this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
428 points (98.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6660 readers
301 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] istdaslol 130 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Because they could use a trampoline to fling them back and we’d end up the the biggest game of tennis

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago

They said why not, they didn’t ask for you to give extra reasons why we should

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

And most important of all - and most tragically ironic - our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the trampoline gap. But our task now is not to fix the blame for the past, but to fix a course for the future.

-JFK

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's why we have to start flinging them now. Before the Zs close the trampoline gap. Sure they'd fling a few warships back now. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but it would be minimal casualties. 30 or 40 million tops. Depending on the breaks.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

No, general, I don't believe I have.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I'd watch that.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm confused, what's the reason we aren't doing this yet?

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We don't have enough NCD on the Senate committee on defense appropriations yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 93 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Damn, that's a high quality simulation. Those tasteful fractures, wonderful.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 42 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is it? I feel like the ship would basically pancake in on itself at first impact.

[–] Sarsoar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yea the first impact is not pancakey enough. And the second impact is too stone crumbly.

Also the chain is uncanny.

But this is still amazing and way better than anything I could do in 100 lifetimes.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

They likely took some liberties to have the back half crush the second building. That chain really does stand out though

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Dunno, I haven't catapulted a warship recently but it feels right?

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

I haven't catapulted a warship recently

Slacker.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 74 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ze French had ze right idéa!

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure crazy is less predictable that stupid, fwiw.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I wonder how much energy it would require to fling a warship from, say, NATO lake to Moscow.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh I'm going to do the math on this:

assuming the warship is being fired from a naval gun of truly massive proportions based on the AGS Mark 5, firing a saboted warship based on the LRLAP ( since they were made for the Zumwalt class and cost a million a round, making them the obvious best choice.)

And why not, let's also make the warship a Zumwaltz class, for flavor synergy.

The LRLAP weighd 225lbs and had an effective range of 150km, so thats ~ 100kg at 150km, and it would travel at 825 mps, let's say ours needs to go 800, were in no rush.

Projectile Mass: A Zumwalt weighs, rounded down, 15,000 long tons, which is 15,240,704 kg Let's say 15,000,000 kilograms. They emptied it, unloaded the ammunition, decommissioned the AGS, so it weighs a little less. Zumwalts are 610 feet long, let's make that 1000 total to account for an aerodynamic sabot and charge, so 300m. The bore length was 378" and the shell 88", so that gives us a ratio of 4.29:1

Our barrel is 1287m long, let's just say 1200m.

Saboted Zumwalt: 15,000,000Kg

Barrel length of gun: 1200m

Distance: We're gonna park this gun on Gotland, middle of lake NATO. Well need some space, and that's right in the middle. It's 1,168.31 km as the crow flies, so we'll round up to 1200 km.

So, our 1.2Km long nuclear cannon would send our saboted 15,000,000 ton Zumwalt 1200km @ 800 mps, requiring 1200 Kilotons of energy, rounded up. The boat would be in flight for about 25 minutes.

My math is quite accurate, please do not double check it.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Not great, not terrible.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Probably depends entirely on the aerodynamics involved, if we're assuming it's approaching as an aircraft. This is kind of an intermediate range, and it has shitty ballistics, so the energy to just get it off the ground will be dwarfed.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is NCD, ignoring air resistance or at very minimum using wildly incorrect values is expected

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Shit. So I should have gone with the "oversized hyperloop" idea and just said zero. My bad.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So I did some math, and I'm assuming we need about 1/3 of LEO velocity, it would take 707 SpaceX Starship launches to throw USS Abraham Lincoln to Kremlin.

This is of course ignoring air resistance, other physics and common sense + we're assuming spherical aircraft carrier

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

Okay this might get little bit too credible, but if we were to disassemble the aircraft carrier in 150t pieces and launch to low earth orbit, assemble it again there and then use 1 more starship to slow it's velocity to deorbit and drop it to target, we would need little over 2100 starship launches. Little bit more if we cover the ship with heat tiles to protect during re-entry.

Honestly this seems well worth it considering how much cooler it would be than the usual designs for kinetic orbital strike.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Did you get the 1/3 number somewhere? St. Petersburg is on the Baltic, and Moscow is only like 600 km away.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I can't stop.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah I did some research and calculations, and pulled that number out of my ass

Edit:

Based on this guys math which I trust as much as anything in this community, you'd need 9522km/h velocity, which is pretty damn close to 1/3 LEO velocity (28000km/h).

This makes my ass scientifically proven

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would say a rock is a better approximation than an aircraft lmao

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you throw it, and it doesn't go into space, a rock is an aircraft.

Source: Am an airforce geologist. ^/s^

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 5 points 3 months ago

Remember your college physics: First Rule - we can ignore aerodynamics.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So let’s you want to yeet this over 1000km from a NATO country to Moscow.

You’d need at least 3000 m/s of velocity to do this (a ton more since this without air resistance).

A fletcher class destroyer is around 2000 tons.

So you’d need more than 8 terajoules or 2 kilotons of TNT.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

For these purposes I am, of course, assuming that air resistance doesn't exist. Which would probably increase this answer by a lot.

Narva bay to Moscow = 713 km Fully loaded Arleigh Burke destroyer displacement = 8,432,800 kg

v = launch velocity d = horizontal distance = 713000 m θ = angle we're launching the ship at = 45 degrees g = acceleration (from gravity) = 9.81 ms^-1

Range of a projectile equation:

d = (v^2 sin(2θ)) / g

Rearrange to find v:

dg = v^2 sin(2θ) dg / sin(2θ) = v^2 v = (dg / sin(2θ))^0.5

Plug our numbers in:

v = (713000*9.81 / sin(2*45))^0.5 v = (6994530 / 1)^0.5 v = 2644.72 ms^-1

So we need to launch at 2,645 metres per second (9,522 kph, 5,917 mph). To get the energy, we use the kinetic energy equation:

e = 0.5 m v^2 e = 0.5*8432800*2644.72^2 e = 29,491,794,808,885.76 joules e = 29.5 terajoules

For comparison, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded with about 60 terajoules of energy. So once you account for air resistance you're probably looking at a nuke of energy.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

Honestly that sounds pretty good actually. We get to nuke something AND we get to throw a fucking ship to Moscow

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

Nuclear trebuchet

[–] Sir_Fridge@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Go play red alert 3 and you can do exactly that. Even better, you can throw the enemies warships at them!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

This is the comically stupid shit I come here for

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] techwithjake@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Cause we're not at Warhammer 40k levels of insanity... yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TastyWheat@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

"THIS! IS WHAT HAPPENS... WHEN YOU USE A WARSHIP AS A BASKETBALL!"

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Constitution weighs 1,900 tons at present day. That's 13.2 more ugga duggas than I calculated. It's frasible. We'll need all the Honest John missiles and 3,000 kg of homegrown tomatoes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

USS Constitution is a warship and still listed on the Naval Register. Fling her and the math gets much easier, nerds, get to crunching. She weighs around, what, 400 tons fully ballasted? Imagine the impact of the mainmast, smashing through the roof of that "civilian administration* building we memed about in March 2022, the one with anti aircraft on the roof. ANTI-AIRCRAFT. They're fooked!

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

This is hella cool.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 10 points 3 months ago

Ship propellers are outrageously big and heavy.

Just get them spinning and drop them in like beyblades!

[–] antifa@infosec.pub 4 points 3 months ago

Speedily, in our days

load more comments
view more: next ›