this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6669 readers
1272 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Are these purpose built drones? They kinda look like someone's taken like a piper cub or similar type of plane and converted it to remote control.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

Isn't that exactly what they did? Not sure the airplane class, but the first article written made it sound like they stuffed an airplane full of explosives and remote piloted it to destination..

[–] Dupree878 13 points 7 months ago

They are Aeroprakt A-22 Foxbat Ukrainian ultralight aircraft

[–] Crackhappy 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what all the military strategists around the world think of this particular development. There are so many private small aeroplanes flying every day, oftentimes without even talking to air traffic control. I wonder if this might result in some new rules for private pilots.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

I doubt it. You could do similar damage with more drones. And if your going to commit terrorism, I don't think you care about laws... and what aircraft will intercept that anyway?

I hate war... but I have technological wet dreams about seeing how current western technology would work in this war. There is so much code stuff still almost untested.

[–] marcos 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Now, we need a large airborne plane carrier.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I can't say with certainty just off the top of my head, but I feel like the U.S thought about that for a minute.

I feel like WW2? I could also be confusing bits from an old History Channel documentary.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

They're called parasite fighters, and just about everyone has had a go at them at some point.

The Goblin was the last serious attempt.

[–] nBodyProblem 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The US built the XF-85 goblin parasite fighter, which was supposed to be deployed using a robotic arm from the bomb bay of a B-36. The idea came from ww2 when we had escort fighters for most major bombing missions to keep the bombers safe.

It wasn’t practical to build a fighter with enough range to escort strategic bombers into the Soviet Union so they thought, “why not carry the fighter inside the bomber?”

[–] Mirshe 5 points 7 months ago

We also tried to do parasite fighters off a dirigible, but it turned out they were finicky and the carrier was too big and obvious a target.

[–] EvilMe 4 points 7 months ago

There have been a few, some didn't leave the drawing board, others actually got made.

Here's a couple of the top of my head. I don't know much about them, just what Ive seen from these videos.

Soviet aircraft carrier American aircraft carrier What ever happened to flying aircraft carriers?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

They should try 🔼▶️🔽🔽🔽

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

This war ends with arsenal bird doesn't it?