User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 12:42:40 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clearly you were not there the night my band played Gertlestone's Pub on Cache Road. It was a fun night - women in skimpy outfits dancing on top of the PA speakers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 12:44:47 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, a few AF higher ups involved in the process retired and were hired by Boeing shortly after they were awarded the contract. The Airbus tankers were going to be built here in Mobile, so it was followed pretty closely by local media. Not long after the contact was rigged, Airbus decided to build some of their passenger aircraft here, so it worked out ok in the end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't the Air Force all set to buy an airbus tanker? IIRC McCain stepped in and threw a fit and wanted a American made tanker? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 12:54:25 PM EST
[#3]
We should buy 1000 of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 12:55:36 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We should buy 1000 of them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 1:01:51 PM EST
[#5]
Seems like it has issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7fFctDKKM0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 1:07:10 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like it has issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7fFctDKKM0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 1:17:53 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What airframe would you have put it on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 1:36:39 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the time Boeing was working on their third submission they could have easily put it on the 787. The 135 has aged so well partly because it was absolutely state of the art when it was built. The 767 is state of the art 1982. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. And IMHO the reason the KC-135 has lived so long is that it is a more robustly built jet than modern airliners. It made it easier to modify since it wasn't engineered to be as light as possible under modern design knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 5:27:22 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. A 777 is too big to use those KC-135 facilities, and like the Airbus would require a shit ton of additional spending to build new hangars, nose docks and fuel barns at every base receiving them. All that construction would cost as much as the contract to buy the aircraft |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 5:30:55 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My brother is doing the training implementation for Flight Safety International. He's been crazy busy to say the least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 5:37:13 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The big complaint about the Airbus tanker was that it was too big to use KC-135 hangars, fuel barns and nose docks, while the 767-based KC-46 will fit in those facilities. A 777 is too big to use those KC-135 facilities, and like the Airbus would require a shit ton of additional spending to build new hangars, nose docks and fuel barns at every base receiving them. All that construction would cost as much as the contract to buy the aircraft Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. A 777 is too big to use those KC-135 facilities, and like the Airbus would require a shit ton of additional spending to build new hangars, nose docks and fuel barns at every base receiving them. All that construction would cost as much as the contract to buy the aircraft |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 6:11:14 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The KC-46 is delivered to the USAF ready to go. By that logic, Boeing builds approx 40 737s per month, so we should have gone with a 737 tanker. Number of orders dictate production rate, the 767 would have died along with the 757 if not for this tanker deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 6:26:18 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One was and she sent to prison for nine months over the deal. The Boeing CFO did four months. Big B paid a $615M fine. Also, later on in my career I worked with some of the children of fired and imprisoned Boeing employees. As far as I could tell they worked well but it was ackward talking PM stuff to someone you know has ACQ felons in their family tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 6:41:46 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the time Boeing was working on their third submission they could have easily put it on the 787. The 135 has aged so well partly because it was absolutely state of the art when it was built. The 767 is state of the art 1982. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 6:57:34 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't know the 787 could accept pallets as well Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. ETA: The real engineering challenge (the boom) has kicked Boeing’s ass. They are 2+ years late and it is still fucked. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 7:57:21 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This new tanker is a "game changer" and is an entirely different from any other tanker design. I am proud to be part of the Team that is assembling and building them in Everett Washington. The unique capabilities of this amazing aircraft have only just begun. Everyone will want one. I loathe Pratts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 7:58:46 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 767 didn’t have a cargo version until the first 767 tanker boondoggle. It’s hardly the worlds largest engineering challenge to hack a hole in the side of one. ETA: The real engineering challenge (the boom) has kicked Boeing’s ass. They are 2+ years late and it is still fucked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. ETA: The real engineering challenge (the boom) has kicked Boeing’s ass. They are 2+ years late and it is still fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 8:21:42 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GEs or Pratts? I loathe Pratts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This new tanker is a "game changer" and is an entirely different from any other tanker design. I am proud to be part of the Team that is assembling and building them in Everett Washington. The unique capabilities of this amazing aircraft have only just begun. Everyone will want one. I loathe Pratts. So, of course, for the KC-46A, they went with with a new engine type (for the service), the Pratt & Whitney PW4062. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 8:22:53 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 767 didn’t have a cargo version until the first 767 tanker boondoggle. It’s hardly the worlds largest engineering challenge to hack a hole in the side of one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. KC-767 - Launched 2002 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 8:34:47 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One was and she sent to prison for nine months over the deal. The Boeing CFO did four months. Big B paid a $615M fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't the Air Force all set to buy an airbus tanker? IIRC McCain stepped in and threw a fit and wanted a American made tanker? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 8:43:31 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m not sure that cutting a cargo door sized hole into a composite fuselages isn’t necessarily a small engineering question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. ETA: The real engineering challenge (the boom) has kicked Boeing’s ass. They are 2+ years late and it is still fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 9:14:30 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah it’s really weird they did the 767 platform. The objective for this contract was never to add large tankers comparable in capacity with the larger DC-10 based KC-10. It is to provide fleet augmentation and eventual replacement for the (relatively) smaller KC-135. (The 707 is a derivative of the 135 design.) The size difference between the KC-135 and KC-10 is considerable. Here's a KC-10 refueling an RC-135 which is the same airframe as a KC-135.  The KC-46 is larger than the 135 but smaller than the 10. It allows the 46 to more easily serve in place of the 135 without having to upgrade facilities, ramps, aprons, runways, hangars, etc. which would be required for a tanker variant of the A330 or, hypothetically, a 777 based variant which would be even larger. There's not a lot of need to use a bigger, heavier, more capable tanker when the smaller one gets the job done efficiently. Cargo capacity is irrelevant when nearly all tanker missions take off from and land at the SAME base. Cargo capacity only means something if you're going to take off from Base A and land at Base B where the stuff is needed. And that's not a routine tanker mission. Here's a good size comparison for reference.  And this one clearly defines the size range between our "standard" 135 class tankers and the "large" KC-10 class. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 9:26:18 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the shocker I heard on a recent podcast is the 46 no longer has an operator in the back with direct visual on the receiving aircraft. The system involves cameras, etc. Guess what; there are problems with the camera system in certain lighting conditions. Well, no kidding. They're trying to replace the Mark I Eyeball, with it's grossly superior dynamic range with something that will just about always be inferior. I can understand if the camera system incorporates FLIR/nightvision, but if it doesn't .........  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 9:33:27 PM EST
[#24]
The latest I heard is that they've added a 3D vision system like your Oculus Rift/Samsung Gear type system. Stereo visor.
I still happen to think that's a poor substitute for the incredibly simple solution called LOOKING OUT A WINDOW and letting your NATURAL 3D visual perception system do what it's VERY GOOD AT. Whatever bright boy engineer ever thought that an electronic display system is better for a boom operator than looking out a window, needs to be taken out behind the barn and beaten until he understands the error of his thought processes. Fine to have an electronic vision system. Have it there. As a BACKUP. Let the window be the primary vision system. It's simpler and it works and requires no electricity, no calibration, and no maintenance other than cleaning it as needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 9:40:05 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gerts has been dead for a decade..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 10:22:10 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
53 737’s per month right now. 57 per month starting in June. Plus we are at 1.5 P-8s per month with capacity for 2 per month over on Line 3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The KC-46 is delivered to the USAF ready to go. By that logic, Boeing builds approx 40 737s per month, so we should have gone with a 737 tanker. Number of orders dictate production rate, the 767 would have died along with the 757 if not for this tanker deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2019 11:36:26 PM EST
[#27]
Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Boeing is building about as many 737s per month, the 737 line ALONE, as Airbus builds of ALL models, per month.
Boeing has also built more 737s than the total number of planes Airbus has built. There just isn't enough you can say about the 737. First commercial service flight was 51 years ago. Continuous production all along. The number of aircraft ordered and delivered climbs so rapidly that I just say check Boeing's site twice a day for current updates. A quarter of the world's entire commercial airline fleet is 737s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 12:01:18 AM EST
[#28]
I’m not quoting all of you jabbering about a 777 or 737 tanker.
The KC-135 is the perfect sized tanker. Due to boom flow it’s optimized. The KC-10 can’t drag more fighters across the pond than 135. But, the 10 burns a lot more gas doing it. The main advantage of the 10 and the 46 is that they can carry a shitload of cargo, but we don’t use them for cargo. On the 737, it’s too small. It won’t carry the enough gas. Besides, you can’t build tankers on a commercial 737 line. They are too different. It isn’t legos or Kenworths. We will save money long term by buying a lot of the right aircraft every now and again... probably a bit more often as United to Delta replace their aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 12:02:18 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Boeing is building about as many 737s per month, the 737 line ALONE, as Airbus builds of ALL models, per month. Boeing has also built more 737s than the total number of planes Airbus has built. There just isn't enough you can say about the 737. First commercial service flight was 51 years ago. Continuous production all along. The number of aircraft ordered and delivered climbs so rapidly that I just say check Boeing's site twice a day for current updates. A quarter of the world's entire commercial airline fleet is 737s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 12:03:39 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Haha I spent years flying passengers into Lawton and doing overnights there. I don't remember enjoying a single stay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a horrible place when you have to go to Lawton to find something to do. I spent years flying passengers into Lawton and doing overnights there. I don't remember enjoying a single stay. Lawton is a shithole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:05:15 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The big complaint about the Airbus tanker was that it was too big to use KC-135 hangars, fuel barns and nose docks, while the 767-based KC-46 will fit in those facilities. A 777 is too big to use those KC-135 facilities, and like the Airbus would require a shit ton of additional spending to build new hangars, nose docks and fuel barns at every base receiving them. All that construction would cost as much as the contract to buy the aircraft Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. A 777 is too big to use those KC-135 facilities, and like the Airbus would require a shit ton of additional spending to build new hangars, nose docks and fuel barns at every base receiving them. All that construction would cost as much as the contract to buy the aircraft |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:07:38 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all. The objective for this contract was never to add large tankers comparable in capacity with the larger DC-10 based KC-10. It is to provide fleet augmentation and eventual replacement for the (relatively) smaller KC-135. (The 707 is a derivative of the 135 design.) The size difference between the KC-135 and KC-10 is considerable. Here's a KC-10 refueling an RC-135 which is the same airframe as a KC-135. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/RC135_KC10_refuel.JPG The KC-46 is larger than the 135 but smaller than the 10. It allows the 46 to more easily serve in place of the 135 without having to upgrade facilities, ramps, aprons, runways, hangars, etc. which would be required for a tanker variant of the A330 or, hypothetically, a 777 based variant which would be even larger. There's not a lot of need to use a bigger, heavier, more capable tanker when the smaller one gets the job done efficiently. Cargo capacity is irrelevant when nearly all tanker missions take off from and land at the SAME base. Cargo capacity only means something if you're going to take off from Base A and land at Base B where the stuff is needed. And that's not a routine tanker mission. Here's a good size comparison for reference. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/tankers.png And this one clearly defines the size range between our "standard" 135 class tankers and the "large" KC-10 class. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/kc-777-image03.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah it’s really weird they did the 767 platform. The objective for this contract was never to add large tankers comparable in capacity with the larger DC-10 based KC-10. It is to provide fleet augmentation and eventual replacement for the (relatively) smaller KC-135. (The 707 is a derivative of the 135 design.) The size difference between the KC-135 and KC-10 is considerable. Here's a KC-10 refueling an RC-135 which is the same airframe as a KC-135. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/RC135_KC10_refuel.JPG The KC-46 is larger than the 135 but smaller than the 10. It allows the 46 to more easily serve in place of the 135 without having to upgrade facilities, ramps, aprons, runways, hangars, etc. which would be required for a tanker variant of the A330 or, hypothetically, a 777 based variant which would be even larger. There's not a lot of need to use a bigger, heavier, more capable tanker when the smaller one gets the job done efficiently. Cargo capacity is irrelevant when nearly all tanker missions take off from and land at the SAME base. Cargo capacity only means something if you're going to take off from Base A and land at Base B where the stuff is needed. And that's not a routine tanker mission. Here's a good size comparison for reference. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/tankers.png And this one clearly defines the size range between our "standard" 135 class tankers and the "large" KC-10 class. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/kc-777-image03.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:14:56 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weird in the sense that Chairborne has already talked about in that the 767 is basically a dead platform whereas the 777 is much newer and they're still building them, plus the new 777X coming out as well. Just seems strange that they'd pick an aircraft that's almost 36 years old vs. a newer/nicer frame, regardless of the size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:16:52 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FedEx and UPS combined have over tons 767-300Fs on order from Boeing with options for more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Weird in the sense that Chairborne has already talked about in that the 767 is basically a dead platform whereas the 777 is much newer and they're still building them, plus the new 777X coming out as well. Just seems strange that they'd pick an aircraft that's almost 36 years old vs. a newer/nicer frame, regardless of the size. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:18:38 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are cargo 767's the same as KC-46 tankers used in the Air Force? I think not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:26:54 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either way, the 767 is a viable platform and even without the KC-46 program isn't going away anytime soon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Are cargo 767's the same as KC-46 tankers used in the Air Force? I think not. 
Eta: Boeing hasn't made a passenger 767 since 2014. The only thing propping up the 767 was Fedex orders, until they got the AF to use it as the KC-46. Lol viable platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:30:51 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only for cargo and that's because there's a shit ton of them out there for parts/frames, otherwise, UPS/Fedex/cargo carriers would have been buying into the 777. I'd like to see the prices that Boeing gave these purchasers to see what kind of discounts they threw at them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:44:00 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FedEx is the largest operator of the 777F and outside the US it's one of the most popular new cargo aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Only for cargo and that's because there's a shit ton of them out there for parts/frames, otherwise, UPS/Fedex/cargo carriers would have been buying into the 777. I'd like to see the prices that Boeing gave these purchasers to see what kind of discounts they threw at them. Now you're starting to see where everyone else is coming from. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 2:50:02 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all. The objective for this contract was never to add large tankers comparable in capacity with the larger DC-10 based KC-10. It is to provide fleet augmentation and eventual replacement for the (relatively) smaller KC-135. (The 707 is a derivative of the 135 design.) The size difference between the KC-135 and KC-10 is considerable. Here's a KC-10 refueling an RC-135 which is the same airframe as a KC-135. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/RC135_KC10_refuel.JPG The KC-46 is larger than the 135 but smaller than the 10. It allows the 46 to more easily serve in place of the 135 without having to upgrade facilities, ramps, aprons, runways, hangars, etc. which would be required for a tanker variant of the A330 or, hypothetically, a 777 based variant which would be even larger. There's not a lot of need to use a bigger, heavier, more capable tanker when the smaller one gets the job done efficiently. Cargo capacity is irrelevant when nearly all tanker missions take off from and land at the SAME base. Cargo capacity only means something if you're going to take off from Base A and land at Base B where the stuff is needed. And that's not a routine tanker mission. Here's a good size comparison for reference. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/tankers.png And this one clearly defines the size range between our "standard" 135 class tankers and the "large" KC-10 class. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/kc-777-image03.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah it’s really weird they did the 767 platform. The objective for this contract was never to add large tankers comparable in capacity with the larger DC-10 based KC-10. It is to provide fleet augmentation and eventual replacement for the (relatively) smaller KC-135. (The 707 is a derivative of the 135 design.) The size difference between the KC-135 and KC-10 is considerable. Here's a KC-10 refueling an RC-135 which is the same airframe as a KC-135. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/RC135_KC10_refuel.JPG The KC-46 is larger than the 135 but smaller than the 10. It allows the 46 to more easily serve in place of the 135 without having to upgrade facilities, ramps, aprons, runways, hangars, etc. which would be required for a tanker variant of the A330 or, hypothetically, a 777 based variant which would be even larger. There's not a lot of need to use a bigger, heavier, more capable tanker when the smaller one gets the job done efficiently. Cargo capacity is irrelevant when nearly all tanker missions take off from and land at the SAME base. Cargo capacity only means something if you're going to take off from Base A and land at Base B where the stuff is needed. And that's not a routine tanker mission. Here's a good size comparison for reference. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/tankers.png And this one clearly defines the size range between our "standard" 135 class tankers and the "large" KC-10 class. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/kc-777-image03.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 3:32:15 PM EST
[#40]
Started flying today. Sorry for the audio, the wind was howling so turn down the volume.
 KC-46A Touch and Go at Altus AFB |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 4:19:58 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are cargo 767's the same as KC-46 tankers used in the Air Force? I think not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weird in the sense that Chairborne has already talked about in that the 767 is basically a dead platform whereas the 777 is much newer and they're still building them, plus the new 777X coming out as well. Just seems strange that they'd pick an aircraft that's almost 36 years old vs. a newer/nicer frame, regardless of the size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2019 4:26:25 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the time Boeing was working on their third submission they could have easily put it on the 787. The 135 has aged so well partly because it was absolutely state of the art when it was built. The 767 is state of the art 1982. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would prefer 777 based. But, eh. I could have made some money on this deal. But a certain asshole sold a bunch of stock without my permission. In 2008 Jim Albaugh, President of Boeing Commercial, gave some reasoning why Boeing didn't bid a KC-787 (and USAF couldn't select if if Boeing didn't bid it) for the 3rd competition: “I’m not certain this airplane lends itself … to being a derivative because this is an airplane we took a lot of weight out of,”...“We didn’t overdesign this airplane like the 707 is over designed or the 767.” |
|
|
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.
