DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Raptor Watch » F/​A/​R/​C/​E-​​22 Raptor…cleans windows too!

F/​A/​R/​C/​E-​​22 Raptor…cleans windows too!

A friend gave me the idea for the Fighter/​Attack/​Recon/​Cargo/​Electronic war­fare ver­sion of the F-​​22 Raptor not long after the added the ‘A’ des­ig­na­tion. Now they’re hyp­ing it as an elec­tronic anti-​​IED plat­form, noted at the POGO blog. The source mate­r­ial is only avail­able via paid sub­scrip­tion, so I can’t give you any details. But at a time while some are call­ing for cuts in F-​​35 pro­duc­tion to build addi­tional F-​​22s, I’ve got to won­der how seri­ous this claim really is. I don’t always agree with POGO (folks, that’s ‘under­state­ment’), but I’ve got to agree with them on this one.
First, let me be very clear: If the F-22’s elec­tron­ics suite is capa­ble of coun­ter­ing IEDs, let’s bring it on. If all that’s needed is a slight mod­i­fi­ca­tion to the exist­ing hard­ware or some new soft­ware, that’s a no-​​brainer. The POGO entry seems to make it sound like they’re talk­ing about an anti-​​IED spe­cialty vari­ant of the Raptor. I find that extremely unlikely. Most prob­a­bly they’re talk­ing about upgrad­ing them all to include the capa­bil­ity.
Second, they’ve been hyp­ing the elec­tron­ics capa­bil­i­ties of the Raptor for some time, and that’s a good thing. Here are a cou­ple inter­est­ing ones from C4ISR Journal: Supersonic SIGINT Is Back: ISR Sensors Built Into F/​A-​​22, JSF Fuselages and Agile radar beams: Active elec­tron­i­cally scanned arrays ener­gize fighter per­for­mance.
But this claim, com­ing right now, seems a bit con­trived. Maybe Murdoc’s just a bit jaded. I’d sure like to know more details about the pro­posal, but, then, I’m sure the IED mak­ers would, too.
Anyway, if Raptors can do it, let’s go for it. However, I’m not expect­ing to see F-​​22s scream­ing down to clear roads ahead of sup­ply con­voys. And, as use­ful as anti-​​IED capa­bil­i­ties may be, they aren’t a good rea­son to make deci­sions regard­ing hundred-​​million dol­lar air supe­ri­or­ity fight­ers.
Now, if they’d just add a cam­era and a lit­tle cargo bay, the Raptor would really and truly be a F/​A/​R/​C/​E. It’s not that the F-​​22 is a farce. Despite the high cost, no one seems to be debat­ing the fact that it’s an awe­some machine. But these attempts to sell the thing as a major player in the type of war we’re cur­rently fight­ing appear to be lit­tle more than shal­low PR cam­paigns. I’ve had a lit­tle yel­low post-​​it note on my com­puter mon­i­tor for a long time as a reminder of the farce idea, just wait­ing for the right moment. This seems to be it.
UPDATE: Noah points out that this is another “part of a broader move to try to jam IEDs from above — a move that has met with only lim­ited suc­cess.” It’s been noted on Defense Tech here and here pre­vi­ously.
He also reminds me that a quick check of the Raptor Watch cat­e­gory here on Defense Tech will yield addi­tional wacky jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for the F-​​22. Like any good multi-​​billion dol­lar defense pro­gram, there’s no short­age of them.
Finally, I got a look at the source arti­cle (paid sub­scrip­tion required) and Lockheed is look­ing to add this anti-​​IED capa­bil­ity begin­ning with the Block 30 model, but declines to give any specifics:

Block 30 Raptors will add air-​​to-​​ground radar, bet­ter attack capa­bil­i­ties against inte­grated air defense sys­tems, Link 16 data link and a core Small Diameter Bomb abil­ity through 2009. The EA capa­bil­ity against IEDs, not one of the aircraft’s main mis­sions as orig­i­nally out­lined, comes as the com­pany looks to solid­ify its advanced fighter’s rel­e­vance over the next 40 years, espe­cially while the United States engages in a global war on terrorism.

They also con­tinue to push for a bomber ver­sion of the Raptor.
UPDATE 2 : Received this in an email:

How about minesweeper, too?

Heh. I’ll see your “minesweeper” and raise you a “hedgerow cut­ter”!
UPDATE 3: Also via e-​​mail: Defense Industry Daily had a great post on F-​​22 and F-​​35 elec­tronic war­fare back in October.
–Cross-​​posted by Murdoc

Share |

December 1st, 2005 | Raptor Watch | 294228 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/12/01/farce-22-raptor-cleans-windows-too/F%2FA%2FR%2FC%2FE-22+Raptor...cleans+windows+too%212005-12-01+17%3A39%3A44hambling You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Troops Get New Jammers | Rapid Fire 12/​02/​05 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    December 1, 2005 at 1:37 pm

    Good Mornig Folks,
    Oh, hum, hum another story about the “Raptor” and why we need it?
    The deal for this “Turkey” is done, stick a fork in it. The only ques­tion is how many are we going to buy, pick a num­ber between 178 and 378. As men­tioned last week the “Fighter Jocks” want to drop the ax (no pun intended, David) on the F/​A-​​35A JSF so they can buy more “Raptors”.
    The arti­cle above for­got the lastest infor­ma­tial by the U.S.A.F. on why we need more to blow a big­ger­chunk of the Air Force’s bud­get on “Raptors”. The results of the 2005 war games with India.
    No sur­prise the F-15’s and F-16’s didn’t do to well against Russian built Su-27’s and Indian built Su.30’s. For those of you inter­ested a new twist was added this year to the con­test.
    To find out what was new for 2005, you can always go over and check out the story over at Military​.com.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. Mike says:
    December 1, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Speaking from a boots on the ground per­spec­tive. NO! This is a hor­ri­ble idea. I had enough prob­lems with our own Marine Helos equipped with IED coun­ter­mea­sures. Communication prob­lems led to over flights of patrol routes that were off sched­ule. IED coun­ter­mea­sures as i knew it meant to det­o­nate the IED before the patrol entered the area. You get a mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion some­where and sud­denly you’re det­o­nat­ing the IED on your own forces. A Raptor fly­ing at Mach 1+.…It’s like high speed car­pet bomb­ing of inno­cent peo­ple and ground troops. But i’m sure it looks cool from the air. Keep your dumb gad­gets on the draw­ing board until you con­sult with the trig­ger pullers on the ground. The Air Force has shot up enough marines as it is. You know what would be cool, get us more flights out of there and more up-​​armored trucks till we leave. Some tail would be nice too.
    Mike for­mer Jarhead.

    Reply
  3. Joe Katzman says:
    December 1, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    The EA-​​6B Prowler has been serv­ing in an anti-​​IED role, as DefenseTech itself has noted. Rather than an F-​​22, I think it would make more sense to out­fit a smaller air­craft with more eco­nom­i­cal per-​​hour oper­at­ing costs to do long-​​loiter counter-​​IED work — a biz­jet or an RC-​​12 like air­craft. There’s also a C-​​130 vari­ant that can do this job.
    Where these capa­bil­i­ties do come in awfully handy is… what elec­tronic warfare/​ ECM assets accom­pany “Global Strike” F-​​22/​ B-​​2 teams that kick down the door on Day 1? A non-​​stealth EA-​​18 Growler? That’s just dumb.
    If the F-​​22 or JSF can be tweaked to broaden their elec­tronic attack capa­bil­i­ties at lit­tle cost, that’s a nice plus and poten­tially an impor­tant capa­bil­ity. Especially if a seri­ous con­fronta­tion comes up with a well equipped enemy.
    Leaving aside ques­tions of alliances, inter­na­tional project traps, etc… a cou­ple years ago, I saw the F-​​35 JSF as essen­tial and the F-​​22 as expend­able overkill. The more I look at it from a purely strategic/​ oper­a­tional require­ments point of view, the more I see the F-​​22 as the essen­tial plane in a high/​ vlow force mix, and the JSF as the diver­sion and mis­take. For what it’s worth at this point.

    Reply
  4. Joe Katzman says:
    December 1, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    I’ll add that DID did an in-​​depth piece on this topic (F/​A-​​22 and F-​​35) a lit­tle while ago:
    http://​www​.defen​sein​dus​try​daily​.com/​2​0​0​5​/​1​0​/​s​u​p​e​r​s​o​n​i​c​-​s​i​g​i​n​t​-​w​i​l​l​-​f​3​5​-​f​2​2​-​a​l​s​o​-​p​l​a​y​-​e​w​-​r​o​l​e​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​php

    Reply
  5. Nick Schwellenbach says:
    December 1, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    Byron,
    I went over to Military​.com for the arti­cle you referred to below and don’t see it. Could you post the link?
    I agree with Joe’s com­ments that if anti-​​IED capa­bil­i­ties can be added to the Raptor at lit­tle cost, then why not? But that still remains to be seen–we just don’t know enough details about it. Either way the Raptor is still pri­mar­ily an air supe­ri­or­ity fighter that is very expen­sive. If we make it into a swiss army knife of planes then the poten­tial for fur­ther delays and cost over­runs is def­i­nitely a pos­si­bil­ity, if not a like­li­hood. Like you said the bet­ter option for this func­tion is to rely on air­craft that can loi­ter longer on the rel­a­tive cheap.
    Also Joe, while a stealthy plane with elec­tronic warfare/​ ECM assets is valu­able to kick down the door, IEDs aren’t exactly the prob­lems we’ll face on Day One (more like Day One Hundred and One) in a war with Iran or China. But I see your point on whether F-​​22 ECM abil­i­ties eas­ily and cheaply incor­po­rate IED jam­ming.
    –Nick

    Reply
  6. Sarge says:
    December 1, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    didn’t any­one pay atten­tion when MacNamarra tried to make the F-​​111 the all sign­ing all danc­ing plane to replace everything?

    Reply
  7. Edward Liu says:
    December 1, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    Col. John Boyd must be rolling over in his grave over the F/​A-​​22. Then again, he’s prob­a­bly been spin­ning ever since they gave his beloved F-​​16 a ground-​​attack role.
    And, clearly, no — nobody in a posi­tion of power today remem­bers the lessons of the F-​​111. Given the descrip­tions of pro­cure­ment in Robert Coram’s biog­ra­phy of Boyd, I’m not sure the Air Force has ever remem­bered the lessons of the F-​​111.

    Reply
  8. Steve says:
    December 1, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    This reminds me of that scene in The Pentagon Wars when the gen­er­als keep mak­ing the Bradley design­ers add more and more fea­tures, only the fin­ished prod­uct ends up being a jack of all trades, mas­ter of none.
    Funny movie by the way, and finally avail­able on DVD.

    Reply
  9. Lupin3 says:
    December 1, 2005 at 5:14 pm

    If IED sup­pres­sion equip­ment requires ded­i­cated hard­ware to the degree that such air­craft must be des­ig­nated as a type, then why can it not also be retro­fit­ted to exist­ing air­frames, such as F-​​15s (which have highly adapt­able air­frames for such pur­poses) or even F-​​4s. It seems unlikely that a bat­tle­field in which IEDs are the pri­mary weapon used against US forces will present much of a threat to US fighter air­craft, which mit­i­gates the use­ful­ness of the F-22’s capabilities.

    Reply
  10. Byron Skinner says:
    December 1, 2005 at 6:14 pm

    Good Afternoon Nick,
    I couldn’t find it on Military​.com either, it likely appeared on Nov. 29, 2005 but here is the arti­cle at it’s source.
    The story called: “Indian Air Force, in War games, give U.S. a run.” the story appeared in the 11/​28/​05 Christian Science Monitor their web address is csmon​i​tor​.com
    ALLONS,
    Byron

    Reply
  11. Nicholas Weaver says:
    December 1, 2005 at 6:27 pm

    Don’t for­get the addi­tion of anti­sub­ma­rine and anti­sat­telite capa­bil­i­ties (bonus points if the same mis­sile is used for both), com­ing soon to an over­priced air­plane near you…

    Reply
  12. Dfens says:
    December 1, 2005 at 9:02 pm

    A stealth elec­tronic war­fare plane, now that’s dumb. As for the use of the F-​​22 radar against IEDs, you could mount the same radar on the nose of a C-​​130 or on top of a truck for that mat­ter. It’s not mag­i­cally bet­ter if you hang it on the nose of an F-​​22.
    Here’s a link to that story Byron men­tioned: http://​www​.csmon​i​tor​.com/​2​0​0​5​/​1​1​2​8​/​p​0​1​s​0​4​-​w​o​s​c​.​h​tml
    Here’s a quote: “The Sukhoi is a … bet­ter plane than the F-​​16,” says Vinod Patney, a retired Indian Air Force mar­shal, and for­mer vice chief of air staff.
    It’s hard to imag­ine we could rest on our lau­rels for over 30 years. Keep pay­ing these defense con­trac­tors profit on devel­op­ment, then won­der why it takes 20+ years to develop a fighter. Remember cap­i­tal­ism? You know, it won the Cold War. It still works.

    Reply
  13. Pedestrian says:
    December 1, 2005 at 10:24 pm

    >If IED sup­pres­sion equip­ment requires ded­i­cated hard­ware to the degree that such air­craft must be
    >des­ig­nated as a type, then why can it not also be retro­fit­ted to exist­ing air­frames, such as F-​​15s
    >(which have highly adapt­able air­frames for such pur­poses) or even F-​​4s.
    You’ve got a good ques­tion, but let’s not have that ques­tion to be answered.

    Reply
  14. Stanley Jones, USN, Retired says:
    December 2, 2005 at 6:18 am

    Interesting dis­cus­sion, tell me some­thing is the AF try­ing to say (which they have over and over again) that they can take over all mis­sions includ­ing the ground warfighter? This hyper­bole of an all in one air­craft that can throw every­thing at you includ­ing the kitchen sink is get­ting old. Now I don’t think that the AF needs to go away how­ever, I do think that they need to seri­ously get over the fact that the cold war is over. For instance as highly trained as AF pilots are you don’t see them out there land­ing on Carriers and they def­i­nitely can’t be there on sta­tion and closer than the Navy gets. We need all facets of our Armed Forces but seri­ously get a clue people.

    Reply
  15. Alex says:
    December 2, 2005 at 7:07 am

    This is…well…stupid. I mean, who on earth would think of putting a capa­bil­ity that requires very long loi­ter time mov­ing at the pace of the land bat­tle on an air supe­ri­or­ity fighter?
    Put gad­get in box. Put box in C130. Simple!
    Better yet, hang gad­get from Army tac­ti­cal UAV..

    Reply
  16. JSAllison says:
    December 2, 2005 at 10:03 am

    Just what par­tic­u­lar capa­bil­ity does the –22 offer that can’t be retro­fit­ted, hung on a hard point or repro­grammed into exist­ing designs? Supercruise? Anything else?
    So this fis­cal elec­trolux is caus­ing the AF to short sheet other pro­grams (cargo, tanker, bomber, afford­able attack air­craft, etc) so a cou­ple of hun­dred mem­bers of the grand and glo­ri­ous fighter jock mafia can super­cruise the wild blue yon­der?
    Outfit one wing for R&D and get to work on armed UAVs and pack­ages to retro­fit the use­ful bits to exist­ing (afford­able) designs.

    Reply
  17. Mike says:
    December 2, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    There is no point at all wast­ing the few F-​​22 Rapters the Airforce will be get­ting for any­thing else other then Air Superiority!! Why waste an air craft designed to be a “F” and noth­ing more, when you can mod­ify other very capa­ble air­craft like the F-​​15. This is pure idiocy.

    Reply
  18. Will Wheeler says:
    December 8, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    The is another prob­lem with hav­ing an “all in one solu­tion” to our bat­tle­field woes. What hap­pens when China fig­ures out how to hack into the elec­tron­ics of the F-​​22? If we have one weapon sys­tem, and that one sys­tem is com­pro­mised in bat­tle, then what do we do? I know that there will not be any major bat­tles with China right now, but they have even admit­ted that their mil­i­tary wont catch up to ours for at least 25 years. In terms of his­tory 25 years is a blink. I only hope that the peo­ple that are in more impor­tant posi­tions see that and pre­pare for future threats as well as today’s challenges.

    Reply
  19. Bo says:
    May 8, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Click here to down­load F-​​22 Total Air War (TAW) FULL by DiD
    http://​rapid​share​.de/​f​i​l​e​s​/​1​9​9​3​6​6​4​5​/​T​A​W​_​S​e​t​u​p​_​F​i​l​e​s​.​e​x​e​.​h​tml
    Enjoy!

    Reply
  20. Brad says:
    August 1, 2006 at 4:31 am

    Air supe­ri­or­ity is key, and a con­stant effort should be made to advance it’s tech­nol­ogy. Good enough isn’t. I’m not say­ing don’t Keep and upgrade the F18’s, 16’s, 15’s, 14’s, A-6’s, F4’s, and build more drones, but there will always be the need for such a machine as the F22. It flies in ways no other plane can, and boast a laun­dry list of advance­ments that alow it to do any­thing (Stealth mis­sions, air to air, air to ground, what­ever) on the fly while tog­gle­ing between modes. Why must we rely on 60’s and 70’s tech­nol­ogy for our future? I say the F22 and F35 pro­grams are over due. And when the next tech­nol­ogy wave hits I hope our gov­ern­ment has the for­sight to build an even bad­der plane with more capeabil­i­ties so our future is more secure. (if they haven’t already) Supercruise is great because it means more speed for less fuel! (what is bet­ter than that?) Lastly at the risk of sound­ing like a nut job what about aliens? Don’t you want to be able to have a fight­ing chance if they come here in anger? Even the F22 falls way short of any­thing that might be able to over­come alien tech­nol­ogy, so in a way we have a long way to go, and F22 is another step in the right direction.

    Reply
  21. kowalsky says:
    February 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

    Hi Bo!
    I have tried the link you’ve posted ‘http://​rapid​share​.de/​f​i​l​e​s​/​1​9​9​3​6​6​4​5​/​T​A​W​_​S​e​t​u​p​_​F​i​l​e​s​.​e​x​e​.​h​tml’, but the file does’nt exist any­more in that site. If you cam say me where can I find it or if you can send it to me or post it in some­where I can get, I’ll be very glat you. Thanks!

    Reply
  22. kamal says:
    January 3, 2009 at 5:46 am

    bon anny.cher amy.peur F/​A/​R/​C/​E-​​22 Raptor…cleans win­dows too!

    Reply
  23. Facepalm says:
    February 18, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Very use­ful files search engine. http://​Indexoffiles​.com is a search engine designed to search files in var­i­ous file shar­ing and upload­ing sites.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    Recent Comments
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Should wikipedia Ned Kelly.He used armour that worked in...
      Nick
    • UPDATED: Details on Army’s New Afghanistan Duds
      Marines win agin hoo rur
      greg
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      To the poster "batvette" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
      gee lets forget about winning a war as long...
      greg stocks
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Time to bring military clothing into the 21st century. I...
      bobbymike
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part IV : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : But beam-riding isn't used by bombers...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      To the poster "Charles" : Part I :...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage