mm mortar rounds are likely reality by now... Goggle it... sorry, don't have the URL on tap...

With rocket motor included, the weight of a Tomahawk missile is 100 lbs... no reason a PGM couldn't be fit in a 105mm. The OCSW round is 25mm and the electronics on that round are claimed to withstand 1000 g-forces.

Denel has been doing great things with the 105's terminal effects.... I think all the arty now is going to be defensive in use... airpower is just far too superior in driving offensive operations with no troop protection or logistical train to give generals migraines. Which brings me to another point. What is the rational for SP large guns? They are too slow to get into the fight, too limited in effects relative to say the AGM-154B armor killers, and have a nasty logistial train. If you have that kind of logistical support you have a major airbase or two on tap. That late in the war offensive ops are long over, and if they weren't, why not use the runway for bombers and go the AGM-154B route a month earlier in the fight?

If you make an SP gun heavy enough to withstand counterbattery fire you end up driving an M1-A1 Abrams - which would also give you a much better offensive capability. Short of that I think arty is now almost exclusively used as a defensive weapon, especially point defense. The most protected place for such arty is the high-ground of a firebase - which makes SP worthless as it cannot be driven or lifted up there. The other problem I have with SP is anything with more metal than a bicycle can now be killed easily from the air, and almost certainly will be, which makes SP the death-trap the Iraqis reported their SPs to be in the last 2 wars.

On the other hand, looking at the Spin Ghar mountain range of northeastern Afghanistan for example, towed/lifted G6 and G7 Denels could control everything from Kabul past Peshawar and all they way down past the Baluchistan border. The latest test with G6 ammo give it a range of 73,000 meters, and in the hot, thin,  air of Afghanistan, that will work out to be around 85,000 meters, more than enough to put all the Paki Tribal areas under guns from inside of Afghanistan. While we can't fire into Pakistan, I am wondering why Paki arty units can't man those firebases inside Afghanistan and do the job quite nicely. I am a bit surprised we are not making more use of this natural fortress. The Omars certainly are.

I do have a question that baffles me. Why aren't light guns made using lightweigh alloys with baffled legs to be filled with sandbags or other indigenous materials that DON'T have to be flown from halfway around the world? I just don't get it. Recoil management, a big problem for both the Barrett XM-109 and M-107 25mm and .50 caliber "rifles", is getting a lot of attention in the small arms domain. Except for Denel, I see almost nothing being done in this field where arty is concerned. It seems a better muzzle brake translates directly into a lighter system weight given any fixed level of recoil. TVMIA for any illumination you might have on this issue.

solidpoint
 
RE: the anti-armor 120mm and 155mm BONUS rounds... the BONUS rounds work exactly the same way as the AGM-154... the "wobble" allows the IR sensor to get a view of the terrain below in much the same way a scanning radar does by scanning back and forth. It then generates an explosively formed charge that does in the evil metal. Cool that they have been able to shrink it down to that footprint. An interesting story behind that technology. It is the life's work of one man. Who says one guy can't make a difference.

In Operation Iraqi Freedom a single B-1 destroyed an entire column of tanks in about 40 seconds with a half-dozen of so of those bad boys. It's weapons like this that make me think the day of the SP arty is over. Just my opinion of course. The AGM-154 has a standoff range of 15-40nm. My guess is this is the new HARM missile, as the real HARM missile is pretty much useless. We (NATO) fired over 1,000 of them in Kosovo and except for blowing up some guy's house in Bulgaria who was shaving, got almost zero kills.

Anyway, thanks a bunch for the cool link. Kudos!

solidpoint
 
AmmoTech90 raises an good point about the 42 minute wait to get firing clearance.

The after-action reports from Operation Anaconda indicated things were even worse there. The CAS pilots were unable to judge the flightpath of 120mm mortars and were therefore not willing to fly close enough to the ground to successfully engage small enemy units. To put it bluntly, the CAS was worthless for anything under about 20 men. ( my interpretation of the reports ) and the ranges were so great that only the .50 Barretts and Canadian McMillians had the range for direct-fire. That left almost everything to the 120mm mortar batteries.

I find this a bit perplexing as the "Old Breed" USMC grunts from WWII developed CAS to a fine art in the Pacific Island campaigns, and used them to devastating effect in Korea - especially in the breakout from Pusan. Be that as it may, with 155 and 105 guns, driving your wings into a big chuck of metal is a legitimate concern and must be addressed. Tactics, tactics, tactics.
 
Obviously you have a lot to learn WRT the Artillery.

The 120mm mortar rounds are likely reality by now
120s have been around for awhile, but superseding 105s/155s highly unlikely. Mortars, Howitzers, and Guns all have the advantages and weakness, and it is wise not to rely on one totally.

I think all the arty now is going to be defensive in use... airpower is just far too superior in driving offensive operations with no troop protection or logistical train to give generals migraines
Wrong - Arty is the only all weather. flexible fire support system. It doesn't care wheather its raining (although the old VT did), snowing, hailing. It doesn't cost millions of dollars to produce, is accurate, can give continuous support, it can't be shot down, and the Army owns it.
It has been proven time and again that generals ignore artillery to their detriment. Remember when Billy Mitchell predicted war was obsolete because air power was so dominant.

Short of that I think arty is now almost exclusively used as a defensive weapon, especially point defense.
Do you know anything about the Artillery because your ignorance is showing. So everyone knows, I will say it again, the Artillery main job is suppression not destruction, and we are an Area weapon.

What is the rational for SP large guns? They are too slow to get into the fight, too limited in effects
It is easier to deploy a large gun when SP rather then towed. A Regiment can come into action within minutes and you obviously have never seen a Regt Fire for Effect.

The most protected place for such arty is the high-ground of a firebase
  Protection isn't the issue, it is remaining in range of your supported troops. The Artillery is not a static weapon, another reason for SPs

I do have a question that baffles me. Why aren't light guns made using lightweigh alloys with baffled legs to be filled with sandbags or other indigenous materials that DON'T have to be flown from halfway around the world?
You got me on this one. Care to enlighten me.

You do seem to contradict yourself by saying Arty is obsolete because of air power, and then saying air power has limitation that stops it from supporting the troops.

I won't go into the rest of your posts, because I'm getting a headache. Pl learn more about the Artillery before predicting our demise.

 
You are correct about my lack of experience RE: artillery, but I think you are relying on obsolete tactics and weapons information.

Two hours after a 9-11 attack an air package of B-1 and B-52 bombers can leave US bases with CAP and refueling assets sufficient to get them into the theater and engage the enemy. They can fly the distance and be in the battle 12 hours later. They can attack armor and troop concentrations in any weather conditions using GPS based weapons such as the AGM-154 and or laser guided munitions. The US hasn't produced a daylight, fair-weather aircraft in 20 years. Everything flies all the time, providing the guys hunkered down on the ground can find them targets. Arty is only going to provide continuous coverage if the terrain and the weather permit them to advance - again, we are talking about offensive operations. Arty can't advance if its stuck in the mud and the snow, if bridges are washed out, if 5,000ft sheer cliffs are ahead in the line of advance or if any of their support troops or vehicles have similar logistical problems. I know the manta, the reality is quite different.

Take a look at a topo map of NE Afghanistan and tell me with a straight face you can find any use for SP arty in any role, let alone an offensive one. In addition, even the very steep and narrow (too narrow for a HumVee) and bedless roads there are impassable 5 months out of the year due to snow, so SP can't function in any role that requires it to move, in which case there is no point to the SP. Better to go with very light towed and chopper it up to the high ground.

Now you may object that bombers can't operate without air superiority, but arty can't either. Your SP won't last till sundown on the first day against a foe with standoff anti-armor bombing capabilities, or ATACM BAT P31 type rocket counter-battery fire the AF didn't knock out. Ask the Iraqis in the last two wars. They had the Denel long range guns and the MLRS units scoot and shoot and air harassment rendered them ineffective even though they were fighting from positions they had months to prepare.

The primary issues are therefore, how much does it cost, and how fast can it get into the fight. An arty shell is cheap, but that doesn't take into account the fact that to get the gun to fire it into position the AirForce first had to win the air war, and then a few tens of thousands of troops had to be shipped into the theater, along with all of their equipment, and to do that a half dozen airbases had to be captured, repaired and defended. The airlift to get the SP stuff into the theater had to be made available â “ displacing other assets. Then the stuff has to be unloaded, configured and manned. Since the SP arty isn't a viable force fighting alone it has to advance along with â “ or more likely, behind - tanks and infantry. So now you have your gun in place and you can start to scoot and shoot your $5,000 shells - ignoring the 5 billion dollars it cost to get them there and the continued billions it will take to service the HUGE logistical train to keep all the parts of that train that the enemy can engage safe and functioning.

By the time the arty is ready to attack 30-70 days has passed and the offensive part of the war is long over, with a victor clearly established, assuming you are not fighting a bunch of 3rd world losers. Airpower, even if there are no forward bases available, can now destroy anything with more metal than a bicycle in a couple of weeks in nearly any theater with nothing on the ground to feed, cloth, water, grease, gas or DEFEND. The Iraqis made it very clear, they hated their armored vehicles because they were metal coffins.

If you consider the fight from the time the first arty is ready to fire then you have an argument. But of course, wars aren't fought that way. The war starts when something happens half way around the world, with no warning, and it's go time.

I will therefore repeat. Arty is now a defensive weapon. Once you own the air and most of the ground, and are interested in holding onto it, and you have to have all those assets in theater anyway for follow-on operations and security, arty is a good marginal investment. It provides cheap area coverage, especially in defense of point targets like airfields, road junctions, harbors and ports, and the air assets are now freed up enough to provide the needed lift to get them there. As for protection, it's always an issue. Dead guys make poor gunners, and they will be dead if they don't have effective protection from aerial bombardment, infantry and logistics. They guys that attacked Omaha beach can give you an earful about attacking heavy guns with the natural protection of sheer cliffs â “ in spite of air-superiority and massive naval counter-battery fire.

I don't think it is a contradiction to say that initial offensive operations belong to air assets, but follow-on defensive operations can be greatly benefited by the inclusion of arty in the mix.

During the siege of Kae Sahn we used B-52's to provide massive firepower. Even way back then no one suggested we try to drive 500 SP artys up the road to engage the enemy. They would have been picked off in a few hours. They also could not have provided the same volume of destruction. There was a pre-SALT Treaty time when the US had 750 B-52's, a relatively small plane by today's standards, and with each of those carrying say 50, 500lb bombs - or 83 as some were configured - there is no reasonable amount of arty on the planet that could compete, and the logistical train that would have to be protected would be staggering even if someone were foolish enough to build and deploy such arty. A Bomber is arty with a 1-12,000 mile range. The enemy can't touch it.

Arty usually is a static weapon on the current battlefield, except for being flown from one hot spot to another â “ not driven where the Omars can pick you off like they did the Soviets. This is another argument for lightweight air-mobile guns. This is in fact the way guns are being used in Afghanistan. They are unloaded from C-130 and C-17s, towed into position, engage the enemy as long as the enemy is in the area, and then moved to the next hot spot. Of course the AC-130 gunship is an arty system that can be flown right up to the enemy's front door at 20 times the speed of any SP system, is not encumbered by terrain, logistics or most weather, and so is a massively superior search and destroy system. As for counter-battery fire, air is vastly superior for the destruction of enemy arty and no US foe in 15 years has had intact systems to worry about after the initial air campaign destroys most of the heavy metal â “ including all the prime movers. I would not suggest we do away completely with SP. In a large scale assault such as Iraqi Freedom it had an important supporting role in some battles, but it still generated a lot of logistical support requirements and if not for a sandstorm halting the advance, would likely not have been able to keep up with the attack. The fact that there are such things as sandstorms makes it important not to put all ones eggs in one basket.

As for lighter weight arty systems -it seems like the weight of towed arty has primarily one purpose, to control recoil. In the same way that we don't fly concrete bunkers into theaters from the homeland, but instead envelope sand in sandbags to provide protection, why aren't artillery pieces designed to be very light and have cavities that can be filled with indigenous materials to provide the weight needed for controlling recoil?

I would like the benefit of your experience, but it will only be valuable if you think of these old friends in the new contexts they will have to fight in. I still think there is a place for arty, I just don't think that place is in offensive operations. It's too slow, too heavy and to encumbered by terrain, weather and logistics.

I respectfully invite your response.

solidpoint.
 
Solidpoint,

I am not artillery either.  But, you seem to be misplacing your trust somewhat, and you are ignoring history and the concept of tactics.

First of all, GW2.  After flying thousands of missions, with complete air superiority, and after dropping hundreds of tons of bombs, missiles and rockets, the most dominant Air Force in the world managed to destroy 10% of the armour of a third world army.  This is fact.

Second.  With hundreds of aircraft deployed to GW2, at any one time, about 25% (on average) were ready to fly.  Why?  Because modern combat aircraft require several hours of maintenance per hour of flying.  And pilots require their beauty sleep, without which, they are not allowed to fly.  And, despite your claims to the contrary, several times the aircraft were grounded, unable to fly, or rather, take off,
because of sand storms.  Jet engines do not like ingesting sand, apparently!

As for support, it takes one C5 worth of techs and parts to keep one F-16 operational.  Do you know how much crap a C5 can carry?

Now, artillery is normally available within ten minutes of a fire mission.  Normally quicker, but lets count on ten minutes.  For an aircraft, that wait could stretch in to hours.  For you see, there are tens of thousands of artillery tubes out there.  Compared to a few hundred aicraft, not all of which are ground attack.  And the artillery have a vested interest in keeping the armour and infantry alive, like their own skins.  The air crew, bless them, if they miss the target, or can't identlfy it because of sand, go "oh well", and go back to base to get some more sleep.

This one ex-musclehead just can't see giving up a couple of regiments of artillery, so we can afford to buy one aircraft.  The cost factor doesn't quite cut it, when I can get arty down, 24/7, within 10 minutes of a call for it.  Well, except for the morning after St Barbara's day.  Then we have to wait a bit longer.......... ;)
 
Are you advocating that air power has made artillery redundant and obsolete?

First of all, the demise of the Gunners has been greatly exaggerated. All commanders that have ignored artillery from early times to the present has done so at hid own peril. This has been proved over and over again. The majority of casualties in modern warfare (1900 and up) has been caused by indirect fire. We fight an all arms battle. Leave one price out and the team becomes unbalanced. This is just as valid today as 10,15,50 yrs ago.

  Second of all, the weapon of the Artillery is the projectile; everything else is the means to deliver it. In mountainous terrain, towed and mortars would be preferable. In open country or in support of armored forces, SP would be the way to go.

Question for you. What is the minimum safe distance for a B52 air strike?   It measured in miles not meters. At Khe Shan, the B52 strikes were interdiction. The Marines had 105s for intimate support. Artillery, whether on the defense or offense, can bring rounds accurately within 100-200m. This means when attacking, the artillery can suppress the objective up to within minutes of the supported arms arriving at it. Air power does not have the flexibility or finesse to do this. And this can be done at night and all types of weather. Once a F16 drops it load it must go home. The artillery provides intimate, 24 hr, all weather support something air power can not do even if it wanted to.

     Logistic Tail â “ Are you really saying that we have such a heavy logistical tail that we can't compete against airpower? Planes no longer land at grass strips and have 1 or two maintainers.   What is entailed with just having one squadron of F16 in theater?. It would be safe to say in the hundreds. And then you add all the spare parts, fuel. and munitions. And this doesn't touch the rations and quarters issue. Artillery is organic to its supported unit and is shipped as part of the unit.   Also by your logic, airfields must be captured. Who's going to capture it. I'll tell you â “ the combat arms team. And if the country is flat enough to have airfields, then its flat enough to deploy SP arty. If its not flat enough, then airpower will have to deploy outside theatre â “ how close support is that. But the guns will always be there in support.

The weight of the gun is not only for recoil, but to make the gun robust, and with stand the enormous firing pressures. A lot of the weight is also in the chamber and barrel.

As to air superiority, if there isn't any, then air powers main goal is to achiever it first. Must ground forces wait, for air power to finish the job before it can get on with its job, or do they have to wait for the vaunted Air Force to finish?   And lastly, although difficult to do, it can be done, a muti-million dollar aircraft can be brought down by a few dollars worth of lead, a 105mm projectile in the air cannot.

By continuing on with your logic, we won't need Armour either, or Infantry, because air power will destroy what needs to be leaving no reason to occupy the smoking ruins.

And it won't be the morning after St Barbara's but probaly the next day. Fire Missions hurt the head too much...:blotto:  another reason to leave the mortars with the Infanrty, but thats another topic.
 
Just my opinion, but I would contend that UAV's make artillery more important as opposed to less important.

Specifically, SPA can act as the proxy ammunition for UAV's giving the UAV's better range and loiter capability.

Operational Model:
1)   Ground Forces with Control Station(s)
2)   Global Hawk with synthetic aperature radar (can see through clouds giving 24/7 coverage)
3)   MLRS/155mm/105mm GPS-based munitions

In essence, you create a protective shield around your troops that is only limited by the range of your artillery.

Of note, although I like the Denel/LAV-III system in one of the other threads due to its mobiity, I would still
prefer to buy M270's due to the longer range and upside of ATACMS submunitions.



Matthew.    :salute:
 
Isn't the MRLS/GMRLS/ATACMS system more of a complementary asset to backstop systems like 105mm/155mm SPHs rather than a replacement for them?

 
Kirkhill said:
Isn't the MRLS/GMRLS/ATACMS system more of a complementary asset to backstop systems like 105mm/155mm SPHs rather than a replacement for them?

Yes....and after re-reading my post, I worded it badly...

It would have been better if it had read: "Although I like the Denel/LAV-III system in one of the other threads due to its
mobiity, I would still prefer to buy additional M270's due to their longer range and upside of ATACMS submunitions."

In order of priority I think you have to buy the Denel's first, with M270's to follow if you can afford to expand your capability.



Matthew.   ;)
 
Back
Top