this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
138 points (98.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6757 readers
856 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sbv 33 points 5 days ago (2 children)

bro just raise the radar bro the horizon will be further away bro totally time for countermeasures bro

[–] Jiggle_Physics 20 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Just make a hovering AWACS that can hold U2 elevation. Then the gunship could hit targets across the pacific.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Rigid frame airship.

The term "Zeppelin" makes people nervous. They think they're made with lead.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Modern Zeppelin are semi-rigid 😛

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago

And ribbed for her pleasure.

[–] SomeAmateur 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

AC-5 Funship enters the chat

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

At that point it would be easier for it to be an orbital (intraplanetary?) platform, pic for reference https://files.catbox.moe/cejyk6.jpg

[–] Jiggle_Physics 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

but then we wouldn't be defeating the whining about water battleships and the horizon

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Plenty of horizon in low orbit!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Y not tethered awacs weatherballon??

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

massively parallel synthetic aperture awacs via drone swarm

[–] merc 12 points 5 days ago

The Pagoda Mast was a good idea, but not tall enough. 40m? C'mon, with modern tech we can do 100m easy.

[–] merc 23 points 5 days ago (4 children)

With the success of drones in Ukraine, I wonder if the future's just going to be midget drone-mothership subs.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I’m in for outrageous Ace Combat style drone carriers with their own point defense.

https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Arsenal_Bird

And conventional warhead ballistic missile subs with drone launchers:

https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Hrimfaxi

It’s “last second” MIRV too, so more politically correct.

The Japanese had things figured out in 2004, lol.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

midget drone-mothership subs.

So is it a the mothership that's a drone, or the midget subs? The latter would make more sense.

[–] fist_of_fartitude 15 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It would be a regular sized sub that's a drone mothership, crewed entirely by midgets

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Smart, you can fit an entire extra story inside that way. And they're less likely to mutiny if HAL decides when they surface.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Drones must be terrifying for midgets.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Maybe, but they are our last defense against nano bots.

[–] merc 4 points 5 days ago

The subs contain lots of drones, but the subs are unmanned, making them drones, and they're launched by a bigger mothership sub that's also a drone. All manned by midgets pretending to be AI, of course.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Military planning like that is exceedingly difficult and we're almost always wrong. Like fixed fortifications, in history there's at least 6 major moves away from fixed fortifications because they became "obsolete". A few years later some new design or invention comes about and suddenly fixed fortifications are en vogue again.

In this case I think the definition of a battleship will just change like it did for dread/pre-dread ships. Eventually I think it will be twin high velocity low throw weight railguns in a all or nothing armored extremely low freeboard stealth hull.

[–] merc 4 points 4 days ago

Battleships being at the center of naval plans obviously changed. But, I think you're right that something battleshippy will probably still exist.

I mean, look how long it took for the spear to go away. With bayonets you could argue that they've never gone away. But, they're now a secondary thing, rather than the primary thing armies are designed around.

I could imagine a future where a sea-tank exists, something that can take a hit and attack with direct-fire weapons. Having said that, the war in Ukraine is showing that a multi-million dollar tank can be taken out with a few hundred dollars in drone gear. Battleships are/were closer to $1 billion, and they were already mostly obsolete when they were in danger from multi-million dollar planes, dropping thousand dollar bombs, piloted by pilots who had been trained at the cost of millions of dollars.

[–] Trollception 2 points 3 days ago

Get out of here with your down to earth and sensible thinking. This is Lemmy!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

Carrier Has Arrived

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Design battleship to the brim with CIWS

Have a few token main guns

Park ship inside the enemy's missile range to theoretically fire guns

Spend entire hostility mulching their missiles as they focus on you

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Eh if it’s big enough just use something with orbital velocity.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Orbital battleships will take it out.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That Wii accessory? Yeah that's the one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think the Yamato predates the Wii.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

According to "experts".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

…what about a battleship with turret-catapult A10 float planes?..

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 days ago (2 children)

But does it go "brrrrrrrrrrt" ?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago

Scale it up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] fist_of_fartitude 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Plus the 16" guns can fire nuclear shells. It's like the Davy Crockett's big brother.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Wouldn't you want the Explosive* payload be nuclear rather than the shell? Seems dangerous for the crew

Edited forgotten word to make it clearer

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Imma let you finish, but a gatling gun made of 16" guns is strictly better than a regular 16" gun.

See also: This unit from Supreme Commander

[–] brotundspiele 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What about a gattling gun using 16" guns as ammo, then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Somebody get DARPA on this, stat.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Gets lasered out*