US launches new amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA 7), type Ameriza

65
The US Navy will soon be replenished with a new aircraft carrier. At the shipyard of the company Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula (Mississippi), the ceremony of launching the new amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA 7) of the type Amerissa passed, reports "Warspot" with a link to the portal navaltoday.com

Tripoli was laid in June 2014 of the year and is the second ship of the type Amerisa (the lead ship of the USS America LHA 6 was adopted in October 2014 of the year). In total, the US Navy plans to adopt 12 of such ships. Because of the considerable size of the USS Tripoli, its output from the dock took 19 hours. Now the ship is being completed afloat, this year it has to pass a series of factory tests, and by the end of 2018 of the year - to take up combat duty.


Launching the ship USS Tripoli


In terms of their displacement (45 700 t), Ameriza-type amphibious assault ships are comparable to light aircraft carriers. In addition, these ships are equipped with a long flight deck (257 m) and can carry fighters with a short takeoff and vertical landing (F-35B). The command of the US Marine Corps proposes that the Ministry of Defense officially re-qualify these ships into light aircraft carriers, but so far they are officially considered to be universal landing ships.

Ameriza-type amphibious assault ships are planned to be equipped with a flooded deck, which can carry amphibious boats and amphibious armored personnel carriers. In this case, the first two ships (USS Ameriza and USS Tripoli) are built according to the modified project and do not have a flooded deck. Instead, on each of these ships are equipped with additional hangar rooms and workshops.

Tripoli length is more than 257 m, displacement - 45 700 t. The crew has more than 1000 people, still about 2000 paratroopers can be placed in its internal compartments. The base wing of the ship consists of X-NUMX converters MV-12, 22 F-6B, 35 ΑH-4Z, 1 ΜΗ-4 helicopters, and 53 UΗ-3 helicopters. When using USS Tripoli as a light aircraft carrier, its air wing will consist of X-NUMX F-1B fighter jets.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    4 May 2017 12: 57
    But I have a question as an engineer - a defender. Why WE can’t launch such a dreadnought, the technologies seem to allow and money for all kinds of nonsense like the World Cup is found. WHAT IS THE MATTER?
    1. +20
      4 May 2017 13: 02
      Quote: Turgon
      WHAT IS THE MATTER?

      In political will. A decision will be made, there will be such ships. No decision will be made, there will be no ships.
      1. +9
        4 May 2017 13: 37
        Quote: professor
        Quote: Turgon
        WHAT IS THE MATTER?

        In political will. A decision will be made, there will be such ships. No decision will be made, there will be no ships.


        Do we have where to build such ships?

        Are large shipyards not 100% busy here? In Severodvinsk, nuclear submarines lay several pieces

        It seems that in due time the Nikolaev factory was used for large ships, now it is not

        Maybe with the introduction of the Big Stone, the situation will change

        And of course, the question is: where do we get these landing ships? Are we going to fight somewhere?
        Destroyers, frigates - of course, we need
        1. +4
          4 May 2017 13: 58
          these are hardly needed. but we have marines on every fleet. one of the objectives of the MP - the capture of bridgeheads on the shores of the enemy. then they need to land with something. which means that similar ships are needed that can deliver infantry to the shore. there will be ships - there are tasks
        2. +2
          4 May 2017 14: 42
          You make the right questions and conclusions.
        3. +5
          4 May 2017 14: 44
          Quote: bulvas
          Do we have where to build such ships?

          Of course have. In the same Kerch. It would be a desire.
          1. 0
            4 May 2017 15: 32
            Quote: professor
            Of course have. In the same Kerch. It would be a desire.

            And many large ships built in Kerch? Not civilian ships, but warships?
            EMNIP, Kerch in Soviet times built various versions of the TFR / PSKR 1135 for the Navy. And then there were 23 years of Ukrainian ownership. EMNIP, now at the Gulf train on cats - start with the construction of the MRK.
            1. +1
              4 May 2017 16: 59
              Quote: professor
              Quote: bulvas
              Do we have where to build such ships?

              Of course have. In the same Kerch. It would be a desire.


              So big, they didn’t build there, as far as I remember, maybe I'm mistaken
              But now there, in any case, the plant is not at that level

              Here in Kamen, in the Far East, it’s seriously undergoing construction, and machinery and equipment are being imported just for the largest ships
              1. 0
                5 May 2017 17: 08
                Quote: bulvas
                Quote: professor
                Quote: bulvas
                Do we have where to build such ships?

                Of course have. In the same Kerch. It would be a desire.

                So big, they didn’t build there, as far as I remember, maybe I'm mistaken
                But now there, in any case, the plant is not at that level
                Here in Kamen, in the Far East, it’s seriously undergoing construction, and machinery and equipment are being imported just for the largest ships

                I completely agree with you, all aircraft carriers of the USSR were built in Nikolaev (now it is in Ukraine), and all BDKs were built in Poland and East Germany (in NATO) ...
                Such large docks can only be in the North, but they are busy building SSBNs / PLA. Shipyards (both civilian and military) should be built in the Far East, this is a region of promising development (it is necessary to start with military courts, because competitors in civil shipbuilding there is more than enough - China, South Caucasus, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, etc.) ....
            2. +2
              4 May 2017 18: 48
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And many large ships built in Kerch? Not civilian ships, but warships?

              Tell me how to shipbuilder shipbuilder what is the fundamental difference in the construction of such a large trough and supertanker.

              Quote: bulvas
              But now there, in any case, the plant is not at that level

              The level is quite enough. In Kerch engaged and will be engaged in the assembly. a plant in Kerch can be called a stretch plant. This is a typical shipyard. They could assemble both a tanker and an aircraft carrier. You will be surprised, but there are no fundamental differences.

              Quote: bulvas
              Here in Kamen, in the Far East, it’s seriously undergoing construction, and machinery and equipment are being imported just for the largest ships

              Where is it imported from? Such equipment, even in Soviet times, was made only by the bourgeoisie. The same Ulyanovsk was made on Finnish, Japanese, Spanish and German equipment.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. 0
                  4 May 2017 19: 46
                  Quote from rudolf
                  China has now been added to the bourgeoisie. It is with the help of his portal Goliaths at Scottish shipyards that British aircraft carriers are mastering.

                  Not added. China itself is building its ships on bourgeois equipment.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. 0
                      4 May 2017 20: 13
                      Quote from rudolf
                      Gantry cranes do not belong to such equipment?

                      No, I do not. 900 tons. Gantry cranes were purchased from Finland, but they are not critical for the assembly of such ships.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
              2. +2
                4 May 2017 20: 28
                Quote: professor
                Tell me how to shipbuilder shipbuilder what is the fundamental difference in the construction of such a large trough and supertanker.

                Professor! What the fuck are you * ship *? stop
                Would a real SHIPBOAT turn its tongue into calling a warship "THE ROOT"!? am
                You are not a shipman, maybe so, somewhere "stood by" ... sad
                1. +1
                  4 May 2017 20: 48
                  Quote: BoA KAA
                  Quote: professor
                  Tell me how to shipbuilder shipbuilder what is the fundamental difference in the construction of such a large trough and supertanker.

                  Professor! What the fuck are you * ship *? stop
                  Would a real SHIPBOAT turn its tongue into calling a warship "THE ROOT"!? am
                  You are not a shipman, maybe so, somewhere "stood by" ... sad

                  My humble personality will be left alone.
                  And the trough is the trough. Battleship Iowa is a warship. Cruiser Peter The first warship, and this is the trough for the transport of passengers and equipment. From its armament practically nothing: four short-range air defense systems, two 20-mm gun mounts and (ATTENTION !!!) seven coaxial 12.7 mm machine guns.
                  To build such a "warship" in Kerch will not be any difficulty.
                  1. +2
                    4 May 2017 20: 54
                    Quote: professor
                    And the trough is the trough. The battleship Iowa is a warship, and this is the trough for transporting passengers and equipment. Of its weapons, almost nothing ...

                    Professor! That you are a great sophist - I know.
                    Only, crafty you are my opponent, why do you take the aircraft of this trough out of brackets !?
                    So it turns out that the AVU will need to be considered a "trough", with your sly approach!
                    Nah ... Let's get 22 F-35B back to him and talk about the combat capabilities of such a "trough"! Yes
                    1. +1
                      4 May 2017 21: 06
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Professor! That you are a great sophist - I know.

                      I asked not to touch my humble personality. I don’t touch you.

                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Only, crafty you are my opponent, why do you take the aircraft of this trough out of brackets !?
                      So it turns out that the AVU will need to be considered a "trough", with your sly approach!

                      Do you speak aviation? Then here is another one warship "build which is not within the power of Russia."

                      Or maybe the trough? wink

                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Nah ... Let's get 22 F-35B back to him and talk about the combat capabilities of such a "trough"!

                      We can put these planes on the trough in the photo. Is not it? wink
                      1. +1
                        4 May 2017 21: 34
                        Quote: professor
                        Or maybe the trough?

                        Professor! Atlantic Conveyor is a container ship converted for 10 days under an “air carrier”. But even he is not a trough, but a civilian vessel requisitioned for the needs of the fleet.
                        And the UDC of the America type is a universal BATTLE ship, specialized for the long-distance delivery of 2000 marines with weapons and equipment and capable of making an over-the-horizon landing force with their own forces and providing airborne assault in battle for landing and ashore. Believe me: TROP is not within the power!
                        Ага.
                        PS Dear colleague, I believe that we know each other well, so that in the future, remaining each with our own opinion, to crush the water in a mortar ...
                        For sim, take my leave. hi
          2. 0
            5 May 2017 12: 13
            If the Russian Federation orders four such ships in the USA, the Americans will figure out how to get around the sanctions. They will be issued as a bulk carrier or grain carrier. Sincerely.
        4. +1
          4 May 2017 19: 24
          Quote: bulvas
          where do these landing ships come to us? Are we going to fight somewhere?
          According to TTX, they are not much different from 1143.1-2. It remains to equip them with the necessary aircraft and you can protect the Kuril Islands. So, everything will fit in the household.
          1. 0
            4 May 2017 23: 59
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            So, everything will fit in the household.


            I don’t argue, it’s still good for me!

            As soon as possible, we must build,

            but while boats and frigates are needed
          2. 0
            5 May 2017 22: 49
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Quote: bulvas
            where do these landing ships come to us? Are we going to fight somewhere?
            According to TTX, they are not much different from 1143.1-2. It remains to equip them with the necessary aircraft and you can protect the Kuril Islands. So, everything will fit in the household.

            I wasn’t a carabel, but something seems to me that it is better to protect the Kuril Islands with SCRC and PLO airplanes / helicopters ... net?
        5. 0
          5 May 2017 14: 02
          And of course, the question is: where do we get these landing ships? Are we going to fight somewhere?
          Destroyers, frigates - of course, we need

          Exactly!
    2. +9
      4 May 2017 13: 04
      Quote: Turgon
      WHAT IS THE MATTER?

      American financiers - create jobs,
      ours - target inflation.
    3. +15
      4 May 2017 13: 06
      the fact of the matter is that for our balabol with big shovels and posts, it’s easier to dig in the grandmother for an unnecessary show-off guano like all these championships, and not for a serious production cycle, which will not immediately produce results, but the country needs it (this applies not only to the military-industrial complex) , yes, real specialists in many places were replaced by "theirs on the board" guys who are "theirs", but in reality the country and people use them like a goat's milk.
    4. +5
      4 May 2017 13: 27
      Quote: Turgon
      and money for all kinds of nonsense like the World Cup

      you yourself write nonsense .... World Cup is the development of football and sports in our country !!! less in computers sit more to drive the ball! + infrastructure is developing in parallel, and this is the economy !!
      1. +12
        4 May 2017 13: 51
        Quote: Burbon
        you yourself write nonsense .... World Cup is the development of football and sports in our country !!! less in computers sit more to drive the ball! + infrastructure is developing in parallel, and this is the economy !!

        The development of professional sports, and not mass sports - with doping, space salaries and other amenities ...
      2. +9
        4 May 2017 14: 11
        Quote: Burbon
        you yourself write nonsense .... World Cup is the development of football and sports in our country !!! less in computers sit more to drive the ball! + infrastructure is developing in parallel, and this is the economy !!

        At my extreme posts at the VO, it was believed that only Russia, to the detriment of the development of the Armed Forces, holds championships and olympiads ... request In America, they haven’t heard about football at all, that’s why the aircraft carriers are riveting from nothing ... if there weren’t going to football ... wink
        1. +1
          4 May 2017 14: 28
          Quote: NIKNN
          In America they haven’t heard about football at all

          wassat fool they go crazy with amerofootball + the European one is developing rapidly, but talking about hockey or baseball is even inconvenient!
      3. +12
        4 May 2017 14: 17
        The development of football and sports in the country is facilitated by the construction of sports facilities of mass access in our cities and towns, and not by holding a monthly event lasting a month and unstoppable investment, where not everyone can afford to buy a ticket.
      4. 0
        5 May 2017 14: 05
        Easy fallacy is this. Nothing develops with these facilities, both mass sport and practical economics.
        1. +1
          5 May 2017 22: 38
          Quote: NordUral
          Easy fallacy is this. Nothing develops with these facilities, both mass sport and practical economics.

          fool but in fact have something to say? or for the sake of a bunch and a plus sign?
    5. +4
      4 May 2017 13: 30
      Quote: Turgon
      But I have a question as an engineer - a defender. Why WE can’t launch such a dreadnought, the technologies seem to allow and money for all kinds of nonsense like the World Cup is found. WHAT IS THE MATTER?


      I think that everything is simple. The USA is traditionally a sea power and a fleet for her is a fundamental issue. Our situation is the opposite. We are a classic land power and the fleet we have never been the main, although if you recall Nicholas II, the fleet was put in first place and flooded with such money that it was not dreamed of, but there was no sense. As a result, they lost the First World War, and the revolutionary sailors took it from idleness, because many ships turned out unsuccessful and stood at home ports, but this is a different story.

      Such ships will be too expensive for us and too useless.

      So here. Russia does not need to have such ships. Maybe it’s advisable to build one another for tactical moments, but in practice - there is no need.

      Are we really going to “carry democracy” to all corners of the globe ??? Or maybe our existence depends on the fleet ??? No. That naval concept that is now is enough. And there is no place for such ships in it.
      1. +12
        4 May 2017 14: 05
        Quote: Orel
        We are a classic land power
        Russia, having the largest coastline in the world, already by definition cannot be only a "land power". "Land", it’s in the brain, not for that Peter cut himself off to the seas, so now again to justify everything by land “Muscovy”. Not to use all the possibilities of the sea, both in economics and in politics, is not only stupid, but also criminal. To own the seas, to use their capabilities, this, of course, is not the “menagers” and the State Department henpeckers in politics must be, this is the problem, and not the “land” of Russia.
        1. 0
          4 May 2017 14: 56
          Quote: Per se.
          Russia, having the largest coastline in the world


          If you fear the attack of polar bears in the north of Russia, then you are right)))
        2. 0
          4 May 2017 14: 59
          Quote: Per se.
          "Land", it’s in the brain, not for that Peter cut himself off to the seas, so now again to justify everything by land “Muscovy”.


          Nicholas II also thought when he put up fabulous money in the fleet before the First World War and, as a result, the collapse of the civil war. The fate of Russia at sea will never be decided. And both world wars proved it.
      2. +2
        4 May 2017 20: 10
        [quote = Orel] Russia does not need to have such ships. Maybe it’s advisable to build one another for tactical moments, but in practice - there is no need. [/, quote]
        - Peter I, IV Stalin thought differently ... But they * probably knew better from the Bugr ...
        - The depth of your strategic plan about 1-2 ships shows theory and practice to meet the enemy not at long distances, in the open sea, but near the walls of the Kremlin.
        And now the Yankees encircle the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China with a marine missile defense belt on EM and the Kyrgyz Republic, and you should warm yourself on a bench by the stove ... And who will Berki and Ticonderoga get out of the way of our ICBMs? Tanks? Ah, a strategist-strategist ... If only I read some books or something ... Why am I doing this? Yes, even to this heresy:
        [quote = Orel] Or maybe our existence depends on the fleet ??? Not. That naval concept that is now is enough. And there is no place for such ships in it.[/ Quote]
        1. The states are very “hesitant” to apply MSU until they trace and establish contact with 80-90% of our rkkSN and SSBNs with CRBD. It turns out that it depends ...
        2. About the "naval concept" of the present, seit so gut! tell ... And then there is no one to us orphaned and wretched, except for you heart, to enlighten ...
        3. If, in your opinion, in the new (?) * Naval concept * (!?) There is no place for "such" ships, then with what fright their design is carried out for official money? This is a direct squandering of folk remedies! 4. And this incomprehensible "rearmament and modernization" of 1164, 1143.5, 1144? How then to understand this ???
        I would like to hear the opinion of a professional of such a level of strategic thinking as you have on my modest objections across your competent judgment hi
        1. 0
          5 May 2017 07: 07
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          - Peter I, IV Stalin thought differently ... But they * probably knew better from the Bugr ...
          - The depth of your strategic plan for 1-2 ships is shown by the theory and practice of meeting the enemy not at long distances, in the open sea, but near the walls of the Kremlin.


          The fleet cannot capture Russia. About this, by the way, the generals Nicholas II repeatedly said that the future wars would be fateful for Russia not on the sea, but on land, which ultimately happened. Nikolai did not listen, and instead of strengthening the army, he invested a lot of money in the fleet. I wanted, like England, to consider, by analogy, how the US is hanging out today. What is the result ??? The fleet was practically not useful to us in the First World War, but the ground army without cartridges and shells remained and scattered safely. Do you offer to invest everything in the fleet ??? Fine, but what will we fight off on the earth ??? Or do you sincerely believe that we will pull the fleet with the United States on parity with the United States and at the same time the ground forces. You are a naive and blinded by patriotism person. You do not know how to count. Only slogans to make everyone stronger and bigger. We must measure our capabilities with our desires.
        2. 0
          5 May 2017 07: 10
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          2. About the "naval concept" of the present, seit so gut! tell ... And then there is no one to us orphaned and wretched, except for you heart, to enlighten ...


          Simple she is. And since the Soviet Union has not changed. The fleet is an auxiliary branch of the armed forces and is designed to cover coastal areas and strategic nuclear submarine deployment areas. All. His tasks are limited to this and this is correct, reasonable.
        3. 0
          5 May 2017 07: 14
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          3. If, in your opinion, in the new (?) * Naval concept * (!?) There is no place for "such" ships, then with what fright their design is carried out for official money? This is a direct squandering of folk remedies! 4. And this incomprehensible "rearmament and modernization" of 1164, 1143.5, 1144? How then to understand this ???


          We will not have any super-carriers in our fleet. You can forget about the Storm. There have already been reports on this topic. Destroyers will update the wrong, but again not now, and the ships will be more modest than conceived "Leaders". The reason is simple, expensive and not at all. We are not going to land in the USA, and for the defense of the coastal zone of the Russian Federation, there is enough of that. You can defend the coast with coastal complexes and land-based aircraft. It is absolutely justified. Therefore, we don’t need to drag us into the same pit that we found ourselves in thanks to Nicholas II, who walked in a naval uniform and therefore the Navy idolized our misfortune and left the army without cartridges and shells, but with battleships that nobody needed.
          1. 0
            5 May 2017 11: 06
            We will not have any super-carriers in our fleet. You can forget about the "Storm"


            In my opinion, this has long become clear.

            Destroyers will update the wrong, but again not now, and the ships will be more modest than conceived "Leaders"


            Initially, they were too large, and if destroyers were built, then the size and displacement of no more than Atlantes

            We are not going to land in the USA, and for the defense of the coastal zone of the Russian Federation, there is enough of that. You can defend the coast with coastal complexes and land-based aircraft.


            Oh?
            According to this logic, during the Second World War, Soviet troops had to reach the border of the USSR and stop, and sit on the defensive. The country is liberated, the enemy is driven back, then not our territory.
            But no, we went to Berlin, because the war, sitting on the defensive, could not be won.

            And most importantly, what does the USA have to do with it? Besides them there is nowhere else to fight?

            If you already decided to restore the Mediterranean squadron, then such boats will be very useful there.
    6. +8
      4 May 2017 13: 36
      Our government builds the economy on foreign investments, there is no foreign
      dough - no jobs, no jobs. What is the Guarantor, such is the economy.
      In the country - NOTHING other than physical education events and the costs of their implementation
      DOES NOT HAPPEN, the main thing is to keep Erdogan in friends ....
    7. +3
      4 May 2017 13: 55
      multipurpose ship - even a light aircraft carrier, even a large landing ship
      1. +1
        4 May 2017 14: 08
        Quote: Rich
        multipurpose ship - even a light aircraft carrier, even a large landing ship

        A specialist in everything, a specialist in nothing.
        1. +2
          4 May 2017 14: 16
          When using the USS Tripoli as a light aircraft carrier, its wing will consist of 22 F-35B fighters.

          In the presence of navigation, radar and electronic weapons - a finished aircraft carrier. Let not the leader of the AUG, but a good help
    8. +2
      4 May 2017 14: 54
      Quote: Turgon
      But I have a question as an engineer - a defender. Why WE can’t launch such a dreadnought, the technologies seem to allow and money for all kinds of nonsense like the World Cup is found. WHAT IS THE MATTER?

      It is likely that this UDC is comparable in displacement with the largest ship of the Russian Navy. Thus, which was built by the entire Union on the country's only "slipway 0".
      Well, we will build a building. Then what? Do we have a gas turbine engine for him? Do we have KVVP for him?
      And most importantly - do we have tasks for UDC and an escort for it? A normal escort, at least like the Chinese - and not our usual 1-2 EM or BOD, remembering the Marked one.
    9. +2
      4 May 2017 22: 56
      
      The pride of Vympel: the Rook was launched into the water. Work on the Rook with serial number 01221 began in March 2014. The design of the boat was prepared at the Vympel design bureau of the same name in Nizhny Novgorod.





      and we are not born. !!!
    10. 0
      5 May 2017 13: 19
      Quote: Turgon
      But I have a question as an engineer - a defender.

      We are not going to send our marines anywhere ... And let us come with pies and cakes for our meeting if they don’t get stuck in the coastal clay ...
  2. +2
    4 May 2017 12: 58
    They know how to build. We have something to strive for.
    1. 0
      5 May 2017 13: 24
      Quote: barclay
      They know how to build. We have something to strive for.

      In the sense? Do you want the ruble to become a reserve currency? And in the State Duma and the government the same "smarties" as in Congress and the State Department ...
  3. +5
    4 May 2017 13: 02
    ship name symbolic tripoli.
    1. +8
      4 May 2017 13: 20
      so near, if they called him Muammor, it would be more symbolic))
  4. +1
    4 May 2017 14: 58
    Ours as before Beijing ...
    1. 0
      4 May 2017 16: 32
      Ours and to Beijing and to Washington.
      1. +2
        4 May 2017 22: 57
        so far only in language and dreams.
  5. +9
    4 May 2017 15: 06
    They remove mass of equipment from storage and stamp delivery vehicles. War to be?
    1. +3
      4 May 2017 20: 22
      Quote: Doliva63
      War to be?

      You are right, there is material preparation ...
      But the people are not psychologically prepared for the hot phase of the war yet ... Now, when the Sabbath will develop like the dill / fascist one in the States, then get the * kulemet * and take a position in the nearest trench ...
  6. +1
    4 May 2017 15: 12
    Now the ships will be called the cities that they destroyed?
  7. +1
    4 May 2017 16: 29
    Up cynicism was the so-called Tripoli ship. At first, they destroyed this country (Libya), then they named their landing ship in honor of its capital ...
  8. +1
    5 May 2017 10: 08
    Yes, let the grandmothers saw, we do not need these, we are not a sea power, we need more BDK or MDK ...
    then it’s not even 100 miles to the shore for landing, aunt .. some zircon ..
  9. +2
    5 May 2017 10: 15
    Let’s drown ... ... la. They lowered ... Spiz ....... whether in Libya, Iraq, Vietnam .........
    Thieves, bandits and killers. Hell just misses them.
  10. +1
    5 May 2017 10: 48
    Well cho, a good floating target for our Caliber or hypersonic missiles. These landing ships will scare developing countries, provoking them into a coalition with Russia. That's good, here and let them loot their loot into useless equipment. It won’t bring them prestige.
  11. 0
    6 May 2017 18: 34
    bad news