NonCredibleDefense
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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.
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
view the rest of the comments
I really hope the western allies have a plan for countering drones in the pipeline, otherwise the next time we fight an insurgency will be a bloodbath.
As someone who’s been following this fairly closely since the Syrians started toying with it, and the Ukrainians threw it into hyperdrive… There’s no good counter when drones are cheap to make and can be programmed to run on a flight course:
That assumes you know the drone is coming, mind you. Piston-engine flying wings aren’t silent, but they are generally made of polymers/laminates that are hard to detect via radar. Thermal cameras and acoustic sensors so far are the best early warning systems, but radar is still a huge help.
And then there’s FPV and quadcopters. While a larger munition like Shaheed can be under $10k, even the more advanced FPV/quads with night vision (or even thermal) cameras frequently run under $1,000, up to a few thousand. Air dropped explosives have been fundamental in changing the course of the civil war in Myanmar for the rebels, it’s like having a budget Air Force and spy satellites on call.
Have they looked at masers? Basically rf lasers.i think they're much cheaper than lasers and could be steered at drones but would only need enough power to interfere with guidance/ controls
Yes, you can damage pretty much anything with enough energy. It's hard to fit high-power lasers on small flight-capable platforms, so ground-based units are more likely. You can blind UAV systems' sensors with IR lasers at relatively low power, too. However, this is easily countered by software. Reflective coatings and retroreflective foils are possible countermeasures to laser attacks, but even these have damage thresholds.
IR lasers and masers have the advantage of being eye-safe, meaning their light won't get bent by your eyes' lenses and can't damage your retinas, due to their wavelength. With enough power, however, you can still burn human flesh.
TIL, thank you friend!
There has been development of smarter jammers that’ll ‘listen’ for the frequency used, and pump out jamming to defeat it, but I haven’t heard of a steerable unit like that - very interesting.
Why not just use a big shotgun for the smaller stuff, skeet shooting style? I dunno how to really deal with much larger drones, but a shotgun should be able to deal with most human sized drone targets pretty easily
What about a shotgun shell but each pellet is crimped around the midpoint of a bundle of carbon fibers
Gin and hubris tell me the leading defense will be other drones. Defense still has the range advantage: assholes come to you. You can easily make faster and lighter drones than whatever's targeting you, and if nothing else, punish attacks with loss of materiel. Which doesn't even require blowing up your zippy little drone, if the enemy's rotors can be fucked by anything more substantial than Silly String.
Hmm, what about Phalanx/CIWS for hard kill? Assuming you can track the target.
Of course the real solution is trained birds.
The air burst rounds sound like the best option, pretty much guaranteed kill against a slow moving drone, cost less than what you're shooting at, and useful against a wide range of targets.
Yup, air burst and lasers are the leading ideas atm. But you’re still dealing with a zone of protection a kilometer or so - not a big deal to defend the main command post or vital supply depots, but spreading that out to industrial areas, grid power stations and substations, seaport complexes, or cities and your ‘blanket’ of protection starts looking too small for the job of covering the ‘want to have’ as well as the ‘need to have’ protected.
I was thinking about military actions on foreign soil, where the infrastructure is theirs anyway.