Australia Future Frigate Decision - Ships Nostalgia
19:59

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Australia Future Frigate Decision

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 29th June 2018, 01:46
ThomasJohn ThomasJohn is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Navies
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1969 - 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,230
Australia Future Frigate Decision

BAE have been selected with their Type 26 frigate design for the replacement of the RAN ANZAC class frigates. To be known as the ‘Hunter’ class, nine will be built in South Australia. For once the bean counters did not select the cheapest option but one that suits the RAN needs. I can hardly believe it !!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29th June 2018, 06:24
spongebob's Avatar
spongebob spongebob is offline
Spongebob
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1957 - 1961
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,764
At last they have had the sense to select an established design instead of trying to re invent the wheel as oft in the past. There must be huge economies in some degree of standardisation.
Will they select British design submarines ?

Bob
__________________
spongebob,
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29th June 2018, 07:09
Engine Serang Engine Serang is online now  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,840
Bob, in what way is the Type 26 an established design?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29th June 2018, 07:20
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Not an expert on this, but having a working life in marine industry of 60 years, it could be loosely described as an established design even if it is only in the building stage, let alone commissioned. Design stage for frigate type vessels is normally 7 - 10 years from concept to commission. But as always stand to be corrected
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29th June 2018, 07:35
spongebob's Avatar
spongebob spongebob is offline
Spongebob
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1957 - 1961
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine Serang View Post
Bob, in what way is the Type 26 an established design?

I didn't know that the Hunter design was untried.
If the British designers have persuaded the Australians to be a guinea pig they have been very clever.
Watch the developments.

Bob
__________________
spongebob,
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29th June 2018, 08:47
Dickyboy's Avatar
Dickyboy Dickyboy is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1964 - 2009
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 8,462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate
__________________
Good advice is usually ignored, but that's no reason for not giving it. Miss Marple.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29th June 2018, 10:58
ThomasJohn ThomasJohn is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Navies
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1969 - 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,230
Selecting the BAE design is the riskiest option as none are afloat with two currently in build in the UK. The other two options (Spanish and Italian) have ships afloat, both having visited Australia recently to push their case. I think the ASW capabilities the Type 26 promises and being more modern (although unproven) got them over the line. I believe the last British warships the RAN have sourced from the UK (built or designed) were the Type 12 frigates and/or the Oberon class submarines. Since then there has been American destroyers and frigates, a French AOR, Italian minehunters, Swedish submarines, German frigates and Spanish LPDs and destroyers. I for one am glad they picked the Type 26 Global Combat Frigate.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29th June 2018, 14:51
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Well all I can say is well done BAE and well done Australia. It looks like the decision has been made on technical merit rather than political shinnanegans. Both Navies have a long standing history of co-operation and the decision will not have been taken likely. And we may have ever closer ties again after 29th March 2019 or at least may be on the road towards mutual benefits in other fields
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29th June 2018, 16:42
oilkinger oilkinger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 255
Oh no ! ASC Shipbuilding in Adelaide will be building these new frigates. By now ASC must be viewed as pretty inept when it comes to warship construction. They're the turkeys who constructed our Collins Class submarines and what a fiasco that project was. $billions over budget and massively overdue ( years ) on completion date. So who did we then get to build our Hobart Class air warfare destroyers ? The same company of course because down here in Oz we are extremely slow learners. And they are over budget and significantly overdue. So to give the same outfit the new frigate job borders on imbecility. From the work history of ASC I can accurately predict the outcome of this new project - well over budget and well overdue.
Other warship building countries, with the possible exception of the UK, knock out these new frigates and destroyers in 18-24 months. Our make time is double that. Our American friends knock out an aircraft carrier in just over the time it takes us to complete a destroyer.
A previous Defense Minister here once said he wouldn't get ASC to build anything more sophisticated than canoes ( or words to that effect )
He was telling the truth for which his political career nosedived.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29th June 2018, 19:50
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
#9 Oh! Dear! always look on the bright side of life! Now who said that!

Don't worry by the time they start building the Chinese will own the yards and they'll be pushing them out in 12 months
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29th June 2018, 22:58
holland25 holland25 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1956 - 1970
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,046
Using ASC keeps Christopher Pyne onside.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30th June 2018, 02:34
tugger tugger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 163
First ship around 2027, probably the same time we will be getting the Planes that the yanks started building ten years ago, by that time as someone said, China will own the yards, and Tumbrel will have retired to his Republican ranch living bucshees.
Tugger
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 30th June 2018, 02:54
YM-Mundrabilla's Avatar
YM-Mundrabilla YM-Mundrabilla is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by holland25 View Post
Using ASC keeps Christopher Pyne onside.
Keeps Pyne in a job (perhaps).
Don't worry we will make a balls of it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 30th June 2018, 06:08
ThomasJohn ThomasJohn is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Navies
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1969 - 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,230
Great to hear all the ‘positive’ comments. During this project, ASC will become a subsidiary of BAE, so perhaps BAE will wield the big stick to keep things on track.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 30th June 2018, 08:19
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Has anyone on here been an M O D Contractor, I have, it's not easy.
But first with respect to #9 which I tried to be light hearted with by #10 .

Italian and Spanish frigates etc, you get what you pay for, no deviations in contracted terms, delivery schedule 'possibly' kept to, but invariably not. End result pretty exterior vessel with outdated internals, requiring expensive retro fit and extensive down time at some future date.

American aircraft carriers built in time it takes UK to build destroyer, Hmmm! the latest US Aircraft carriers have been rejected by the US Navy after three sets of sea trials over two years as being unfit for service.

Hopefully I am not breaking any Official Secrets Act !! When taking an M O D contract you have to be financially viable or have undisputed access to various Bank facilities, as you will not get paid for a very, very long time, always months/years. Before being paid anything you will have to obtain anything from 3 - 10 signatures to say that the work has been completed, nobody wants to be the first to sign, when you get those signatures you submit to accounts again numerous signatures, again no one wants to be the first to sign, you can live with all that, as you have to build in those contingencies of Bank interest etc, if applicable.

What you cannot build in, is rapidly changing technology, when you start building you may have the latest updated weapon fit for purpose, but just when you've fitted it, along comes model 2, very advanced and will give an additional 10 years service, however it needs to be fitted in a different position, in compartment 'F' instead of 'B' this may involve cutting holes in a bulkhead or DB, easy enough, but wait, behind that bulkhead is a cable run of 10 cables or more to very expensive equipment which will have to be cut and rerouted, but cannot be rejointed, but has to go from junction to junction, but will be too short with the new installation, so we have 10 cables each about 20 -30 feet in length at possibly anything from £50 to £200 per foot each (you do the mathematics) have to be discarded and cannot be used again, as they have gone thro the system and are now considered second hand, which use is not permitted. These have to go back to the manufacturer as they are classified and cannot be scrapped, he has to dismantle them before scrapping, so their final construction cannot be ascertained by outside purposes, either for commercial or security reasons. The new equipment is usually duplicated in another part of the vessel on the opposite side for operational reasons, see the following:-.

Someone mentioned US destroyers being built in months, yes that is possible, but did anyone read the collision inquiries of the recent events off Japan and Singapore of US navy vessels, you don't need other navy vessels to disable their military function, just use a couple of MN bulkers to hit them on the starboard side for'd and you have disabled their weapons systems because they don't have a back-up system on the port side. That doesn't happen on RN or RAN vessels. Yes building times do over run, costs do increase, but upon entering service you will have a vessel that has the latest equipment available, hopefully with a crew to match.

I could write a book on the subject, but you're probably bored by now, but I have just described one small aspect of how extra time and expense is involved, multiply that by numerous divisions in a naval vessel, each wanting an update, and lets not forget the new 'Officer in Charge' who is not happy with the placing of a piece of equipment and wants it changed, sometimes simply because it looks better!, cost is immaterial!

How many of us as a lowly 3/m, J/E or Sparks have joined a ship and said 'What the hell did they put that there for' well it was just possibly someone's whim. Mind you they always put Sparky's switches just out of reach, just to give him some exercise
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 30th June 2018, 12:39
BobClay's Avatar
BobClay BobClay is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1965 - 1986
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
My location
Posts: 5,250
I can't deny reading that had me thinking about the ergonomics of some installations I've sailed which must have been based on the fact that a disabled octopus was going to work it.
__________________
"Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense."
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 30th June 2018, 18:20
oilkinger oilkinger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 255
Re seaman38 / post 15.
Re mods, updates etc during the build cycle. Yes - I agree with all the points you mention but as these blowouts in both budget & build time are well known, and have been for some time, why not just say at the commencement that the final cost, because of these variables, will be 50% plus more than originally budgeted for and double the projected build time.
This will overcome the need for the builders / politicians having to make all those disingenuous excuses as to why things aren't on track.
If I allocate $5 for cake ingredients and 1 hour baking time, only to find out that it cost $10 and 2 hours oven time, I factor that knowledge in for the next cake project.
Estimating is not rocket science as long as you have empirical data to make use of. And here in Oz there is no shortage of that. Starting with the Daring Class destroyers we built in the late 50's, followed by the Type 12 frigates, the shambolic Collins Class sub project and the, nearly as bad, Hobart Class destroyer project. The common thread here is ; that we are just no bloody good at warship building. We are good in many other things - my cakes for instance, and we should concentrate on them.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 30th June 2018, 21:14
Dickyboy's Avatar
Dickyboy Dickyboy is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1964 - 2009
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilkinger View Post
Re seaman38 / post 15.
Re mods, updates etc during the build cycle. Yes - I agree with all the points you mention but as these blowouts in both budget & build time are well known, and have been for some time, why not just say at the commencement that the final cost, because of these variables, will be 50% plus more than originally budgeted for and double the projected build time.
This will overcome the need for the builders / politicians having to make all those disingenuous excuses as to why things aren't on track.
If I allocate $5 for cake ingredients and 1 hour baking time, only to find out that it cost $10 and 2 hours oven time, I factor that knowledge in for the next cake project.
Estimating is not rocket science as long as you have empirical data to make use of. And here in Oz there is no shortage of that. Starting with the Daring Class destroyers we built in the late 50's, followed by the Type 12 frigates, the shambolic Collins Class sub project and the, nearly as bad, Hobart Class destroyer project. The common thread here is ; that we are just no bloody good at warship building. We are good in many other things - my cakes for instance, and we should concentrate on them.
Your class 4 Lamingtons are VERY good
__________________
Good advice is usually ignored, but that's no reason for not giving it. Miss Marple.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 1st July 2018, 00:19
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilkinger View Post
Re seaman38 / post 15.
Re mods, updates etc during the build cycle. Yes - I agree with all the points you mention but as these blowouts in both budget & build time are well known, and have been for some time, why not just say at the commencement that the final cost, because of these variables, will be 50% plus more than originally budgeted for and double the projected build time.
.
Well the simple answer is that you don't know what the variables will be, some of them will not have been invented at the time the specification was drawn up and submitted to the bidder. Each bidder is given a very detailed specification which they cannot deviate from and MUST bid on the specification as presented and delivery requirements, otherwise the end user has no comparison criteria. To put in the kind of contingency margin as indicated by you in the price submitted would not see your bid even reaching a final selection consideration.

All Tenders are sealed bids and are opened at the same time by a committee, there is a financial prime meridian criteria set by the customer for themselves, you don't know what it is, but if it is nowhere near their prime meridian plus or minus a certain percentage, known only to them then it goes straight into 'not for consideration' file.

Even after being accepted by the committee as meeting all required data, it then has to go to the financial department, who then make their own guesstimates for future inflation and variations in specifications where-in new equipment since submitting the tender has been introduced to the restricted market. This will then have to be submitted to a Government body to ensure it complies with all known security data and does not infringe any embargo limitations if purchasing items outside nominated countries.

Lots of equipment/vessels is/are built and delivered to contracted specifications, but where is the news in that. Delivery early also throws things out of kilter, we did our best to deliver to the agreed date and usually succeeded, we never finished late, if finishing earlier we advised them and then held it until required, otherwise it interfered with their planning and financial structure.

As mentioned earlier I said I could write a book about it, but have no intention of doing so

Alas, with all due respect, I find your analogy with baking a cake really is not worthy of comment and in all fairness I'm assuming it was a jocular comment , if it wasn't 'then we may have a problem Houston'
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 1st July 2018, 05:27
oilkinger oilkinger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 255
seaman38 / P19.
I do have some understanding on the complexities of warship construction but, from your in-depth replies, not quite as much as yourself. I spent many years in our navy followed by many years in private ind. engineering involved in tendering for new warship construction in Oz. The FFG's and Meko's built in Williamstown.
Yes - there is seemingly a surfeit of new inventions in military technology popping over the horizon, almost on a monthly basis. Some rendering their predecessor almost obsolete. But for how long do you delay completion in trying to incorporate the latest whizz-bang and its associated price escalation ?
I'm sure other countries wrestle with this. The fact remains that when comparing like construction with like, and using comparable countries, our track record is dismal. The Rand Corp did 2 reports for our gov. on the pros & cons of local build versus foreign build which, among many other issues, mentions the higher costs and longer lead times of building in Oz. Very interesting reads if there's no footy to watch on TV. Hundreds of pages.
My cake was a sponge. Both it and people rise.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 1st July 2018, 07:24
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Thanks for #20 , my apologies if you thought I was trying to teach you to suck eggs, you seem to have/had a longer time with officialdom than myself; I was just trying to explain my own experiences with the system and for those who may not know why delays and over runs are incurred.

I found the whole experience very wearing, especially as it was my money going down the drain, not that I didn't get paid, I did, but the time spent on a project because of alterations affected your own productivity, wasted your own and employees time and effort, which could have been better spent in the commercial world and quicker returns, with customers who required something for relative immediate use. In the end I gave up tendering for any M O D or Govt contracts as I could live without the 'prestige' of being a Govt Contractor.

I don't blame the boys who have to use the end product, in their shoes I would want the latest.

All I would say is be glad that the vessels required for Australia, are being built in Australia, will feed Australian families and sub contractors will also benefit. We had our new very expensive RFA vessels built in Korea when we had the capacity here to build them, and I can only assume that in the end that it didn't work out any cheaper because the bean counters hadn't taken into consideration all the variables of loss of business to the UK businesses, unemployment etc etc.

Cake sounds good, next time in Oz, save me a slice, but I may not have room after finishing the humble pie.

Weather here has been dry for days, we're marching today, so it's cloudy and overcast and looks like rain, wasn't you praying for rain was it it
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 7th July 2018, 01:08
littoralcombat littoralcombat is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Engineering
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 606
Seaman38 and Oilkinger........Thankyou!!!!!!!
Thankyou for such an interesting, relevant and informed exchange of experience and opinions. Your posts, whilst having differing views on a couple of points, have a credibility to them that is so, so often missing in many comments on many Forums regarding Defence equipment Procurement. Most people just do not really understand either the complexity of modern Naval platforms, or the Governmental red tape/paper trail that dogs the whole exercise from beginning to end.

Probably the best example of wasted money I have come across in my time working in Naval support is as follows:
During a maintenance period, a Ships tool kits were inspected, and amongst other items it was determined that a 6.5mm Drill bit was missing and required replacing. Now, this item would of cost you and I approximately A$1.50 if we bought it from the Supplier (not allowing for the fuel to drive to the Warehouse and of course our time to do get there and back, but you will get the point) but I estimate that if the whole paper trail and physical process were to be calculated precisely, then the actual cost to the Australian Taxpayer to replace that drill bit would of been close to A$350.00. I kid you not!

The first BAE/ASC built T26's will without doubt come in over-budget and late, that is almost a given, but it is also the right decision to build them here. Our timeframe demands it, and it is the only route to establishing a Sovereign Warship building capabilty that can then lead to export opportunities. At least the money will mostly be ploughed back into the Australian economy.
Regarding the T26 selection, I think it is absolutely the correct choice. The Fremm, whilst being a good design will be significantly dated overall when the first RAN vessel is expected to enter service. The Navantia, in common with the BAE, is not yet in service, the AWD design may look similar, but the ASW 'version' (very loose term) would likely differ significantly. Bear in mind that the old Aussie phrase of 'Made in China' has an equivalent in Europe.....'Made in Spain'. As has been mentioned, you get what you pay for and I believe that the RAN will feel the effects of this (if not already.....I went aboard HMAS Adelaide recently for a look around..........Hmmm!) as a result of its significant Spanish content.

The likelihood that the RN will be trialling HMS Glasgow well before the first Hunter is anywhere near hitting the water is a huge safety net, ensuring that they will ultimately be equipped with the best ASW vessel since the Type 23.
So, whilst a different thread, what are the odds that the RCN will follow suit?
Nige

Last edited by littoralcombat; 7th July 2018 at 01:13..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 7th July 2018, 02:25
tugger tugger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 163
One thing Oilkinger #17 we used to build some good Iron boats, that is until some W decided we didn't have to have a MN as we could rely on the Asians and we lost all the expertise.
Tugger
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 7th July 2018, 02:42
spongebob's Avatar
spongebob spongebob is offline
Spongebob
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1957 - 1961
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,764
Bear in mind that the old Aussie phrase of 'Made in China' has an equivalent in Europe.....'Made in Spain'. As has been mentioned, you get what you pay for and I believe that the RAN will feel the effects of this (if not already.....I went aboard HMAS Adelaide recently for a look around..........Hmmm!) as a result of its significant Spanish
Nige[/QUOTE]

Ah , that's why the soles fell off my relatively expensive Ecco Walker shoes that were made in Spain!

I have spent some time on the fringes of the beaurocracy of military supplies and have found that any project is fraught with division between Treasury officials and the hands on expertise .
All branches of the NZ armed forces have blight in their selection and purchasing backgrounds and I am sure that there will be many more.
The Navy alone has had a string of snafu events such as the Brook Marine Lowestoff built offshore patrol craft when the order specification was cut from twin 12 cylinder engines to 8 cylinders obstensibly because the Nigerian Navy had bought such and they were performing well .
But they overlooked the fact that the Nigerian Navy went to sea in a loin cloth and a cut lunch , comparatively speaking of course , whereas the Kiwi crew needed full wardrobes for coastal nights ashore, oversize refrigeration for the victualling supplies and cold beer, the rigid inflatable with its 120 HP Mercury outboard , extra tonnage of fresh water for daily showering to name a few trimmings .
The upshot was under powered , over loaded craft that could not get up on the plane . Never mind the fact that off shore African sea conditions did not compare with NZ s coastal waters.

Another faux pas was buying the second hand Spanish fruit carrier for conversion into a all purposes civil rescue type vessel and ignoring the fact that the vessel had to be fully laden to the marks to be at all stable. A quick resale solved that one.
Our Army have made many such blues , Mercedes Unimogs that were in the used car yards in unseemly time and others.
The Airforce have had a low re equipment profile since Helen Clark abolished the fighter arm but our long in the tooth Hercules transports and our off shore servailence Lockheed Orions are overdue for replacement
In this regard the new labour government has appointed an ex Army Officer as Minister of Defence and we await to see if his past criticisms in opposition are stood by.
It's hard to imagine a free flowing selection/build / commission / deploy path for any military equipment being a smooth one.

Bob
__________________
spongebob,
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 7th July 2018, 06:52
seaman38 seaman38 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob View Post
.

In this regard the new labour government has appointed an ex Army Officer as Minister of Defence and we await to see if his past criticisms in opposition are stood by.
It's hard to imagine a free flowing selection/build / commission / deploy path for any military equipment being a smooth one.

Bob
Lets hope he's not from the Catering Corp!

No disrespect to my catering shipmates, as never had a bad tabnab!, something that was always looked forward to, even on tramps. Only company (apart from coasting jaunts) I can recall where we never got tabnabs was Constants of Cardiff, protein was readily available as it walked to your plate
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S "Ghost ships" in the UK - decision imminent rushie News and Views from the Shipping World 10 9th October 2006 20:51
Decision looms for 3500 Scottish jobs rushie News and Views from the Shipping World 0 2nd October 2006 11:10
ferry of the future can outrun a frigate dom News and Views from the Shipping World 1 10th September 2006 12:10
UK Heritage Lottery Fund decision imminent on "Medway Queen" Paul Jordan Preserved Vessels & Restoration Projects 0 21st June 2006 12:03



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.