User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:02:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Huh, wonder how much a .50 cal round costs? 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/320/0/0/Friendly_PREDATOR_MISSILE_by_adrak.jpg I love the picture, but its a Reaper, not a Predator |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:02:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amen. If there is one general produced by WWII who truly "Got it" about the future of Warfare, it was Lemay. Yep. “The long range future of the AAF lies in the field of guided missiles." Curtis Lemay, 1945 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:06:33 PM EDT
[#3]
I like this one better.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:16:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryThat is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:16:43 PM EDT
[#5]
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:17:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements. yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:18:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements. yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. Small boats are much harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:19:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:19:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small boats are much harder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements. yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. Small boats are much harder. the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up. I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around. we started with trucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:24:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up. I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around. we started with trucks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements. yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. Small boats are much harder. the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up. I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around. we started with trucks. Exactly. These boats are smaller, faster, more maneuverable and physics presents other challenges, one of which you noted. AH-64 brings a lot to this fight as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:33:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This seems adequate and significantly more cost effective than spending a $100,000s of dollars on b1 sorties.  http://youtu.be/RVnpY8HhTwUNice work. A handful of competent riflemen could make boarding that ship a real bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:39:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice work. A handful of competent riflemen could make boarding that ship a real bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This seems adequate and significantly more cost effective than spending a $100,000s of dollars on b1 sorties. http://youtu.be/RVnpY8HhTwUNice work. A handful of competent riflemen could make boarding that ship a real bitch. That's great for pirates. This test wasn't about pirates trying to board a ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:39:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small boats are much harder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements. yeah. we have been hitting moving targets for a while now. Small boats are much harder. I bet all the sailors say that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 2:42:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ And why are still buying bombers? "when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future." Hap Arnold 1947 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:08:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... Ummm.... I'm fairly sure that's a training bomb...  
Bomber pilots training to drop training bombs on training targets during training missions... Stop the presses! That's a pretty impressive hit, actually... Even with modern PGMs. I guess the author of that article doesn't understand that pilots need to train? And you might as well give them very difficult targets to train against. Doesn't get a lot harder to hit than a motorized fishing boat with a screaming engine. I would agree. This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:31:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision. I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:34:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision. I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism. Fucking bass boats. (grumble, grumble, grumble) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:36:24 PM EDT
[#18]
At least with fiscal responsibility like this I have no worries about Social Security being around when I'm going to need it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:37:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At least with fiscal responsibility like this I have no worries about Social Security being around when I'm going to need it. So what specifically is wasteful here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:38:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That image sums up our problems so well multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels. It makes no sense. $16,000,000,000,000.00 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:41:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And why are still buying bombers? "when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future." Hap Arnold 1947 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ And why are still buying bombers? "when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future." Hap Arnold 1947 Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.
I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:50:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.
I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ And why are still buying bombers? "when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future." Hap Arnold 1947 Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.
I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing. There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 3:59:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.
I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Speaking of which... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/ And why are still buying bombers? "when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future." Hap Arnold 1947 Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.
I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing. Airpower is inherently offensive and strategic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:00:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature. It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:00:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature. It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle. Then it gets very expensive very quickly. Recreating the human brain is not cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:03:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete? Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:04:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature. especially when your enemy has the same capability. Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties. hmmmmmm. where have I heard this before? “To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.” Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:04:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:05:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete? Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good. Only if you hit it. Bombs throw off nice frag patterns if HOB is set properly. Close enough counts with a bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8. Stop asking for an airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:10:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. I'm all in favor of having some super-duper high end whiz-bang shit with all the trimmings. I'm not in favor of using them to kill dirt farmers with rusty Mosin Nagants in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:12:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8. Stop asking for an airframe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is cool. but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it? Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value. If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8. Stop asking for an airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:14:56 PM EDT
[#33]
If one LGB being dropped is getting people worked up, then this will make their heads explode.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:47:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you seen any of the liveleak videos posted here. A bunch of morons cheering the annihilation of some goat-herder with a million dollar missile. Then they can't understand why a few of his sons want to take some flight lessons.. Blow back...it...is...a...bitch. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xV16qje8prk/TVut9b1WHBI/AAAAAAAADXA/NZEYMONqU0A/s1600/alpacino019.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's not a jdam. Seems like overkill. Have you seen any of the liveleak videos posted here. A bunch of morons cheering the annihilation of some goat-herder with a million dollar missile. Then they can't understand why a few of his sons want to take some flight lessons.. Blow back...it...is...a...bitch. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xV16qje8prk/TVut9b1WHBI/AAAAAAAADXA/NZEYMONqU0A/s1600/alpacino019.jpg They would be fine with a B-52 caret bombing the entire village? That can be arranged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 4:49:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That image sums up our problems so wellhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/09/130904-F-XX000-023.jpg multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels. It makes no sense. $16,000,000,000,000.00 http://www.usdebtclock.org/ You do realize the point was just to showcase capability, and they are not actually planning on sinking motor boats with B-1's right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 5:21:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
especially when your enemy has the same capability. Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties. hmmmmmm. where have I heard this before? “To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.” Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature. especially when your enemy has the same capability. Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties. hmmmmmm. where have I heard this before? “To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.” Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939 So we build these systems that are too powerful for either side to use...don't we still need more conventional forces to act in the proxy wars since we can't use our doomsday weapons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 5:25:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete? That is what you are looking at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 5:32:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Long stick that boat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 6:44:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two. All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:06:17 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two. All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:21:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, the insanity! Who would be stupid enough to do something like that? http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4
Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two. All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html That's not the same idea, and you know it. That's a really old article, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:22:05 PM EDT
[#42]
I'd be a proud American if the next goat raper that tries to pull a USS Cole attack gets a 2,000 lb present from a B1B on his fucking head, directly.
Maybe that is just me though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:39:31 PM EDT
[#43]
For Somali pirates I would use the AC-130. Good range and loiter and lots of ammo. I don't imaging the Somalis have much in the way of anti aircraft weapons.
For Iranian speed boats smaller more manuverable aircraft would seem to be the ticket since you would be in range of Iranian air defenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:42:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not the same idea, and you know it. That's a really old article, too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two. All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html That's not the same idea, and you know it. That's a really old article, too. How is it not the same idea? Ok, I admit that saying "use a chunk of concrete" is simplified but I didn't want to type out "Take a GBU-24 practice munition, fill it with concrete and use it's guidance package to home in on the target."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:54:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryThat's nice, but it needs more SNIPER pod.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:57:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That image sums up our problems so well multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels. It makes no sense. $16,000,000,000,000.00 Why would they be dropping an inert bomb (painted blue, only inert bombs are painted blue) on a dinghy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 7:58:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good when you want to go out there OP and fight the enemy I'll remember to tell you why I couldn't call in CAS for you when your position is being overrun. When you actually have some skin in the game come back to us. I love the appeal to emotion. Even if it's totally ridiculous. If not, then your reply is pointless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 8:04:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is all the churned up water ahead of the boat? Is it being pulled and if so by a manned boat? I sure would want a LOOOONG tether between the two boats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Has no one else noticed that R2D2 is driving the boat? What is all the churned up water ahead of the boat? Is it being pulled and if so by a manned boat? I sure would want a LOOOONG tether between the two boats. I imagine it was remote, similar to these jet ski's we used to play with: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 8:25:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, so if it's old that means it never happened? How is it not the same idea? Ok, I admit that saying "use a chunk of concrete" is simplified but I didn't want to type out "Take a GBU-24 practice munition, fill it with concrete and use it's guidance package to home in on the target." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4
Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two. All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html That's not the same idea, and you know it. That's a really old article, too. How is it not the same idea? Ok, I admit that saying "use a chunk of concrete" is simplified but I didn't want to type out "Take a GBU-24 practice munition, fill it with concrete and use it's guidance package to home in on the target." Say what you mean then. When do you suppose a concrete filled bomb was last dropped in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many were dropped? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2013 8:29:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Jesus loves JDAM's
|
|
|
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.
