User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:21:05 PM EDT
[#1]
LINK LINK2 We covered it thoroughly in GD when it was new. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:21:20 PM EDT
[#2]
That pic looks like an old Valkrie bomber to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:23:46 PM EDT
[#3]
No it doesn't have to be fully human. It just has to evaluate input and decide the most appropriate course of action.
Whatever. Obviously you know all about drone AI. Oh wait, you didn't even know they could respond to new threats and plan their own missions, with operator approval. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:25:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Very, very interesting. The reuse of XB-70 parts to build a carrier aircraft seems to have been the key step. Once you have that it's plausible that you could hide the construction of the orbiter/space plane in other budgets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:25:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Block 4 software tests... ST. LOUIS, May 18, 2005 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] began testing its fourth block of software for the X-45A unmanned aircraft during a flight May 13 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Following a series of successful ground and taxi tests in April and early May, the Boeing Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems' (J-UCAS) X-45A completed its 51st flight demonstrating that the basic command and control and flight functionality shown in the previous software block worked properly with the new software. This was the first test of the Block 4 software with the aircraft flying to approximately 15,000 feet at 0.40 Mach. The software used and tested on the X-45A may be offered as a candidate for functionality in the development of the J-UCAS Common Operating System. "Our new block of X-45A software will demonstrate the system's ability to attack targets and autonomously react to dynamic changes in the threat environment," said David Koopersmith, Boeing J-UCAS X-45 vice president and program manager. "Block 4 will take our onboard planning and decision capability to a higher level and prepare us for the shift to the X-45Cs operational assessment by the U.S. Air Force and Navy." The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight-testing scheduled to begin in early 2007. It will be 39 feet long with a 49-foot wingspan, cruise at 0.80 Mach at an altitude of 40,000 feet, carry a 4,500 pound weapon payload, and be able to fly a combat radius of more than 1,200 nautical miles. The J-UCAS X-45 program is a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/U.S. Air Force/U.S. Navy/Boeing effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Air Force and the Navy. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q2/nr_050518m.html |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:27:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Um, it doesnt say anywhere it planned its own attack or selected its own weapon.... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:30:29 PM EDT
[#7]
for the linkily challenged… dports link Boeing X-45A Unmanned Aircraft Demonstrates Autonomous Capability ST. LOUIS, June 24, 2005 -- A Boeing [NYSE: BA] X-45A unmanned aircraft completed its 52nd flight recently, demonstrating its ability to adapt to a realistic and changing wartime operational environment. During the test flight, a Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) X-45A departed from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., climbed to 29,000 ft. and entered the base's test range. While flying the mission, several simulated Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) emitters were activated and the unmanned aircraft autonomously created its own flight plan to remain out of lethal range of the simulated SAM sites. Always managed by the pilot-operator, the X-45A then attacked its simulated priority ground target and showcased the ability to suppress enemy air defenses. Once the aircraft had conducted a simulated battle damage assessment, the X-45A safely returned to Edwards. "The X-45A proved it could autonomously react to a dynamic threat environment while engaging a priority target," said David Koopersmith, Boeing J-UCAS X-45 vice president and program manager. "Onboard planning and decision capabilities like these will make our next unmanned system, the X-45C, a highly survivable platform for the warfighter." The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight-testing scheduled to begin in 2007. It will be 39 feet long with a 49-foot wingspan, cruise at 0.80 Mach at an altitude of 40,000 feet, carry a 4,500 pound weapon payload, and be able to fly a combat radius of more than 1,200 nautical miles. The software used and tested on the X-45A may be offered as a candidate for functionality in the development of the J-UCAS Common Operating System. Boeing began its unmanned combat aircraft program in 1998. The following year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force chose Boeing to build two X-45A air vehicles and a mission control station under the J-UCAS Advanced Technology Demonstration Program. Winner of a 2005 Flight International Aerospace Industry Award, the J-UCAS X-45 program is a Boeing/DARPA/Air Force/Navy effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Air Force and the Navy. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $30.5 billion business. It provides network-centric system solutions to its global military, government, and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in sustainment solutions and launch services. and… Two Boeing X-45As Complete Graduation Combat Demonstration These images are available for editorial use by news media on: boeingmedia.com ST. LOUIS, Aug. 10, 2005 -- Two Boeing [NYSE: BA] Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) X-45A unmanned aircraft successfully completed a graduation exercise when they flew their most challenging simulated combat mission today at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. "We pushed the X-45As to their limits and they responded brilliantly," said Darryl Davis, Boeing Global Strike Solutions vice president. "This incredible X-45A program made aviation history and laid the foundation for our X-45C, which will become a critical weapon in our military's arsenal." For test flights 63 and 64, the X-45As departed from the base, climbed to altitude, and autonomously used their on-board decision-making software to determine the best route of flight within the "area of action" or AOA. The pilot on the ground approved the plan and the two unmanned vehicles entered the AOA, a 30 by 60 mile area within the test range, ready to perform a simulated Preemptive Destruction-Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission. The mission involved identifying, attacking and destroying pre-identified ground-based radars and associated missile launchers before they could be used to launch surface-to-air missiles. During the test flight, the X-45A unmanned aircraft faced a simulated "pop-up" threat, used evasive maneuvers to avoid it, and autonomously determined which vehicle held the optimum position, weapons and fuel to attack the higher priority simulated target. Once the pilot authorized the attack, the unmanned aircraft simulated dropping weapons on the target. After engaging and destroying a second simulated target, the two X-45As completed their mission and safely returned to Edwards. The next step for Boeing is to build and flight test three X-45C aircraft, two mission control elements, and integrate the J-UCAS Common Operating System (the software used and tested on the X-45A may be offered as a candidate for functionality in the development of the J-UCAS Common Operating System ). The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight test scheduled to begin in 2007. It will be 39 feet long with a 49-foot wingspan, cruise at 0.80 Mach at an altitude of 40,000 feet, carry a 4,500 pound weapon payload, and be able to fly a combat radius of more than 1,200 nautical miles. Winner of a 2005 Flight International Aerospace Industry Award, the J-UCAS X-45 program is a DARPA/U.S. Air Force/U.S. Navy/Boeing effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Navy and Air Force. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:34:44 PM EDT
[#8]
So it successfully executed a manuver when its RWR went off, and then went back to its work when the simulated moment passed. Its nice, but thats far away from what a manned fighter can do. Put the manager in the backseat of a two seat version of the Raptor, so he will be safe, then you would have a truly versitile and survivable system. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:37:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Screw this Manned vs Unmanned stuff. I wanna know about that fuel that was a toothpaste like boronated stuff.
That stuff might solve a lot of problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:43:46 PM EDT
[#10]
You are right of course, military autonous systems suck and cannot defeat a steely eyed pilot, and the miltary does not have a clue and is wasting gazillions of $$$$$ both sided of the pond on a joint UCAV project for their Air Force/Navy future attack capabilities. In December 2005, the UK MoD announced that the F-35 would be the last manned fighter that will enter UK service. The future is bright, and the future is unmanned. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:47:31 PM EDT
[#11]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:48:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Let's review. The drone responded to a changing environment. Avoided the threat. Between the two aircraft they determined which aircraft had the better position, which aircraft had the better weapon, and which one had the best fuel load to attack the target. Sent their plan to the operator, who approved the plan, they simulated the attack, attacked a second target, and conducted BDA. That's pretty damned close to what a human can do. In fact, if programmed correctly it can do the right thing ALL THE TIME. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:49:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Lets say you somehow manage to make a unmanned fighter that can defeat all manned fighters and not itself be a sentient being- which opens up a whole other can of worms.
What then becomes the target? Whats the point of smashing robots against each other? The human managers become the target. The only safe place for the managers is in the back seat of a fighter plane. Bunkers wont save you, we proved that already. How long will a 747 last with all those fighters around? You have to be mobile, you have to be able to shoot back. You have to be distributed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:53:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes its nice, its something that a computer could not do a few years ago. But it did not have to evade a human in another aircraft trying to kill it. As long as all you want to do is attack ground targets in a light or moderate air defense enviroment its going to work well. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:54:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Actually, you don't have to target humans. And you only attack humans if they are managed by humans. Which is exactly the opposite of what you assumed in your first sentence. The object would be the same as our use of air power right now. Target the enemy systematically. Destroy his ability to respond. Demonstrate you can do whatever you want whenever you want.
Again with the managers. In your world the JCS must be in the back seat of an SR-71.
You have to have what we have now, a good offense. New weapons do not change strategy or principles of warfare. They are merely new ways of executing them. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:54:52 PM EDT
[#16]
The Cheese Whiz (Phalanx Close In Weapons System) has been doing that for +20 years. The thing is "smart" enough to know which incoming missles are going to hit and which ones are misses - it engages the ones that it calculated are the most dangerous first and leaves the stray missiles alone. If it flys it dies. The MEZ and the FEZ have strict boundarys to keep the missile shooters from taking out our own CAP. MEZ - Missile engagement zone FEZ - Fighter engagement zone CAP - Combat air patrol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:55:24 PM EDT
[#17]
That's the thing, a true TSTO system would represent an amazing leap forward for aerospace technology, but some how every aeronautics thread on arfcom turns into manned vs unmanned or super bug worship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:55:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Frickin laser beams....no lag: www.signalogic.com/index.pl?page=optcomm |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:56:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Just because it did not, does not mean it could not. It could have just as easily received an airborne threat warning, and then either cued a weapon or radar to the bearing, acquired the target and launched a missile.
Actually, it would work better in a high threat environment. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:57:06 PM EDT
[#20]
PS: Rather than qouting 100 lines of text to add a handful at the bottom do you think you could cut out the parts that you're not commenting on and save us some scrolling? See my example above for a more polite method of posting.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:59:32 PM EDT
[#21]
CAP is now DCA. You could have a DEZ now. A drone engagement zone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:01:57 PM EDT
[#22]
think outside the box... 'you have to be mobile, you have to shoot back, you have to be distributed'? how bout you just need to be 5 to 20 years ahead of the competition? in the end thats the main game here. maybe that '747' is protected by a 'swarm' mabye instead of the 747 its a bunch of people in separarate stand-off planes, maybe their 1000 miles away protected by defense in depth.. finally.. while we are all arguing about drones and remote controlled vehicles, some guy somewhere is perfecting DNA specific targeting viruses with cold-like symptons whose only lasting effect is 90percent sterility in the targeted population...... game over in one generation... and we can blame it on the birds... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:08:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Boron has been kicked around as an idea for a fuel additive since the 50's and 60's, when so much pioneering work in aerospace was done. It's really remarkable, in retrospect, what the engineers of the era achieved, only a decade or two after prop-driven aircraft.
No idea what the boron is being added to. It would be wild if they were using hydrogen slush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:09:21 PM EDT
[#24]
You're taking a long term philosophical approach here. Cave-dwelling buttmonkeys are not going to be fielding UCAVs anytime soon. If and when they (or the Chinese) do, our side will have to come up with ways to fight them effectively. Nothing is ever static in the evolution of warfare. Besides, these droid armies will all be phased out as obsolete when our cloning facilities come on-line. Clones are far superior to droids. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:09:56 PM EDT
[#25]
I figured it was a given that all airborne command posts would have escorts. Be 5 to 20 years ahead of the competition- so the answer is to assume you will NEVER again face a technological equal? It cant be 1000 miles away. Satellite communications have too much lag. Even if they didnt, yeah a agressor could chose to have his command post 1000 miles away- what about the defender? THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Remember. The dogma of superior robotics is the box that must be broken. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:12:49 PM EDT
[#26]
No, the answer is that right now we don't, and if and when we do, we will have to adapt, improvise and overcome. But it's silly to make decisions based on the assumption that we WILL face a technological equal. That's Cold War thinking. We don't at the moment. We're the big dogs on this planet (Western civilization, that is) and in the short term the biggest enemy we face still rides a camel to work every morning. Plan accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:13:52 PM EDT
[#27]
There will be many conflicts against low tech, turd world types in the future. That is the future of conflict, in the short term.
After we get off-center and agressive, the concept of a thousand HK's going to a grid square and killing-them-all will be the norm against the turd world. Autonomous UAV's will work very well for this. Use anti-eye-ball lasers and munitions to make it happen. Autonomous UAV's don't get tired, bored, in fear and don't have pregnant or cheating spouses at home. When they are flying the box they are on the clock 100% of the time. The anti-turd-world future may not be with a few X-45's but rather with lots and lots of predators. Getting hungry muktur? Grap your AK 47 and ied and come outside to find some food. Lots of luck, muk, if Mr. Predator is on the case. iran may well be the test case. iraq has (had) about 20 runways of 9,000 ft or longer and about 30 of 6,000 ft or longer. Many of these were close to the iranian border. There is most definately a reason to be in iraq and that reason is NOT iraq. There will be a time when a turd world nuke or dirty device goes off in a western city. If it is a US city, then it will be "show time" in some shit-hole turd world 'nation'. Good night and bad luck ahmud. Buena vista, baybeee. It is not just a matter of airframes, sensors, avionics, 'physics packages' and pits. There is the biological aspect to consider. Trust in that future too. Well, that's how I see it, from here in the 'splash zone'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:16:10 PM EDT
[#28]
BTW, egineering geek-out on aerospike engines here:
www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/main.shtml Aerospike engines have advantages when vehicle altitude is varying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:19:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Aerospike engines are cool- for rockets. I cant wait to see what happens when they get ahold of some Carbon Nanotube composites to handle the issues with heat in the spike and fuel tank construction. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:22:28 PM EDT
[#30]
We heard about the F-117 to save preserve the USAF's share of the budget. Dropping bombs on Noriega?? That was all about proving relevance. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:23:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Also, one other thing I think you might be missing, conceptually.
Air wars are not about kill ratio and destroying aircraft. Air wars are about owning the sky so you can bomb the shit out of the ground to kill people and break things with reckless abandon. So what if waves of robots go against waves of robots? Whoever has the better robots will be able to bomb the shit out of the other guys. Since that'll be us with the better robots, Haji and Kim Jong Il are in trouble. We're lucky Japan is an ally, I wouldn't want to tangle with Voltron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:32:36 PM EDT
[#32]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:39:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Skynet is now online
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:48:33 PM EDT
[#34]
1000 miles aint a sat 22,000 miles away. i'm too lazy to look it up, but what is time it takes a radio signal to travel 1000 miles on the earth's surface? fast enough I will presume for an operator to read the info and make a decision. as fast as a pilot spotting a boggie at 12 oclock high and breaking hard left.... i betcha that it takes less time for the signal to travel from the vehicle to the controller than it does for the chemical signal to travel from the pilot's brain to the stick and rudder to make the manueveur... is like the argument i have with a relative.. he believes that he would feel a nuclear explosion destroy his body if he was standing close to the blast. i point out that his entire body would be vaporized in much less time than is various senses could transmit the information to his brain... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 6:18:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 6:56:40 PM EDT
[#36]
This thread reminds me of some odd mix of Real Genius and Ender's Game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:14:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Awesome article. Thanks for posting it. This vehicle certainly fills a gap in space superiority that I've felt was filled by something...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:50:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Well, there's also the fact that the UCAVs can out turn every manned fighter on the planet, and I'd bet good money they can outturn every medium and high altitude SAM as well. Manned fighters are not survivable in a battlefield where their opponents can do 25 Gs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:21:11 PM EDT
[#39]
I have started two seperate threads on ARF trying to stir up interest in TSTO. They both died the Death. Members here want to talk about pysho ex-wives, cops shooting dogs, Al Pachino's firearm selections, etc. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:26:00 PM EDT
[#40]
How does that work? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:26:19 PM EDT
[#41]
I like your vision of the future! In fact when the Battle of Fallujah happened I didn't know why they did not do a maximum push beforehand, putting all the armed Predators in the air over that city. I got sick of watching the nightly news showing all the enemy out in the streets strolling about, firing AKs and RPGs and popping off mortar rounds whenever they pleased. They should have been plunked whever they stepped outside. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 10:10:06 PM EDT
[#42]
The amount of G force a UCAV can take is limited by how much stress the airframe can take. The amount of G's a manned fighter can take is limited by the lump of biomass in the cockpit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 11:22:28 PM EDT
[#43]
OK… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 11:53:15 PM EDT
[#44]
this is an amusing thought. my brother-in-law is one of the world leaders in neural-net processing. in his latest project, he successfully built a "brain" that could solve a problem unrelated to anything it had ever been exposed to--in other words, he built a brain that thought for itself. what he cannot do, and claims no one can ever do, is to build a computer that has morals. he has been approached by darpa, and we have talked about military applications of what he is doing, but it all comes back to the idea that war is an endeavor of moral beings, and must always be so. if you want an idea of how a computer would fight, review the last 5min of "dr. strangelove", and get back to us about 'thinking outside the box'. [ETA: human judgement must be exercised, but is not necessarily required in the delivery vehicle itself.] |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 12:07:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Makes you wonder if they built a few more XB-70's and didn't tell no one back in the day. It's performance was incredible and they were thinking about this piggyback stuff like this even then. I remember back in 1977 when I was 9, my Grandparents took me to Wright-Patterson AFB to see the USAF museum as since the I was always fascinated with aircraft. The XB-70 was the most impressive exhibit to me, it looked like something out of a completely different age compared to the aircraft around it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 12:28:22 AM EDT
[#46]
this seems to betray a basic misunderstanding of the nature of warfare itself. in economic terms, the "robots" you speak of simply replace humans as currency in the transaction of war. war is not one soldier killing another soldier. it is one man imposing his political will upon another. the men who do the killing and the dying are simply proxies for the man posessing political power. they are his political power. and if a more effective proxy comes out, the man of power will adopt the new. your post indicates that you may be thinking of war as a thing itself, which would be a gross error. your statement that the human managers would become a target is not wrong, but it is not because of their "humanness". rather, they are simply a link in the c3 chain, and their loss would be a "force divisor", so to speak. take the humans out, and that particular link in the chain would still be a tactical center of gravity, and therefore still a high value target.
then why are the managers currently sitting at their consoles in AWACS? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 12:32:58 AM EDT
[#47]
These were my thoughts exactly upon viewing the article. Intercontinental supersonic strategic penetrator... Mach 3 from takeoff to target and back unrefueled... One of the most badass aircraft ever conceived! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 4:25:58 AM EDT
[#48]
You missed my sarcasm. I'll see if I can scrape up a V-n diagram of the various Boeing UCAV's and UCAS. I'll also be interested to see if you can produce any design load factor information for ucav type vehicles, or present an engineering argument about why enormous load factors make sense for vehicles that mostly cruise at 1g to deliver a bomb. I'm also curious to hear what you believe the generally accepted maximum sustained Nz for humans, and what the maximum Nz excursions might be. My technical specialty: airframe structural integrity. Sadly, I am currently working on a Blackhawk helicopter modification. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 5:42:04 AM EDT
[#49]
Back in the late 1980's NASA was playing with the Mini Shuttle system.
This shuttle with external fuel tank would ride on top of a 747 that had been modified with a JATO system to assist the 747 to climb at a 60 degree inclinded to a high altiude, then release the shuttle to orbit. This program was shelved by the NASA in 1988 or 89. People photographing the Area 51 site in the early 1990's photographed a XB-70 plane with a Mini Shuttle on top of it leaving Area 51 and returning without it. I'm having a problem finding information on it. It was in Popular Science, and other magazines at the time. I think I still have the issue stored(squirrel) away somewhere. Here are some related shuttles programs that I did find. US X-20 Dyna Soar program 1957  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-20 European Space Agency Herms program  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(shuttle)#Configuration Latest proposed Mini Shuttle around the world from Popular Science. www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/347575a5d99e7010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html edit to fix Popular Science Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:06:46 AM EDT
[#50]
We heard about the stealth planes when Carter leaked it during the 1980 election to try to save his political bacon. GunLvr |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
