>Lockheed Martin has successfully tested two new versions of its Common Multi-Mission Truck (CMMT), a low-cost vehicle designed to carry a variety of payloads for military missions, the company announced this week.
>The two models, CMMT-D and CMMT-X, are designed to give the US military affordable options for long-range strikes and other missions.
>The CMMT-D is an unpowered glide vehicle, while the CMMT-X is a powered, experimental version. Both were tested in recent weeks using different launch methods.
>The CMMT-D has a range of about 500 nautical miles and is expected to cost around $150,000, about a tenth of the cost of a JASSM. However, it’s not built to be as stealthy.
>Lockheed is developing vehicle launch options on pylons, pallets, and vertical platforms. They are also designed to be produced quickly and at scale, using digital design and manufacturing tools.
>The company also said it achieved this milestone just 10 months after beginning the project.

https://youtu.be/Cvxn2Gr1uQE
https://interestingengineering.com/military/lockheed-tests-low-cost-cruise-missiles

Never underestimate the power of Dassult.

>send in a million shitbox cessnas to overwhelm enemy defenses

>>64009777
witnessed

>>64009777
You mean push a bunch of these niglets out the back of a passenger plane and terror bomb the enemy capital?

>>64009745 (OP)
Is that a piper Cherokee?

>>64009878
Yep a piper Pa-31

>>64009882
Based I knew the eggheads in the Itar section were cooking up something good

>>64009745 (OP)
Will this evolve into a large cruise missile releasing a bunch of small missiles?
And smaller missiles each releasing a bunch of quadcopters
And quadcopters releasing a bunch of fragments

>>64009745 (OP)
>Lockheed rapidly develops cruise missile that can be launched from almost any aircraft
>>64009766
>>64009777

LMAO, this is ancient fucking tactics that Iraq used, mounting Exocets on Leer jets
>it worked, and Iraq btfo'd a USS stark to the bottom of the ocean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Falcon_50
>"Single Falcon 50 for Iraq modified with a Cyrano IV-C5 radar and hardpoints to carry two AM-39 Exocet antiship missiles. Used for training Mirage F1 crews and possibly carried out the attack on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
>"attacking aircraft was a Falcon 50 business jet which had been modified with a radar and missile hardpoints to carry two AM-39 Exocet missiles for anti-shipping operations. Iraq had used modified Falcon jets in civilian markings to conduct covert photographic reconnaissance in the Persian Gulf to avoid attracting suspicion.["
>"A total of 37 crew were killed in the attack, 29 from the initial explosion and fire, including two lost at sea. Eight later died from their injuries. Twenty-one others survived their wounds"

>>64009745 (OP)
>Pallets
Rapid Dragon my love

A P O L O G I Z E
P
O
L
O
G
I
Z
E

>>64009910
wow you are quite brown aren't you
>Iraq btfo'd a USS stark to the bottom of the ocean
In the article you yourself linked it states she made her way to Bahrain then Mississippi to be eventually repaired
Why are the shills on this board so pathetic and obvious?

>>64009910
> btfo'd a USS stark to the bottom of the ocean
>thirdies actually believe this

>>64009910
>Iraq btfo'd a USS stark to the bottom of the ocean

>>64010029
I didn't see any FTL dirtbikers in the budget.

>>64009910
>"damaged by a nominal ally of the time in an unexpected attack" = sunk

I didn't know that faggot GDF posted on /k/.

>>64010116
>>64010126
>>64010133
to be fair to anon, it was functionally killed, and repairing stark cost around the same price as an entirely new perry.

>>64009777
yes

we're moving towards the age of cheap and effective, since expensive shit dies just as easily as cheap and equally as effective shit.

>>64011279
Does it though does it it really? What "expensive" shit have we seen and was it operated by competent troop? They sent some M1A1s to Ukraine, that's not to say the A2 package has greatly improved protection on the turret roof or engine deck but that is just about the most advanced shit we've seen destroyed lately. And more importantly they were few in number, operated by half-rate troops, and used in a manner inconsistent with the doctrine they were designed to operate within.

I'd say that "cheap" won't win rather "survivable" will. Which is to say rather than going the cheapest route you'd instead pick something slightly more expensive which prioritizes crew survivablity so you don't have to replace trained personnel with battle experience. If we've seen one thing lately it is that throwing both conscripts and spec ops at the problem without concern for casualties just degrades the capability of yoru forces for little gain. If Russia had carefully utilized its troops it wouldn't have to keep calling up masses of scum and shitskins to fill the ranks and it would now have troops actually worth a tin shit.

>>64011423
i don't think anything is survivable enough nowadays compared to the munitions that are being thrown around. a couple of anti-shipping missiles hitting an expensive warship usually kills it, and some will always get through from a serious salvo even if it's aware they're incoming.

i think [guided] volume of fire will be how it goes. and cheap but effective volume of fire is now possible. we're at the point where most munitions don't need external radars or command guidance to find their targets; they just need a bearing or a set of coordinates.

from a strategic perspective, cheap cruise missiles fired from cheap planes that work are better than expensive missiles fired from expensive planes that also work. having some high-end munitions for specific high value targets is still useful; you just don't want only high-end stuff, because you'll run out quickly and it'll be too hard to replace them in adequate numbers.

>>64010116
>>64010126
>>64010133
>>64011263
I'm guessing the brownie mistook this exocet attack for one that happened during the Falklands War.

>>64010116
>>64010126
>>64010133
>>64011263
>"I-it didn't sink! It only took 15 months and 142 million dollars (almost as much as a new one) to return back to service"
Amerilards coping

>>64009766
>Never underestimate the power of Dassult.
>Destroys FCAS

>>64011451
On the contrary, the Houhis have been a thorn at the side of the USN precisely because it takes as much ordinance to sink a frigate to kill a single of their ASM teams.

>>64011554
It literally didn't sink you noguns commie retard. Go back to /pol/, /leftypol/ (same thing I know), /int/, /bant/, or just r*ddit, since that's where you all cane from.

>>64009878
>>64009882
Wrong, that’s a Navajo

>>64011956
The Pa-31 is the navajo...

>>64011561
French aviation is so powerful it can destroy a next generation aircraft without even launching a missile

>>64009745 (OP)
Oh sure, when America attaches cruise missiles to an airliner it's an "innovation" but when China attaches cruise missiles to a cargo ship it's a "war crime".

>>64012174
When Americans willingly offer their flesh to satisfy cannibalistic curiosity it's seen as neat and okay. But when the Chinese need a decisive victory...