544
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
544 points (98.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
585 users here now
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.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is precisely the top-tier content I come here for. Well done.
It was a post earlier this week by someone else. I linked it, throw them an up vote too!
For the em’prah.
May the 1000 year reign of the B-52 bring us joy and prosperity.
Long live buff.
I'm still surprised theres not a gunship version, thing could carry a fuckload of dakka.
The B-52 is designed to fly high-altitude at high subsonic speed. And they're not very maneuverable. They're meant to fly straight to a target, drop a payload, and GTFO.
Gunships fly low and slow, banking in a circle to keep their guns on target. For a B-52 to do the same maneuver, it'd have to be higher and much further away.
This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber because it could carry a lot of bombs. Like yeah, it could, but there's better options.
This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber
Fuck yeah. Do that too!
Chinook bomber variant you say?
It depends on what kind of gunship you want, lots of guns can fit on a b52 that can't on an ac130. A series of 155s or bofors 40mk4s, mk38 bushmasters or stripped down 5" guns all of which fire rapidly, automatically and at ranges the ac130 could not touch with significant increases of time on target.
It doesn't need to be maneuverable, gunboats don't go in without air superiority anyway. That said they're way more maneuverable and controllable then you'd imagine. It wouldn't need to be one or the other, you could have both running counter pylon turns covering up for the gaps in each other's capabilities.
Notably many people said the ac130 was not a useful idea.
Praise be
Anyone else yearn to live in a fantasy setting where they could get a plane like this and go from airfield to airfield living as a traveling trader?
😂 I think that's a cool idea; but I reckon the running cost in fuel alone, without maintenance, would make this implausible.
Well yeah, the fantasy part is that you'd make enough money to actually do it, heh.
You could easily make enough money to do it. So long as the things you're trading aren't legal! Haha
Now I wanna rewatch that Tom Cruise movie...
There's a Mr. Fusion on board to power the retrofitted pulse engines. Which is a good thing, since all the nanobots that nonstop repair the airframe take about half the energy produced (the engines taking the other half, of course).
Just remember to chuck a couple Cyberdyne Model-101 skeletons in the fuel chamber and you're good for another year or so.
That's the part of tale spin that breaks the immersion for me, the fuel costs!
Is this like a high fantasy setting or a more sci-fi one. I’ve had this for the former. Though with a number of different vehicles.
An unforseen cost is all the wrapping paper and scotch tape.
I, for one, welcome our new stratofortressian overlords.
Mine won't stop singing about rock lobsters.
building balance comparison adjustment pocket bed blue top produce between hanging disease watch cloud muscle hammer sleep little straight leaf heat dress kiss stocking level credit but fall sneeze company rate you responsible song cover disgust form comb word punishment opinion profit able twist tired sand hospital tendency wall son
