/anthro/ - Anthropomorphic

It's what they call their R&D department

>>55311
stop ruining the joke you chud

Reminder that /skunk/s made the greatest and most advanced fighter jet in the world, the f35. Kitsunes have achieved nothing but steal Intel and barely compete with outdated technology like f22 (this is advanced to 3rd world shitskins). Kitsunes have no concept of stealth and have no idea just how far the f35, if they ever try to start shit they will get BTFOd.

>>59751
6/10, got a (You) from me.

The F35 was conceived of during the Cold War as a more advanced replacement fur several aircraft that only had the F designation fur "fighter" as a political fig leaf, like the F111, F105, and F117  "Oh, no, Mr. Prime Minister! These are merely jet fighters fur defense that we want to put on that base in your country. These are certainly not bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Would you like to see some brochures from their manufacturers?"

I am still boggled that the F35 is theoretically designed to minimize its observability by modern radars, yet only has two tiny individual internal weapon bays capable of carrying air to ground munitions, neither of which can hold anything larger than one single five hundred pound GBU-10 or GBU-38.  Yes, you can hang pylons under the wings, and on those pylons you can put big fat bombs that have steel casings... which are big enough and reflective enough to make them perfectly visible to sixty year old air defense radars from 100+ miles away.

Yes, I know, precision guidance systems are a furce multiplier.  But if this was supposed to be an F111 replacement, it needed to be able to haul more than that.  Even the F117 could carry two one thousand pound GBU-16s internally.

Imagine a cute skunk image here. It's not letting me attach images again. ("Something went wrong, please check your connection or the server is down.")

>>59760
Please try post skunk anon, I want to see it. Also maybe try refresh tab, whenever I post from mobile I also have issues.
>yet only has two tiny individual internal weapon bays capable of carrying air to ground munitions
My assumption is that f35 is an accessory, not the force itself. Use it to carry our precision strikes against anti air defenses, and once those are down and you establish air superiority then bring in the f15 and bombers to merciless strike down all those that opposed you. We seen it happen in Iran where Israel used f35 and the "modern" Russian anti air defenses were useless. But I doubt any of that matters when now you can just send 1000 drones and who cares if 999 get shot down 1 still gets through

94101caa89b89781e1d75e27dc109cbb5225b49901b727e1e94b2eae38c9556f.jpeg U A
[Hide] (39.2KB, 500x500)
Reverse

>>59751

be1fbcef5016176e7682291a58ef3813914eaf9c21cfec93f278e325ccd39854.png U A
[Hide] (777.6KB, 1579x1500)
Reverse

>>59764
Yes, but they retired the last F111s in 1998, and those were the electronic warfare variants.  The US Air Furce has had no dedicated high-speed, heavy-load, low-altitude attack aircraft fur almost three decades.  Bolting bomb racks onto F15 airframes was clever, I guess, but it isn't really a substitute fur something that could haul over fifteen tons of munitions, supersonic on the deck, while being cheaper to operate than the Bone and capable of taking off and landing from shorter airstrips.

skunk_gyatt.png U A
[Hide] (258.3KB, 2815x3645)
Reverse

>>59764
>But I doubt any of that matters when now you can just send 1000 drones and who cares if 999 get shot down 1 still gets through
That's what their announcement was about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrAOBuskffA
>mandatory skunk gyatt

>>59789
I have not seen this video, but the idea is exactly what I once presented fur my job. About 2 years ago I did a presentation on use of AI in drones, and how it can be used to detect targets and connect with the militaries network. Ukraine is already experimenting with kill zones and already using UGV to transport supplies because the most important target is the supply truck. When it comes to drones I'm fascinated by the subject and was really deep into it a few years ago.
>specialized drones
That's the key, specialized drones that do 1 task well and are really cheap. Trying to create a general purpose frame destroys any advantage the drone has. It's an example of how soviets/russians use the BMP frame, and while it looks cool fur the laymen "look how I can turn this troop transport into a anti-air and fur my final trick a anti tank!" without realizing the BMP frame will always consume the same amount of fuel no matter what you put on it. General purpose sounds cool on paper, but fur logistics it's a fluffing nightmare when your entire army is starving fur fuel. The m113 is an amazing example of something that does one fluffing thing really well and that is getting men to the front, as fast as possible with protection from shrapnel and small arms fire. I try to minimize how much infurmation I consume about war and that stuff nowadays but I can't help get excited anytime I see cool shit like this
>>59786
The f15 is beautiful and it works, if your enemy can't fight back why use anything more than necessary.

d2785aed14b8c96690d41e7eef7ef0fbbbd47fe5998f6763ee20cc0623a69ff0.png U A
[Hide] (203.9KB, 2323x1500)
Reverse

>>59790
Well, there are logistics and there are logistics. I would argue that the US military made use of the M113 fur decades and decades, and there were a great many vehicles based on its chassis and transmission, from self-propelled mortar carriers to short-range air defense vehicles.  The spare parts they shared in common, and the common points of designs about which mechanics were already trained helped logistics a great deal.

Something like the BMP doesn't get great fuel economy, but it's an armored tracked AFV, and that kind of goes with the territory.  I am a little surprised the Russians never made wider use of the BMP and, even more so, the wheeled BTR60/BTR70 chassis.  If I had been a defense analyst circa 1965 and you'd asked me to predict what was going to be coming out of the production lines in the USSR, I'd have said "BTR60 chassis are cheap and common, so of course they're going to use them fur self-propelled artillery and every other thing they can think of to bolt onto it that'll kinda-sorta work and fit." Instead the Russians created bespoke armored chassis fur things like the ZSU-23-4, that had parts hardly anything else used.  But then they also created and manufactured the T64 and T72 simultaneously, two tanks with the same gun, the same electro-optical systems, very similar laminated armor chassis, and absolutely no parts shared in common between the two. It's bizarre to me.  I can't explain it without resorting to speculation about corruption and funds flowing from the various state-owned design bureaus to members of the Politburo.

tl;dr fuel consumption is only one aspect of logistics.