this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
263 points (99.3% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6620 readers
396 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 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The drone fired an RPG or the drone crashed into the copter carrying an RPG? THE PHYSICS.

[–] mars296@fedia.io 37 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If the picture is accurate it would have to have crashed into it.

[–] match@pawb.social 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

save a lot of money if you just have a grenade and propel it yourself

[–] mars296@fedia.io 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good luck hitting your target. With the drone even if you miss you can fly it back to safety until there is a new target too. Neither is meant for this type of combat and this case was probably just luck and an opertune target. The drone probably wasn't launched specifically to take out the aircraft.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rocket-propelled drone when?

... oh god, that's just the toon gun from Roger Rabbit. It's a bullet that can stop and ask for directions.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rocket-propelled drone

That's called a missile

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Missiles are very good at the go go go but not so good at the stop.

They've got one way and it's not the sort of trick you can repeat.

[–] scarilog@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

The invention of the suicide bomber (circa 2024, colourised)

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Doesn't rpg literally stand for rocket propelled grenade

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No, it stands for Role Playing Game. The drone was role-playing as a suicide bomber, keep up.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

LARP "fireballs" might work if delivered directly to the intake.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 months ago

A true example of the action economy in combat.

[–] Rato@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Sadly no, it stands for "Ruchnoĭ protivotankovyĭ granatomet," or "Hand Held Anti-tank Grenade Launcher" in English.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yup

Kind of amazed the drone was going fast enough to trigger the impact fuse. but no propellant so couldn't be fired

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Presumably they tamper with the charge so a fast impact isn't needed. Y'know, because what would be the point otherwise, regardless of the target.

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I'd also assume they just flew the thing near the hovering helicopter and triggered it remotely, that would do the trick.

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or maybe they hit the blades?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

It's not mutually exclusive.

[–] graeghos_714@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Drones are going to change future warfare so much. Big ships, fortifications, and slow planes/choppers are going to be very vulnerable imo

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Up to the time we develop an effective counter.

[–] graeghos_714@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But it's enough of a game changer that large and emplaced targets will be overwhelmed. Watching those drone shows and their ability to communicate with each other like a hive mind blew my mind thinking about that from a military standpoint. I think it will be like stealth technology and radar. Most planes are not stealth so old radar is still effective. Some things will be able to protect themselves from drone attacks, but most will be vulnerable in one way or another. I'm just a military gamer and I can think of hundreds of types of drones I'd create if I was planning for a defense or attack, the experts have likely thought of those and thousands more; diggers, crawlers, flyers, dummies until signaled, attaching things coming in and out from ground, air, etc, and on and on.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I remember basic designs being bought out by governments in 2007 when I was following development, so yes, there are years of work already into this.

[–] graeghos_714@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Imagine pods dropped like old parachutes but they become embedded in the ground with a drone controller and all the drones needed for the job at hand. You could drop hundreds of those in an area and create fortifications and drone weapon bases in one swoop. I imagine drone bases would be heavily protected from EMI type attacks

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age has a "forcefield" of anti-personnel drones around one compound. They form a dome and drift into one another to share power from the ground.

I don't remember if there's a reason they're not just wirelessly charged, aside from mass air-to-air refueling sounding cooler.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just read that! So much better than Snowcrash

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you read Neuromancer? Snow Crash must seem even goofier than intended without the fresh context of whiz-bang 1980s cyberpunk. It's satire. It's satire of the whole Johnny Mnemonic, True Names, Lawnmower Man brand of futurism, from people who'd never seen the internet and figured computers are magic. Stephenson turned that flying-through-numbers mysticism into a shopping mall - and a shocking number of influential people did not get the joke.

If you like Stephenson's writing when it's a doorstop, Cryptonomicon bounces between World War II and 1999's view of 2001. It freely borrows from historical events as much as it makes shit up... and I've been surprised by which parts weren't fiction. Yamamoto's assassination, for example. US fighters really did fly to the edge of their range, in the middle of nowhere, and fly back five hundred rounds lighter.

If you like Stephenson's writing when his editor has a short leash, Zodiac is basically his whole formula writ small. Literally and figuratively.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

I don't know that I get the jokes. I prefer to read fast and in binges,but I had to put down Diamond Age, often at the most exciting parts, and go touch grass.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The drones were powered by atmospheric static, I think? Or was it solar power? They recharged each other by close contact. The black dust created by constantly battling nanobots was terrifying. More terrifying than the amount of money Stephenson must have spent on stimulants.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

I think that's just how he is. It's not like Colombia naming a library after Stephen King.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Like this? https://eos-aus.com/defence/counter-drone-systems/slinger/

I like that this system uses bullets against drones, rather than massive generators and microwaves

I expect drones are going to need IFF soon

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Shit I had that on my Bingo card so many times in the 2010s I stopped putting it on there.

Dammit.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

would USA helicopters got shot down by the drone too?

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

People who answer you won't know what they're talking about.

People who know what they're talking about won't answer you.

Repost your question to the war thunder forums if you want it answered.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

With citable sources even!

We would offer the drone $2,200 and it would come work for us

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A helicopter will crash if you just look at it wrong. I'm not quite sure why this is surprising to a lot of people.

Just because a helicopter can go faster than a drone, doesn't mean it's always going faster than a drone. The benefit of vertical take off is that you can land and pick up troops in dangerous areas.

More than likely this is the same scenario as whenever they shoot down one of ours with an RPG in Afghanistan. Got them right after touch down or take off, or got a lucky hit while they were flying low and slow.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A helicopter will crash if you just look at it wrong. I’m not quite sure why this is surprising to a lot of people.

People really don't seem to understand how ridiculously flimsy helicopters can be. There's a reason why they're often called flying death traps by anyone who has to regularly be in one

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Yeap, only thing worse than rotary aircraft are apparently tiltrotar aircraft. The V22 is trying it's best to be the most dangerous thing in the air in the worst way possible.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yup, and a second rotor just adds another way to die.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And making those rotors tilt adds many new and exciting ways to die

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"We made our plane a helicopter so it works less."

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"It may be slow, but it's dangerous to operate"

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"It's got VTOL! Well, STOL. And by L we mean wear your seatbelt."

[–] tal@lemmy.today 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

would USA helicopters got shot down by the drone too?

I would guess so.

If we had a sensor package that could reliably detect FPV drones out there, I suspect that it'd be getting mass-produced and sent to the Ukrainians.

A helicopter can go faster than an FPV drone, so as long as it's in the air, and has a bit of warning, it can just outfly the drone; the drone can't catch up. Maybe multiple drones simultaneously coming from all directions, especially if there's also heavy air defenses that prevent the helicopter from climbing, could still bring down a helicopter.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

"A bit of warning" is probably overselling the acceleration of a traditional rotorcraft. You can't safely get four tons of anything moving quickly using the same mechanism keeping it off the ground. Compare that with minimalist disposable quadcopters, with their zero-to-top-speed profile of "holy shit, where'd it go?"

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 6 points 3 months ago

I want a $500 drone to shoot down a $1000 drone with a $10,000 missile.

[–] reddithalation@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

$1000 drone? likely less than 500$ even for a consumer, and ukraine does have some of its own production setup to drive costs lower.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 3 months ago

I kinda feel like an AirHogs plane could take down a Russian chopper now.