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 » Bizarro » Stealth’s Radioactive Secret

Stealth’s Radioactive Secret

This is the first in two-​​part series from exotic weapons guru David Hambling.
Theres a sim­ple tech­nol­ogy that could trans­form civil avi­a­tion, slash­ing fuel con­sump­tion, reduc­ing green­house emis­sions and cut­ting noise. The prob­lem is, nobody knows about it yet. It’s a mil­i­tary secret.
Stealth01.jpg The way tech­nol­ogy migrates from clas­si­fied weapons pro­grams to every­day life is the theme of my book, Weapons Grade. (Did I men­tion it was out in paper­back this week?) We wouldnt have jet air­craft, com­put­ers or satel­lite com­mu­ni­ca­tions with­out such pro­grams. But when they stay secret, the pub­lic ben­e­fit is lost. What would have hap­pened to the elec­tron­ics indus­try if the tran­sis­tor had not been declas­si­fied in 1949?
Plasma aero­dy­nam­ics offers tan­ta­liz­ing promises of improv­ing air­craft per­for­mance. By pro­duc­ing a thin layer of charged par­ti­cles around an air­craft you can change the behav­ior of the bound­ary layer, sig­nif­i­cantly reduc­ing fric­tion. The charged layer also absorbs radar, improv­ing stealth.
When my col­league Justin Mullins wrote about the sub­ject for New Scientist mag­a­zine back in 2000, it seemed to be an obscure Russian tech­nol­ogy dat­ing from the late 70s which the US was just begin­ning to exam­ine. But it offered real ben­e­fits, with a poten­tial drag reduc­tion of up to 30%.

A cut in drag of 1 per cent means you can increase an airliner’s pay­load by about 10 per cent, or it could sim­ply fly far­ther or faster, Mullins pointed out, Just imag­ine the effect this could have on cash-​​strapped airlines.

The Russians seemed to be years ahead, even mar­ket­ing a plasma stealth add-​​on device said to reduce radar returns by a fac­tor of a hun­dred.
He con­cludes by won­der­ing if the tech­nol­ogy can actu­ally work in practice.

Either the new labs are a huge waste of time and money, or the American mil­i­tary knows some­thing we don’t.

As it turns out, they cer­tainly do.
A lot of infor­ma­tion on stealth dis­ap­peared from the pub­lic domain decades ago when the whole sub­ject turned black. Which was why I was sur­prised to find the orig­i­nal patent for plasma stealth still intact.
Patent 3,127,608 is called “Object Camouflage Method And Apparatus,” and “relates to a method of mak­ing air­craft or other objects invis­i­ble to radar.” The inven­tor, one Arnold L. Eldredge, describes the the­o­ret­i­cal basis of plasma stealth accu­rately.
The most sur­pris­ing thing is the date. The patent was filed on August 6th, 1956. The tech­nol­ogy has been around for fifty years.
But the big prob­lem is with his appa­ra­tus Eldredge uses an elec­tron gun, which would be way too big to carry on an air­craft. In fact, thats a prob­lem with this whole plasma idea. Apparatus to gen­er­ate the mil­lions of volts needed is big, bulky and imprac­ti­cal; even these days the Russians are talk­ing 100 Kg and tens of kilo­watts.
But there is a way — check out Patent 4,030,098 (1962) Method and means for reduc­ing reflec­tions of elec­tro­mag­netic waves assigned to the Secretary of the Army and the rather sim­i­lar Patent 3,713,157 (1964) belong­ing to North American Aviation, later absorbed by Boeing Energy Absorption by a Radioisotope Produced Plasma
Both of these use the same basic con­cept: a coat­ing of radioac­tive mate­r­ial pro­duc­ing a flux of either Alpha of Beta par­ti­cles ion­ize the air, pro­duc­ing the desired layer of plasma. Its a clever solu­tion. Radioactive paint weighs vir­tu­ally noth­ing, does not require any power input and can be dirt cheap. One of the sug­gested emit­ters is Strontium-​​90, which is pro­duced in abun­dance as a waste prod­uct by nuclear reac­tors.
Its also quite safe. With a thin pro­tec­tive coat­ing to pre­vent it from flak­ing off, the soft radi­a­tion (unlike dan­ger­ous Gamma radi­a­tion) is not a haz­ard to pilot or main­te­nance per­son­nel. This type of mate­r­ial is only dan­ger­ous if inhaled or ingested.
I checked out the idea with some peo­ple who know about these things — Martin Streetly, Editor of Jane’s Radar & Electronic Warfare Systems and Professor Igor Alexeff, for­mer President of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and an author­ity on plasma tech­nol­ogy.
Both con­firmed that the idea, though exotic, was sound enough in the­ory. Interestingly, nei­ther had come across the idea before. And both observed one obvi­ous dis­ad­van­tage from the point of view of stealth. The radi­a­tion lev­els involved 10 Curies per square cen­time­ter would give the plane a vis­i­ble glow at night, mak­ing it a bea­con to enemy air defenses.
Did this prob­lem mean that the whole idea was shelved — or were radioac­tive stealth coat­ings taken fur­ther?
Well be look­ing at some sur­pris­ing answers in part two…
– David Hambling

Share |

March 30th, 2006 | Bizarro | 310872 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/03/30/stealths-radioactive-secret/Stealth%27s+Radioactive+Secret2006-03-30+13%3A38%3A25jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Highway Watch Revisited | iRobots Sell, But Who’s Buying? » »

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. JSAllison says:
    March 30, 2006 at 8:58 am

    The mil­i­tary did some bound­ary layer research in the 60s iirc that con­sisted of drilling numer­ous small holes in the skin of an air­craft and essen­tially suck­ing the bound­ary layer into the air­craft. It did have the effect of reduc­ing drag but was a main­te­nance nightmare.

    Reply
  2. John Doe says:
    March 30, 2006 at 9:34 am

    A new metal glass was recently cre­ated, used in con­junc­tion with trans­par­ent ther­mo­plas­tics and com­pos­ites you could cre­ate day­time stealth.

    Reply
  3. John Smith says:
    March 30, 2006 at 11:12 am

    If such a tech­nol­ogy as plasma shield gen­er­a­tors existed, I would have to say that it would be a bad idea to oper­ate an ionic cloud in the mid­dle of a thun­der­storm. The light­ning strikes would be dam­ag­ing, I would think.

    Reply
  4. DS says:
    March 30, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    Radioactive paint? Er…I dunno about that. I don’t see how the very weak radi­a­tion given off by this layer of paint would cre­ate ANY kind of dif­fer­ence in the bound­ary layer. Usually the kinds of power seen in a high pow­ered laser are needed to ion­ize air and pro­duce any kind of effect. It may be some other mech­a­nism, but I seri­ously doubt it’s paint. Now if there were a paint that became highly radioac­tive with applied elec­tric­ity, that might be enough, but…bleh.

    Reply
  5. David Hambling says:
    March 30, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    The radi­a­tion lev­els they are talk­ing about are indeed high enough to pro­duce ion­i­sa­tion — read the patents — 10 Curies per cm2 is a LOT of radi­a­tion. This is why you get a glow around such highly active sources.
    The patent describes coat­ing a test piece and mea­sur­ing the reduc­tion in radar return. The effect is real, and more pro­nounced at lower pres­sure (=higher altitude)

    Reply
  6. erewhon says:
    March 30, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Holy crap, I can’t believe they’re talk­ing about this. This tech is NDA hell, SCIF-​​only material…I had to swear away my tes­ti­cles and chil­dren.
    David: yeah, I’m just some non­de­script voice in the ether here, but dude, please go ask some­one respon­si­ble at DOD whether this is a Real Good Idea to dis­cuss.
    I got my ass removed for just quip­ping to some black tri­an­gle para­noid on a con­spir­acy forum last year that the more excit­ing ones glowed in the dark. Please, con­sider let­ting this one drop.

    Reply
  7. Robert says:
    March 30, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    Here’s one for you — think back sev­eral years — remem­ber when there is an attempted secret court case about the EPA — or State of Nev — going after Area 51 — which we all know doesn’t exist ;)
    Over the dis­posal of toxic waste. You have to won­der whether or not the test for this — are in that waste pit.

    Reply
  8. johnwillo says:
    March 30, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    I remem­ber read­ing that the B-​​2 requires a spe­cial (expen­sive) hanger to pre­serve the “stealthy” coat­ing on its exte­rior. My assump­tion at the time was that we were talk­ing about some kind of funky, radar-​​absorbant paint. Maybe there was more to the paint than I’d thought.

    Reply
  9. pedestrian says:
    March 30, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    I have heard about this long ago, and remem­ber sev­eral dis­ad­van­tages men­tioned. I don’t think this will be in ser­vice with those dis­ad­van­tages. It’s just another vaporware.

    Reply
  10. campbell says:
    March 30, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    orig­i­nal solic­i­ta­tion for newly defunct DARPA Walrus air­ship called for elec­tro­ki­netic propul­sion and related goal of reduc­ing skin drag via same. Airship can carry extremely heav­ing loads, so, we should assume they had con­sid­ered lead shielded small nuclear plants for power, enough to gen­er­ate plasma.
    that orig­i­nal lan­guage descrip­tive of such tech­nol­ogy aims was quickly removed from later writ­ings.
    moot point now, as Walrus will not recieve fund­ing for 2007.…
    but it does make one wonder.….just what have they done already, re: “black” airships?

    Reply
  11. Paul Suhler says:
    March 30, 2006 at 10:27 pm

    The stealth part hap­pened in the 1960s. Project Kempster was an attempt by Westinghouse to reduce the radar return from the A-​​12 Blackbird’s inlets by ion­iz­ing the air in front of the inlets. Equipment in the Q bay gen­er­ated a stream of par­ti­cles that emerged from the chines just ahead of the inlets.
    The proof-​​of-​​concept equip­ment was suc­cess­fully flight tested on the sec­ond A-​​12 (#122), which now sits rot­ting on the deck of the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier Museum. Jeannette Remak told me that they found the small holes for the par­ti­cle beams dur­ing restora­tion, but they were cov­ered over.
    Had the A-​​12s not been retired in favor of the SR-​​71s, a less bulky and power-​​hungry ver­sion would have been part of an upgrade pack­age for the entire fleet.
    I don’t know whether LaCroix, et al. at Westinghouse were aware of Eldredge’s 1956 patent, cited below.
    As far as coat­ing an air­craft with radioac­tive mate­r­ial, that sounds a lot worse than a par­ti­cle beam that you can turn on and off. The bit about it being dan­ger­ous only if inhaled — well, that’s true of plu­to­nium. And an air­craft is guar­an­teed to crash at some point if any num­ber of them are flown.

    Reply
  12. ben says:
    March 31, 2006 at 7:55 am

    do you have a link to a hirez ver­sion of that photo with the B2 and the nighthawks?

    Reply
  13. Jober says:
    March 31, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    This to me sounds sus­pi­ciously like some of the (hare­brained?) ideas Nick Cook of Jane’s wrote about in his book Hunt for Zero Point. My copy is in my bed­room just now (along with my sleep­ing wife) so I can’t give specifics, just what I can recall, but I remem­ber there was a chap­ter devoted to the con­spir­acy the­o­ries about some sort of exotic, clas­si­fied propul­sion sys­tem allegedly built into the B-​​2. As with most con­spir­acy the­o­ries I seem to recall that it was short on details and long on spec­u­la­tion (and that Cook him­self kept a respect­ful dis­tance from this par­tic­u­lar idea, at least), but the gen­eral idea was that charged par­ti­cles gen­er­ated by equip­ment onboard the B-​​2 assist with both propul­sion and low-​​observability char­ac­ter­is­tics. I dis­missed it then as extremely unlikely, but I sup­pose it’s pos­si­ble that Cook was in fact onto some­thing, and had just enough data to get the wrong impres­sion; he assumed the charged par­ti­cles men­tioned in the the­ory were con­nected with ZPE or some other high-​​energy phe­nom­ena, not low-​​grade radi­a­tion. I will have to con­sult the text and find out if my synapses are mis­fir­ing or if there really are some con­nec­tions between this story and what Cook reported.…

    Reply
  14. David Hambling says:
    April 1, 2006 at 4:37 am

    Jober — yes, in my view you are quite cor­rect about Nick Cook and Zero Point. It ssmes to me that the entire ‘electrogravity’/antigravity story is a cover for plasma aero­dy­nam­ics, and which has so far dis­cred­ited it quite effectively.

    Reply
  15. John says:
    April 3, 2006 at 6:05 am

    I am not totally sure if this idea would work. I would think you would need a lot more energy to pro­duce the affect, that what is given off by a raidoac­tive sub­stance. But Science can be weird. If it’s pos­si­ble I’m sure the gov­er­ment is research­ing it. They get a ton of money for black book projects that we know noth­ing about. Anyhoe you never know, it may have a very small effect. But is it worth it to put this stuff on an air­plane. One will crash, and the stuff will make it’s way into the env­iorn­ment in some way. If they make one, I hope it don’t crash in my back yard.

    Reply
  16. Sphere says:
    April 3, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    as far as mak­ing a air­craft stealth thats a bad way of doing it since we can now make air­craft invis­i­ble to the human eyes by using a light wave fre­qe­untcy that human eyes cant pick up​.no one will know about this tech for another 50 to 60 years.

    Reply
  17. Mike says:
    April 3, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    I am a research lab tech and I would love to work on advanced devel­op­ment projects. Will some­one please con­tact me(scitechmj@hotmail.com) to dis­cuss work oppor­tu­ni­ties?
    My work expe­ri­ence includes research on poly­mers , metal catalysts,phosphors,zeolites, and metal plat­ing.
    I live in Maryland and will relo­cate.
    Thank you.

    Reply
  18. Jason says:
    April 3, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    Keep dream­ing, Any good elec­tri­cal engi­neer will tell you that. It would cre­ate havoc for the elec­tri­cal in the planes and oh the engines would not run. An air­ship with a smoke screen would work bet­ter lol

    Reply
  19. Joe says:
    April 4, 2006 at 2:35 am

    Inner layer alpha/​beta emit­ter, outer transparant to par­ti­cles and opaque to vis­i­ble light (Nah, too simple).

    Reply
  20. marshall tall eagle says:
    April 4, 2006 at 10:56 am

    One must won­der if with all this tech stuff, why we can’t have that can stop los­ing our for­est. Will new tech stuff become more impor­tant than our peo­ple. Lets stop and think for a minute, what good will all this tech stuff do to improve on our daily lives. Not much I think, so what the heck, hey you tech peo­ple go for broke. And please invent some­thing like instant cash with­out hav­ing to pay it back at high inter­est, maybe never to have to pay it back

    Reply
  21. Dr. Rosalie Bertell says:
    April 4, 2006 at 11:20 am

    What about a crash and fire? An awful lot of stron­tium whould become airborne!

    Reply
  22. whirliejim says:
    April 4, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Seems to me like another way for auto speed­ers to avoid get­ting speed­ing tickets.….

    Reply
  23. Bill says:
    April 4, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Marshall Eagle your an idiot.

    Reply
  24. Larry Altersitz says:
    April 6, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Re: Jim Freeman’s envi­ron­men­tal com­ments:
    Check US Patent 6,846,967 as a pos­si­ble solu­tion to all lev­els of radioac­tive wastes (cer­tainly for long half-​​life low-​​level waste that has to be stored some­where). Keep the high level at Yucca Mt, so in can be re-​​processed as fuel, if desired, but place the other stuff where it won’t bother folks ever again.

    Reply
  25. kelley b. says:
    April 25, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    I beg your par­don, but 10 Curies per cm2 of hot stron­tium is absolutely unsafe at any speed for the oper­a­tors or main­te­nance crew.
    Enough of this to paint a jet to glow in the dark is highly dan­ger­ous. But the safety of American troops is the last thing peo­ple like Rumsfeld think about…

    Reply
  26. inarguable says:
    December 28, 2006 at 6:50 am

    Yeah, i bet we have one of those, and i bet it’s parked at AREA-​​51. Seriously! The DoD/​AF black bud­get has no doubt allowed for some incred­i­ble won­ders to be cre­ated and tested out there in the past decades.
    Think of it this way — cur­rently, the fastest jet air­craft in the world is STILL listed as the SR-​​71 BLACkBIRD, an air­craft that first flew in 1964! If you still think that is the fastest jet air­craft ever made, i also have some ocean­front prop­erty in Afhanistan for sale cheap for ya!
    I am quite sure the US has exploited the tech­nol­ogy that this arti­cle speaks of already. There is sim­ply no rea­son to pub­li­cize or declas­sify it as of yet. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen­er­a­tion stealth birds we know of fly­ing now are still, by a wide mar­gin, the stealth­i­est oper­a­tional air­craft in the world, and until an enemy can trump that or detect those air­craft, the mil­i­tary would pre­fer to keep (much) more advanced tech­nol­ogy as tight-​​lipped as pos­si­ble. Military secrecy has long played this game, sti­fling the free spread of sci­en­tific advance­ment to the masses…that’s just the way it is.

    Reply
  27. cruz bilbao says:
    March 21, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    julis ver­nun in mas­ter of the world ‚usrd the sam craft except instead of it used prop like a helio­copter that pro­vided extra lift with foward motion.

    Reply
  28. buy Archlord gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Her rank is higher than 7 lev­els com­pared to me and can buy Archlord gold, but she can­not kill me unexpectedly.

    Reply
  29. eve isk says:
    August 5, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    In order to make a lit­tle bit of hun­dreds of thou­sands of eve isk, I com­manded all of the staff hung up the num­ber on the com­puter, and help me mine the mining.

    Reply
  30. uggs says:
    October 7, 2009 at 1:36 am

    good web­site

    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
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Just look at this " picture " for a moment. The...
      Zandor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      I know LOSAT seemed awesome but wasn't it cancelled? I...
      JimboJones
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Yes you're quite right, I get to witness...
      JimboJones
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    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