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
  • 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 » Grand Ole Osprey » Our Very Own Osprey Vid

Our Very Own Osprey Vid

A lit­tle shame­less self pro­mo­tion here folks, but as you know in January I spent a few days embed­ded with VMM-​​263, the first MV-​​22 squadron deployed to combat.

As my pre­vi­ous story sub­tly indi­cates, I was pretty impressed with the air­craft and was hap­pier to fly 250 mph at 9,000 feet than 150 mph at 300 feet in a war zone sit­u­a­tion. Even with the lack of arma­ment — which we can argue about later — it seemed a lot safer going fast and high, than slow and low.

Well, I finally put together a video from the footage I shot doing a day of mis­sions with a two ship for­ma­tion. I posted it on Military.com’s Shock and Awe sight, but I also wanted to show you all so you could slice and dice the performance.

I hope you enjoy it.

– Christian

Share |

April 10th, 2008 | Grand Ole Osprey | 278039 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/04/10/our-very-own-osprey-vid/Our+Very+Own+Osprey+Vid2008-04-10+21%3A37%3A33Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « FCS Can’t Get Any Love | Coastie Cutter Deployment Delayed » »

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. Phred says:
    April 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Some admis­sions are tougher than oth­ers, so here goes, “very, very, cool!” Yeah, boys and toys but still very, very cool.

    Reply
  2. Christian says:
    April 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    TheFNG,
    As you can see from the third clip that shows the Marines walk­ing onto the back ramp, the gun swings out to the side on a mount to get out of the way. It’s not attached directly to the ramp floor.

    Reply
  3. Vercingetorix says:
    April 10, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Beautiful.

    Reply
  4. Adam says:
    April 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Great vid Christian. Regards take­offs: is SOP for ver­ti­cal (as a heli­copter), or are rolling starts where the rotors are pitched for­ward say 20deg ever under­taken (sim­i­lar to Harrier/​AV-​​8)?

    Reply
  5. Rocket Man says:
    April 10, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Christian, Nice. Kinda a “semi truck” for tough spots? I will say it looked “cool.“
    But, there are some “glar­ingly” non­sen­si­cal, well, in the end, its just dumb. sorry. Heres why.. If you can mount two rotors, you can mount two jet engines right? going 70 in an unar­mored air vehi­cle brings back images of the viet­nam mede­vac chop­per pilots.. even worse, what was the “life expectancy of a door gun­ner? ( it was 10 min­utes in bat­tle. no bs.)“
    So, no armor, no jets, no speed, why not just buy more MRAPs and UPSCALE them, makem four­wheel­ers, and just drive 70 mph across the desert?
    Its just one of those things that will never click as “com­mon sense” with me. (not say­ing I have that much, but even though I was born at night, it twer­ent last nite!)
    Best, D

    Reply
  6. James says:
    April 10, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    rocket its called the golden hour for doc­tors believe me if you where wonded which sounds like youll live 25min in a bumpy jolty ride threw streets or a 5min flight to a MH?
    plus why does some­body always have to say this remm­ber the first mil copters in korea? scary crapy lit­tle things then came huey more speed lift armor etc, then cobra more armor fire­power go up to the apache?
    immage what the bat­tle­feild would look like if the first guys looked at those crappy helos and said worth­less lets just stick with jeeps?
    how many men has the chop­per saved.…in peace and war?

    Reply
  7. Mike says:
    April 10, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Very nice. Its a unique video.

    Reply
  8. James says:
    April 10, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    and wtf 70 as in mph? in a mrap you do what 35-​​40mph?
    where as a asprey does some­where around 300.…. nuff said

    Reply
  9. Wembley says:
    April 11, 2008 at 2:37 am

    Nothing is going to make you admit that the Osprey has glar­ing prob­lems, is it? You just like how cool it looks.
    Looking cool is not the same as being use­ful.
    The big prob­lem with heavy-​​lift heli­copters is that there are never any­thing like enough of them: blow­ing $15bn on R&D and then $60m+ per unti on these things is a lot of the rea­son why.

    Reply
  10. James says:
    April 11, 2008 at 6:20 am

    wemb.
    of course it has prob­lems of course it is expen­sive the point is it is the first of its kind.…period. The cost sucks and yes there prob­bly wont be enough but why does this mean we should stop using them? so whats your solu­tion?
    hell i think DDX looks cool.…but i realy realy think its stupid.…but its stealthy…ok if its over 300ft long..its still huge screw stealth i dont need a radar to shoot it.
    Hell the super­struc­ture is sup­posed to be made of wood partly.….….….WOOD. wtf hell did they think of observers near could tar­get arty at them? so it has 2 or 4 antimis­sile def.…so…theve got boat loads of cheap mis­siles.
    any­ways sorry i got off topic…osprey is and awsome air­craft but its not cheap, or armored enough in its preasent con­fig. maybe the next type will adress these prob­lems its guys like you who keep GIs using m16…im going to get nailed…oh well inter­net typ­ing warfare

    Reply
  11. TheBoogyMan says:
    April 11, 2008 at 8:01 am

    All smart com­ments aside.
    How effic­tive is that tail gun at that altitude?

    Reply
  12. Pat Flannery says:
    April 11, 2008 at 9:15 am

    I watched a pro­gram on the V-22’s first com­bat mis­sion in Iraq on The Military Channel a cou­ple of days back. After spend­ing most of the pro­gram dis­cussing the Osprey’s advan­tages over heli­copters — speed and range — it then is sent on a mis­sion being escorted by a Apache and a SuperCobra.
    Which means that it is lim­ited by its escort’s speed and range, and you might have as well sent the com­bat team in via a helicopter.

    Reply
  13. Grandjester says:
    April 11, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Is it really that quiet inside Christian or did you tweak the audio?
    Thought the inte­rior was larger. The gun mount is a joke. But she is a hot rod, no doubt about it.

    Reply
  14. Vercingetorix says:
    April 11, 2008 at 10:49 am

    At 9000 ft, that gun (M-​​249 Gulf, I think, not sure) is pretty use­less (maybe). It would take two sec­onds for the rounds to hit the deck and at that speed, no time to cor­rect. Then again, not many man­pads or AAA will be able to tar­get them either, so that is what it is.
    And you have ‘attached’ escorts, where the fighter/​gunship patrols along­side your for­ma­tion, and ‘unat­tached’ escorts, where the fighter/​gunship patrols the gen­eral area, respond­ing like a 911 ser­vice.
    Helos need attached escorts: they are slow and low, vul­ner­a­ble to every­thing. Ospreys do not nec­es­sar­ily need babysit­ters, unless in a large strike pack­age with other helos (53s, snakes). Even so, after the pri­mary mis­sion, many helos will per­form backup mis­sions (evac, CSAR) apart from the main body, or return to base to reload with new stix, while the snakes man attack points around the objec­tive. The Osprey’s speed gives it more flex­i­bil­ity, and can cut vital min­utes from evac and from rein­force­ments. And that is powerful.

    Reply
  15. Wembley says:
    April 11, 2008 at 11:08 am

    James:
    “of course it has prob­lems of course it is expen­sive the point is it is the first of its kind.…period. The cost sucks and yes there prob­bly wont be enough but why does this mean we should stop using them? so whats your solu­tion? “
    Errr — not con­tin­u­ing to throw bil­lions into a pro­gram that clearly doesn’t work that well?
    There’s plenty of new tech that doesn’t take 50 years to get into the air. And a few bil­lion would have bought a bunch of those much-​​needed Chinooks.

    Reply
  16. Ablinken says:
    April 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Absolutely the tail gun would be use­less at 9k but at 150 ft off the deck when the vehi­cle is at its most vul­ner­a­ble you bet your butt I’d be thank­ful that gun is clear­ing my exit or entry into the back of that hotrod for the sky. Kicka$$ vid, I’d love to see more on this lit­tle beastie.

    Reply
  17. James says:
    April 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    right im sure all that money would have been used by con­gress to buy chinnoks(which are cool btw) but has one prob­lem chi­noks are damned expen­sive to fly think its 5000 dol­lars a hour may be more. not say­ing we couldnt do it but come on seri­ously think theyd buye? i doubt it.
    but look i think you have a point i think your wrong on the v22 being a waist but. not on every­thing the cost over­runs on every­thing we seem to try to deve­l­ope is insane.
    one more thing as always off topic if i under­stand cor­rectly the JSF is sup­posed to be stealthy.…why its sup­posed to be a short range fighter that can be mass pro­duced for many nations. look stealth is great but what is the cost of mak­ing a fighter stealthy? are we sac­ri­fic­ing manu­ver­abil­ity arma­ment speed COST sur­viv­abil­ity if in the next 10 yrs how much will that stealth be worth if a sys­tem that is cheap and rea­son­ably effec­tive comes to negate it?
    just say­ing my 2 cents
    wait­ing for the instant con­dem­na­tion :)

    Reply
  18. pfcem says:
    April 11, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Wembley,
    The V-​​22 works quite well — this is 2008, not 2000. Just ask Christian. :)
    ***
    James,
    Compared to the total devel­ope­ment & pro­duc­tion costs of the F-​​35 the cost of its stealth is minor. Assuming the cost esti­mates are at least ball­park accu­rate the F-​​35 will not cost much more than a new F-​​16 or F/​A-​​18 built at the same time & in the same num­bers (the same WOULD have likely been true for the F-​​22 vs F-​​15 but pro­duc­tion was cut to ~1/​4 the orig­i­nal require­ment). The manu­ver­abil­ity, arma­ment, speed, range, sur­viv­abil­ity et cetera of the F-​​35 will exceed that of the air­craft it replaces so we are not any­thing in terms of capa­bil­ity even IF the F-35’s stealth is SOMEHOW countered/​defeated in the future.

    Reply
  19. Dennis Carr says:
    April 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Ya, that’s great, bil­lions for trans­port of mail!
    I have never liked the con­cept, nor the cost!
    Makes me believe that you can make any­thing fly, just throw enough money down a rat hole.

    Reply
  20. TheBoogyMan says:
    April 12, 2008 at 6:08 am

    @ Dennis Carr
    I want to fly, but no mat­ter how much money you throw at me, its just not gonna hap­pen ;)

    Reply
  21. citanon says:
    April 12, 2008 at 6:28 am

    Why doesn’t the fuse­lage have any win­dows? Wouldn’t pas­sen­gers get airsick?

    Reply
  22. CSS says:
    April 12, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    I have had many doubts about the Osprey — it is, after all, an incred­i­bly expen­sive, aero­dy­nam­i­cally unsta­ble, slap­dash assem­bly of highly stressed com­po­nents with lit­tle mar­gin for error. However the War Nerd (Gary Brecher) has given it his tick of approval, so I have changed my mind. It still needs a lot of work, though.

    Reply
  23. Wembley says:
    April 13, 2008 at 5:37 am

    “Works well”? Wait a minute, is this the same V-​​22 that had forced land­ings on the Iraq deploy­ment, has been suf­fer­ing engien fires and needs new engines because of prob­lems with the ones they have now?
    What would ‘works not well’ look like?

    Reply
  24. Camp says:
    April 13, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Looks like VMM-​​162 will be falling in on the “Thunder Chickens” MV-​​22s, for a 2nd com­bat tour.
    “Second V-​​22 Squadron Sent In“
    http://​www​.strat​e​gy​page​.com/​h​t​m​w​/​h​t​a​i​r​f​o​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​0​8​0​4​1​3​.​a​spx
    I hadn’t real­ized, “Over a hun­dred V-​​22s have been deliv­ered so far, and the engines of the V-​​22s in Iraq each have about 400 hours on them.”.

    Reply
  25. pfcem says:
    April 14, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Wembley,
    Like I said just ask some­body who has actu­ally flown in one how well they work…
    With the excep­tion of the engine man­u­fac­turer not being able to cost-​​effectively keep the engines run­ning in top shape & some wish­ing for 360 dec sup­pres­sive fire (which is being addressed) most every­thing I have heard from the USMC indi­cates they are quite pleased with the V-​​22.
    We just recently lost a B-​​1 & B-​​2 (we lose some F-​​15, F-​​16, F/​A-​​18 every year), I sup­posed you are going to claim they don’t work well either.

    Reply
  26. Terri says:
    April 14, 2008 at 7:12 am

    I would like to Thank You for the episode on the Flight of the V-​​22 Osprey in Iraq at Al Asad. You see my son is a crew chief on the Osprey VMM 162 and it was so inter­est­ing for my whole fam­ily to see what it is our son is doing over there. I would like to make one com­ment where some­one states it is allot of money to spend for deliv­er­ing mail!!!! Believe me it does allot more then deliv­ers mail IF in fact it does.I wish I could buy a DVD of the pro­gram to send over to my son.
    Thanks again,
    A very Grateful Mom

    Reply
  27. C. Foskey says:
    April 14, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Regarding the com­men­tary on escorts…
    we are still work­ing on the X2 demon­stra­tor (which was shown at Heliexpo in march, but not men­tioned on Defensetech) at Sikorsky, and one of its poten­tial mis­sions is a high speed attack/​escort for the V22. 250–300+ kts with level accel­er­a­tion and decel­er­a­tion.
    @ Rocket Man
    “If you can mount two rotors, you can mount two jet engines right?“
    Spoken like a true layman.

    Reply
  28. OldSquid64 says:
    April 14, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Great film, I have been in love with the Osprey con­cept since I first saw the XV15 fly. I vividly remem­ber LtGen Chuck Pitman,after hav­ing flown one of the early test mod­els, say­ing that the V22 was going to be a great air­plane (though he thought it could use a col­lec­tive). Pitman had flown nearly every air­plane in the Marine inven­tory when he retired. If he said it was going to be good … it is.
    My nephew is fly­ing phrogs now and he enjoys that the Ospreys, though few in num­ber, are start­ing to take some of the bur­den off of these tired old air­planes.
    Every air­plane in our inven­tory has gone through evo­lu­tion­ary changes as will the V22. Expensive . . yes. Quantum leap from the 46’s YES. Vulnerable on the ground … an F18 is vuner­a­ble on the ground and can’t get back in the air as fast as an Osprey. Unstable . . show me a rotor air­plane that is, they don’t fly they beat the air in to submission.

    Reply
  29. Shari Bradstream says:
    April 14, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Dennis Carr’s com­ments made on April 11th just make me real­ize that unless you have been in the trenches and see your buddy need­ing trans­port, it is not under­stood that these machines not only serve our ser­vice­men and women dur­ing wartime but they will also serve those in need when called upon in domes­tic dis­as­ters. Dennis, if you ever get into a jam and your life is at risk, if an Osprey comes to res­cue you and your fam­ily, will you say no? Just keep your mind open and don’t for­get that you could have been born some­where else and been under a gov­ern­ment that prac­tices some­thing other than democ­racy. God Bless America regard­less of her imper­fec­tions and God Bless You Dennis.
    Shari Bradstream, Army Veteran, Viet Nam era

    Reply
  30. pfcem says:
    April 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Gotten,
    There have been sev­eral pro­pos­als for some kind of defen­sive arma­ment on the V-​​22. Unfortunately bud­get pri­or­i­ties have pre­vented any from being implemented.

    Reply
  31. Wembley says:
    April 15, 2008 at 7:39 am

    pcfem: You didn’t men­tion the prob­lems with the engine fires and the unsched­uled land­ings.
    And of course the marines are giv­ing pos­i­tive feed­back — they’re not about to turn around now. It’s a great taxi, but it’s abil­ity to do any­thing of the things it is sup­posed to do (like, in com­bat) reamins to be seen.
    I am very glad that one has not crashed dur­ing this deploy­ment. That doesn’t make it safe or mean that it will be safe next deployment.

    Reply
  32. Christian says:
    April 16, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Neil,
    Use this link:
    http://​shock​.mil​i​tary​.com/​S​h​o​c​k​/​h​o​m​e​.do
    And you’ll see it’s the 3rd or 4th video in…
    Good luck!

    Reply
  33. Jeff Dulin says:
    April 16, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    The early days of the CH-​​47 for the Army were pretty grim if you were around then or know any­thing about the his­tory of that AC. This one will prob­a­bly be no dif­fer­ent.
    The only thing that I feel has really changed, is AAA TECHNOLOGY. The MANPAD is all to alive and well and get­ting very CHEAP! $500 or less in some places for older mod­els. The bad guys will buy them; the Ruskies will build and sup­ply them (Where do you think all the AK style stuff came from)and the U.N. will find some rea­son to Blame America and George Bush for it all!! Nothing New there.
    I’m start­ing to think more about robotic assault air­craft and VERY LARGE con­cus­sion type weapons to clear the LZ’s prior to risk­ing our guys in there. While heli­copters are a bit slow, they are at least as reli­able and much less costly and more proven at this time.
    Perhaps this Aircraft needs to be rethought. It still appears to be a poorly defended hov­er­ing duck to me. The engines are fail­ing along with other prob­lems. More devel­op­ment is in order, not elim­i­na­tion.
    JD

    Reply
  34. jacob says:
    April 21, 2008 at 8:26 am

    thkpo6rieogkrpohiportky0k

    Reply
  35. jacob says:
    April 21, 2008 at 8:27 am

    thkpo6rieogkrpohiportky0k

    Reply
  36. MJacinta says:
    July 7, 2008 at 8:55 am

    I would like to ask a ques­tion about Chuck Pitman. There is an email going around about him writ­ing an apol­ogy to the Arab world. I have checked it out at Snopes​.com, which says it is untrue, as well as other sites, but many are still cir­cu­lat­ing that as true.
    Can you please tell me if it is false or true?
    Thank you.
    MJacinta

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Sexing up the Headline
      a href="http://www.game4pow er.com">Buy wow...
      buy wow  gold
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • 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