User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:00:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Missiles are cheap compared to $5 billion ships. That's kind of my point. China, for example, could swarm the carrier group with "cheaper" missiles, just to overwhelm defensive systems, and then send in more strategic anti-ship stuff (if that's the best way to put it). They can be launched from subs, surface ships, aircraft, and land....hard to respond to all of them within the time necessary, especially against a determined and committed enemy. Of course, the response would be brutal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:03:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on how many they are willing to launch, and from how many different platforms. If they are absolutely determined to sink a carrier, I believe it can be done....question is, would they be willing to launch enough to overwhelm defenses? Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's as long as a telephone pole and 2.3 feet wide. It's hard to fly through a wall of 20mm depleted uranium bullets or dodge a Aegis missile. How resistant is it to jamming and spoofing? Everyone talks about the ASM boogyman while ignoring the countermeasures. Depends on how many they are willing to launch, and from how many different platforms. If they are absolutely determined to sink a carrier, I believe it can be done....question is, would they be willing to launch enough to overwhelm defenses? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:05:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:06:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or render its targeting system useless. I guess thats possible. You have to think the Chinese are trying to find a way around ASAT, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:07:44 PM EDT
[#5]
And what's wrong with the good old fashioned nuclear torpedo?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:08:13 PM EDT
[#6]
This is a fun thread.
Carrier groups are about as close to obsolescence as manned aircraft and human infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:09:39 PM EDT
[#7]
This is why we need to bring back battleships
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:09:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess thats possible. You have to think the Chinese are trying to find a way around ASAT, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or render its targeting system useless. I guess thats possible. You have to think the Chinese are trying to find a way around ASAT, though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:10:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a fun thread. Carrier groups are about as close to obsolescence as manned aircraft and human infantry. I believe that your statement is rapidly becoming reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:11:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a fun thread. Carrier groups are about as close to obsolescence as manned aircraft and human infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:11:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They might need to find a way around having a bomb physically attached to the satellites.
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/038/026/original/x37b-space-plane-endurance-record-2.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 /China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:11:42 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They might need to find a way around having a bomb physically attached to the satellites.
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/038/026/original/x37b-space-plane-endurance-record-2.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or render its targeting system useless. I guess thats possible. You have to think the Chinese are trying to find a way around ASAT, though.
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/038/026/original/x37b-space-plane-endurance-record-2.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 Oops. Our bad. Didn't mean to run into the satellite on approach.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:12:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
/China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They might need to find a way around having a bomb physically attached to the satellites.
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/038/026/original/x37b-space-plane-endurance-record-2.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 /China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:14:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
/China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. There's a crease on a gray panel it probably wasn't launched with. Physics tells me that means interaction with matter, but I'm not sure there's enough space junk to do explain it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:14:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Sink? Of course it's possible but it would have to be monumental to penetrate all those watertight compartments once they are all secure.
Damage enough to render inoperable? Much easier, just one missile hitting the flight deck puts her out of business for at least a month if not much longer and really that's almost good enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:15:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:17:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything can sink I can definitely sink, especially with a few beers in me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:19:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the water is shallow enough, it will not sink  You might be thinking of the Coast Guard. Those guys need to be at least 5'10 so they can wade ashore if their ship gets sunk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:21:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe that your statement is rapidly becoming reality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is a fun thread. Carrier groups are about as close to obsolescence as manned aircraft and human infantry. I believe that your statement is rapidly becoming reality. I'm a civvy. Enlighten me a bit. Why are they becoming obsolete? We don't need rapid special forces and air support deployed to hot zones? Or is this mostly achieved by our various land bases across the globe? ETA: And why would human infantry be obsolete? Who will hold territory if not troops? Manned aircraft I can kind of understand because of drone technology. I don't really understand why infantry and carriers would be obsolete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:27:32 PM EDT
[#20]
During an exercise, we had a firing solution on the Enterprise within the first 3 hours. Unfortunately, the Chief and I loaded and fired a smoke instead of a flare. Needless to say, they made us go away and start over.
Captain then decided that the nukes were no longer allowed to get into the pyro locker without a torpedoman with us. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:29:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nuclear bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:35:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMO, China poses the only significant naval threat currently. What do they have and how is it employed in a way that would threaten a carrier? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Such as? There may not truly be another competent navy of sufficient size in the world at present, but this won't be the case for much longer. Britain and France have very competent navies which are too small to do much to the US Navy (not that we ever going to fight them anyway). China and Russia have sufficiently large navies that aren't quite up to snuff. Particularly in the case of China, I think it would be foolish to assume this will always be the case. What do they have and how is it employed in a way that would threaten a carrier? DF-21D YJ-12 stream raid from division size H-6 attack (200+ nm launch range w/ 3PT) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:37:31 PM EDT
[#23]
It's not so much a question of could someone sink one. Its a question of our response if someone manages to sink one. If another country sinks one of our carriers we are at war. Not the type of war we have been involved in recently but thanks to those wars our troops are trained, leadership is trained, etc. It would end very badly for any country / nation that succeeded at killing 6000 of our service members when they sunk a carrier. We still are the worlds last remaining superpower. We would teach the country that attacked us exactly what that means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:37:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bit low on that estimate for speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a pretty definitive conclusion given that no one has ever even tried to engage a supercarrier battlegroup with, uh, anything. Unless you count a couple hopeless Libyan fighters, promptly splashed. This missile can be fired from a distance of 75 to 186 miles by surface ships, submarines, aircraft and mobile land based launchers. It flies 10 meters above the water at Mach 2.5. That means if you launch it at 100 miles, it will impact its target in about three and a half minutes. Also bear in mind that the carrier has to successfully evade all or almost all of these missiles, and our opponents needs only to get a few through our defenses. The technical challenges involved in keeping a carrier safe have grown larger, while the difficulty in hitting the carrier has steadily decreased. The US Navy has by far the best technology, but it is bumping up against the technical limits of its platforms. This is hyperbole, but it would be as if we were committed to building all of our ships out of wood. We may have the best carpenters in the world working with the finest oak (or whatever they built ships out of back then lol) but it's still a wooden fucking ship. Our carriers may have the best countermeasures, the best escorts, and better situational awareness than anyone, but they are still 1100 foot long ships that sit sixty feet out of the water and putts along at ~30 mph. Speed is good at 10M, but it's not going anywhere close to 186 miles at that altitude |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:38:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DF-21D YJ-12 stream raid from division size H-6 attack (200+ nm launch range w/ 3PT) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Such as? There may not truly be another competent navy of sufficient size in the world at present, but this won't be the case for much longer. Britain and France have very competent navies which are too small to do much to the US Navy (not that we ever going to fight them anyway). China and Russia have sufficiently large navies that aren't quite up to snuff. Particularly in the case of China, I think it would be foolish to assume this will always be the case. What do they have and how is it employed in a way that would threaten a carrier? DF-21D YJ-12 stream raid from division size H-6 attack (200+ nm launch range w/ 3PT) I was waiting for someone to bring it up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:42:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DF-21 has long kill chain and it's widely believed that it's capabilities are grossly overstated. It's also the exact type of thing the Aegis BMD was intended to defeat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. Aegis BMD was designed to defeat MARVs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:43:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aegis BMD was designed to defeat MARVs? Aegis isn't even 100% in laboratory conditions.
No one is gambling a carrier on Aegis BMD |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:48:28 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:50:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Yeh. They are unsinkable
http://forum-discussion.com/Thread-Chinese-Stealth-Drone-Sharp-Sword-That-Can-Carry-2-Ton-of-Weight |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:55:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Hmm. So you want to sink a carrier? Bring a nuke or two OR have a fuck of a lot of men and machines you are willing to spend on the effort because a shit load of your stuff is getting wrecked in the way to that carrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:03:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-aircraft-carriers-nearly-unsinkable-19144?page=show Are U.S. Aircraft Carriers Nearly Unsinkable? HA! Read the fucking article at the link! HA! To quote a song: "From a great ocean liner to a Chinese junk, there's never been a ship that can't be sunk". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:14:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Could a carrier be sunk? Yes but it would take a lot of effort and some luck. However anyone who wants to try and sink one and kills 5,000 US service members at one go would have a massive retaliation problem on their hands.
Think shock and awe from gw2, only multiplied by several orders of magnitude. I would think that any country than managed to sink one would be fairly large nation, with plenty of valuable (to them) military targets. . I would assume that anything of military value would be bombed, cruise missiled, tomahawked, and torpedoed to death post haste. We would throw ALOT of not so nice stuff at them all at once, and then a bunch more after that. I think most countries understand that and don't see the worth in sinking one, because of what they'd lose in return.. they'd basically be bombed back to the stone age (militarily). Also the leaders of that attacking country would most likely find themselves and their leader buddies jdam'd to death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:19:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you're certainly demonstrating that you do, and putting me in my place. That would be rude of me. Just understand the US Navy has no equal on this planet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:25:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A competent opponent might get one, or even two. But then whatever is launching said anti-ship missiles is going to get turned into rubble and goo. You can't afford to trade carriers for frigates, bombers, and fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:25:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nuclear bomb. Nope. Tried it in 46. Killed it and everything on it, but it floated. USS Independence. 
Edit: The USS Saratoga survived two blasts |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:27:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one with hostile intentions will ever get close enough to one to find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:32:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Project Crossroads
 Project Crossroads - Nuclear Test Film (1946) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:33:22 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
/China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They might need to find a way around having a bomb physically attached to the satellites.
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/038/026/original/x37b-space-plane-endurance-record-2.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 /China crashes its space station onto the CVN. "Fuck youuuuuuu!!!!" I really want to know what that thing is doing. ETA: The US space thing, not the China space thing. i like to think it buzzs around in space. spray painting USA on chinese and russian satellites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:35:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Shot Able above the water had a lot of ships survive, albeit charred.
Shot Baker under the water had significantly better results. I suspect this gave birth to nuclear torpedoes.  Crossroads Baker ETA: Carrier sinking at 4:45 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:39:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its actually pretty easy to sink one. The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction.
I got a good laugh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:39:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Fairly easy to knock out with nation state level naval resources, especially if they catch it with its pants down like the USS Stark, but whoever does it is looking at massive retaliation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:41:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could a carrier be sunk? Yes but it would take a lot of effort and some luck. However anyone who wants to try and sink one and kills 5,000 US service members at one go would have a massive retaliation problem on their hands. Think shock and awe from gw2, only multiplied by several orders of magnitude. I would think that any country than managed to sink one would be fairly large nation, with plenty of valuable (to them) military targets. . I would assume that anything of military value would be bombed, cruise missiled, tomahawked, and torpedoed to death post haste. We would throw ALOT of not so nice stuff at them all at once, and then a bunch more after that. I think most countries understand that and don't see the worth in sinking one, because of what they'd lose in return.. they'd basically be bombed back to the stone age (militarily). Also the leaders of that attacking country would most likely find themselves and their leader buddies jdam'd to death. The carrier isn't nearly as vital as it was in WW2 either - with in-air refueling we have flown missions from the US to Afghanistan and back again without ever touching down. Wipe out all our carriers and we can still bomb the hell out of you, but at a less frenetic pace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:42:07 PM EDT
[#43]
It is not sustainable for them to discharge ballast water; so they must all be decommissioned.
That is what the EPA and USCG tell me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:45:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryProbably why the latest variant of the Aegis ships have ABM capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:56:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's kind of my point. China, for example, could swarm the carrier group with "cheaper" missiles, just to overwhelm defensive systems, and then send in more strategic anti-ship stuff (if that's the best way to put it). They can be launched from subs, surface ships, aircraft, and land....hard to respond to all of them within the time necessary, especially against a determined and committed enemy. Of course, the response would be brutal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Missiles are cheap compared to $5 billion ships. That's kind of my point. China, for example, could swarm the carrier group with "cheaper" missiles, just to overwhelm defensive systems, and then send in more strategic anti-ship stuff (if that's the best way to put it). They can be launched from subs, surface ships, aircraft, and land....hard to respond to all of them within the time necessary, especially against a determined and committed enemy. Of course, the response would be brutal. Seems to me the only rational way to conduct the attack would be to deliberately overwhelm air defenses with large numbers of missiles. A Burke has what, 92 VLS cells? Then send 93 missiles. If we were to try conducting operations near mainland china the sky would be thick with them. It might pay to think about what would be necessary to counteract such a barrage. IMO we could do worse than to bring back Juneau class AA cruisers. A dozen or so 5" dual purpose guns with networked fire control could put up a wall of frag no missiles could pass. And 5" AA shells are cheaper than missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:56:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aegis BMD was designed to defeat MARVs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. Aegis BMD was designed to defeat MARVs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 11:58:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bit low on that estimate for speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a pretty definitive conclusion given that no one has ever even tried to engage a supercarrier battlegroup with, uh, anything. Unless you count a couple hopeless Libyan fighters, promptly splashed. This missile can be fired from a distance of 75 to 186 miles by surface ships, submarines, aircraft and mobile land based launchers. It flies 10 meters above the water at Mach 2.5. That means if you launch it at 100 miles, it will impact its target in about three and a half minutes. Also bear in mind that the carrier has to successfully evade all or almost all of these missiles, and our opponents needs only to get a few through our defenses. The technical challenges involved in keeping a carrier safe have grown larger, while the difficulty in hitting the carrier has steadily decreased. The US Navy has by far the best technology, but it is bumping up against the technical limits of its platforms. This is hyperbole, but it would be as if we were committed to building all of our ships out of wood. We may have the best carpenters in the world working with the finest oak (or whatever they built ships out of back then lol) but it's still a wooden fucking ship. Our carriers may have the best countermeasures, the best escorts, and better situational awareness than anyone, but they are still 1100 foot long ships that sit sixty feet out of the water and putts along at ~30 mph. 
No comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 12:01:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Isn't a serious attack on a carrier considered the same as going "all-in" ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 12:08:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not so much a question of could someone sink one. Its a question of our response if someone manages to sink one. If another country sinks one of our carriers we are at war. Not the type of war we have been involved in recently but thanks to those wars our troops are trained, leadership is trained, etc. It would end very badly for any country / nation that succeeded at killing 6000 of our service members when they sunk a carrier. We still are the worlds last remaining superpower. We would teach the country that attacked us exactly what that means. Zero training or experience but the wiki pages I don't really trust all show the rest of the world's navies a fraction of the size of USA and we have what, 10 current carriers? The rest of the world collectively has 9? Knowing that a carrier group goes nowhere without a really big, really strong bunch of ships and subs around it. Plus the fact that the US might just drop some ballistic missiles on the country that attacked the carrier group. Certainly their military would turn to dust in pretty short order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 12:12:23 AM EDT
[#50]
The USS America supposedly took more punishment that the Navy expected when they did the sinkEx on it about 15 years ago. And that was without any point defenses or DC teams on board.
|
|
|
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.
