this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
127 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39040 readers
2805 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The HMS Diamond shot down the drone - the first time in decades that the Royal Navy has taken out an aerial target in anger

A Royal Navy destroyer warship has shot down a suspected attack drone over the Red Sea, the Defence Secretary has said.

The HMS Diamond was only sent to the region two weeks ago amid growing international concern about the threat to shipping.

The Type 45 destroyer was said to have destroyed the suspected attack drone targeting merchant shipping - with a Sea Viper missile.

It is believed to be the first time that the Royal Navy has shot down an aerial target in anger since the First Gulf War in 1991.

Grant Shapps said it was believed merchant shipping in the Red Sea was the intended target, in the latest such confrontation in the key global shipping route.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you wanna unite the world powers against you, the easy way to do that is to target international shipping

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Exactly, the spice must flow

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 13 points 11 months ago (4 children)

We really need a better way to take these out.

Missles will always cost more than the drone which makes it unsustainable.

[–] Rednax 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Several options are floating around.

Radar guided smart munitions. These gun based munitions steer based on commands from the ships radar and detonate when near their target.

Ship based lasers are also in use as prototypes by the US.

Electronic counter measures. Jamming the GPS signal and/or the signal with the operator can render most drones useless.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ship based lasers are also in use as prototypes by the US.

Lasers will always be in the prototype stage as they have been since the days of the Reagan administration
40+ years ago.

2021: How Close Is the Navy to Putting Lasers on Its Warships?

2010: Boeing designs ship-based laser weapon system

2001: The Promise and Problems of Laser Weapons

Their use in SF movies are far, far from reality.

The simple measure measure of covering a drove in mylar reflects 90% of the incoming radiation, meaning your system now needs to be 10 times more powerful to be effective.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Would a mylar covered drone not be easier to spot given its increased reflectiveness? Maybe that could be countered some other way via earlier detection making another option more viable?

We use lasers, so you cover in mylar, so now this other thing works.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Cheaper drones with self destruct

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They’re well into development and deployment of many methods.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] br3d 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They shoot down training drones all the time, so shooting things down isn't novel. "In anger" is a normal phrase to describe doing something in a conflict situation, in contrast to training

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't consider jt a normal phrase in the sense that it is used often, or, like, at all. I've never heard it in this context.

Maybe it's a British thing?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'd consider it a normal phrase and I'm Australian, so it's not just a British thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Eh, you guys are just Southern Brits with way better weather

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

I would too and I'm American. This person is simply unlettered. Maybe they're just a kid, in which case it's forgivable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I did not know that. I believe you, but that seems like a pretty strange word to use. I couldn't find any references to it online, either... I wonder if it's colloquial.

EDIT: I did manage to find some references to the phrase with a little more digging. I wasn't getting far with "anger" or "in anger," but the phrase "fire in anger" started leading to some interesting results.

Dictionaries - MW and Dictionary.com don't contain the phrase "fire in anger" or "in anger," and their entries for "anger" don't support this usage. Oxford has an entry for "in anger," which just means "when angry."

Cambridge Dictionary's entry for "anger" doesn't support this use either, but it does contain the phrase "in anger" per se, which notes that the phrase is a) primarily in UK English, and b) is considered an idiom... i.e. not an ordinary use of the word "anger." Interestingly, it doesn't mention the military context, and uses examples (mostly) unrelated to warfighting.

Wiktionary contains "fire in anger" (but not "in anger"). It's described as a military idiom consistent with the usage in OP's article. It doesn't suggest usage outside of that context.

Etymology - I can't find any compelling etymology of "fire in anger" or Cambridge's idiomatic sense of "in anger," and the etymology of the word "anger" itself ("grief, sorrow," cognate with words in other languages for "regret") doesn't really help. I have my guesses, but who knows?

Conclusion - It seems to be chiefly British, largely but not exclusively used in a military context, and it's not so ubiquitous as to be represented in most dictionaries. Definitely exists as a phrase though, and perhaps in some circles, it's very common. TIL.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it's entirely normal and part of standard usage. You probably don't read very much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Lol dammit, I knew that asking about a term that I hadn't heard before would out me as completely illiterate. Caught me 😏

Anyway I dug a little more and made an edit above, if you're interested.

[–] CurlyMoustache 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Strobelt 4 points 11 months ago

I heard you say