this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
222 points (98.7% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6416 readers
563 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. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.

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 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. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread 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.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Still makes me think of Extreme-G 2: Reah Fiyah Rockets.

mool tee pull miss aisle.

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

Because you have to think in russian to fire them.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

The original concept for a similar system was to have the pilot jettison multiple styrofoam mcdonalds containers out the rear of the aircraft, which would shred in the jet wash and gum up the enemy engine. A mockup of the system was performed along american highways in the 1970’s.

Unfortunately, future conditions made the system impractical, not due to a difficulty in finding styrofoam containers in america, but in getting the contract-required grimmace costume on the test pilots. The program was discontinued in 2018 due to budget reappropriating of funds for backup kuerig machines in all air force base quarters.

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

Why would anything be "behind" them?

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

It's called being chased at a dogfight.

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

If you're in a dogfight then you're too close to use missiles effectively anyway.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

You can use short range infrared homing missiles in a dogfight.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fighter planes should just have a reverse gear. It would be much more simple.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Bandit on your 6? Time for a bootlegger reverse maneuver.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Can't just drop it into reverse from like Mach 5 gear. Would need like a Mach 1 reverse, then speed back up to Mach 5 reverse

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

We can't reverse. It's too dangerous. We have to slow down first!!

Bullshit! Just reverse this thing! I order you! Reverse!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Yes sir! air transmission gears grinding

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

I'll just leave the implementation details to you.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hear me out.... Upgraded flight surfaces to account for lower launch speeds due to being backwards

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, just put a ludicrously powerful engine on it.

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

Regular forward facing missiles need to be "aimed" at enemy planes to be effective. How can you aim at something that is behind you?

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

Lmao I'm pretty sure the airforce could strap a rear facing camera on a plane

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you want the driver of the plane to focus on two things? Unless you have another personnel manning that camera

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Lmao you think pilots of the top of the line fighter jets can't check an instrumentation screen?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yo Ishmael! The boys at Mithridates University have come up with this sick new tech. The Romans won't know what hit them!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Nerf please, our heavy infantry meta is no longer viable

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Missiles require an inordinate amount of thrust for their weight to remain airborne, due to the lack of large(ish) wings. Because the aircraft is already moving forward at high speed, the missile would lose considerable altitude (if fired backwards) before it would acquire sufficient velocity on it’s own again.

IIRC there have been missiles that could be targeted against aircraft behind the one launching the missiles. They would lock the missile against the pursuing aircraft, fire it forward, and the missile would arc around to go after the other aircraft.

Now bullets on the other hand, can come in supersonic versions. Unless the aircraft is moving at Mach speeds (and you always slow down to dogfight in order to make turns survivable), a supersonic bullet fired backwards will have sufficient speed in that direction to reach the other aircraft without too much aiming difficulties.

Beyond bullets: AFAIK there have been experiments in launching chaff (metal filings) such that it gets ingested into the pursuing aircraft’s engines, causing damage that way. But from what I recall there was too much of a risk of other aircraft in the vicinity and below that engagement also getting caught in the falling chaff. Still good for enemy aircraft, not so much for your own teammates.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Missiles would just have their initial attitude slightly upright - much like a javelin.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There was a Clint Eastwood movie where backwards firing missiles were the whole shtick.

The catch is the plane is controlled by thoughts. Russian thoughts. The final dogfight came down to Clint finding his inner Russian and thinking of the magic word "blyat" to get the plane to fire ze backwards missiles.

It was a wild ride.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

This movie seems horrible. I have to see it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

That's a fun movie

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Given that summary I thought you were joking but holy shit that is an actual movie. crazy!

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

What the actual fuck.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's obviously a great idea, but

(why has no one said this yet?)

Ackshually 🤓 - those things in the image of the A-4 that you flipped around are fuel tanks, not weapons.

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

Pretty sure those are Mark 14's.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
  • Mark 14 torpedos are straight in the middle, not curved all the way.
  • Mark 14 torpedos have 4, not 2 fins at the end, and 2 screws.
  • These are 300 gallon drop tanks. EDIT: now I'm wondering if the schematic shows the smaller Aero 1C 150 gallon drop tanks. Similar profile but thinner

A-4 Skyhawks, like most fighter/attack jets since the 1960s, usually fly with at least one drop tank of fuel. The two tanks under the wings is the most used configuration during the 60s and early 70s. Later versions, such as the USMC's A-4M, which was used until the early 90s (but not deployed in Desert Shield / Desert Storm), were often seen with a larger drop tank (400 gallon?), often preferring a single large drop tank on the centerline to have more room for weapons. These did have a significantly stronger engine so bringing a larger payload was useful.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

....why does Lemmy's noncredible insist on being lesscredible, or even credible?

But thanks for the write up and graphics to show me why WWII era naval torpedoes weren't actually mounted on those hard points lol.

load more comments
view more: next ›