this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
252 points (97.7% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6434 readers
623 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 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] atocci@lemmy.world 115 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I will not have the Osprey's good name besmirched like this, I'll have you know these things fly around here all the time and only ~~one~~ two have ever crashed in the forest outside town!

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Did... Did another Osprey crash as you wrote this comment?

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No but I read Wikipedia's list of Osprey crashes...

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean they fly all over Darwin Australia all the time, I've only heard of one going down here.

That was last year

well your mother went down on me last night, Trebek!

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

osprey bros clutching their pearls.....if only they could reliably

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't defend the osprey, it's not good for your health. It knows when you're lying and will retaliate in the only way a rotary aircraft with even more moving parts knows how.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Do you like that pole vaulting guy.....

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, Ospreys have a better crash record per flight hour than Blackhawks

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

How does the survivability compare?

[–] copd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

We've got a black hawk down, we've got a black hawk down. Super 6-1 is down

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

It's Osprey libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written. Did the Veep make it to whatever?

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 43 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Considering the level of protection the Secret Service provides, candidates are safer riding in an osprey than giving a speech.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago

Ya know,I've had Ukraine on my mind so much, I'd forgotten about that? Thanks for the reminder, I was going to hire a few retired agents as security for a concert in Aurora.

[–] scrooge@infosec.pub 26 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 75 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Flying deathtrap. VP on an Osprey, we just witnessed an assassination attempt!

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 weeks ago

It's a layered joke about an Osprey's safety record.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ignore them. They're just haters who can't handle the fact that despite it's youth, the Osprey is already a legendary platform.

Think of it like the A-10, except instead of repeatedly slaughtering friendly forces, it just regularly kills anyone dumb enough to ride in one, or pilot it.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

It's called a meritocracy!

[–] tilefan@lemm.ee 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

fudds like to call the osprey a death trap because they read some headlines early on and never bothered looking into the data. that's my understanding of it, as i have also not looked into the data.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Unlike helicopters, they cannot autorotate, meaning if you lose power in any position other than forward cruise, you're fucked. Asymmetric power loss is also extra bad.

The design is inherently less safe than either a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft.

[–] tilefan@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

again, as someone who doesn't know much about this, aren't they only using the VTOL configuration during takeoff and landing? and, doesn't auto rotation require a certain amount of altitude? if both of those are true, then they would be in danger at the same time

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They're flying with the engines facing at least partially upwards during takeoff and landing, even when taking off like an aircraft, meaning they're in trouble if they lose power, not just in a hover. The Japanese crash happened on final approach as they were slowing down, but still a few hundred feet in the air.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height%E2%80%93velocity_diagram

This is the combination of airspeed and height you cannot perform an autorotation from, the graph shown is worse than many other helicopters. Robinson aircraft can auto from zero airspeed at around 400 feet. It's all about having enough forward speed to flare off your rate of descent and land with only forward airspeed, you could successfully flare at head height and enough airspeed over good ground.

Other tiltrotors are capable of autorotation.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

I like that the chart there has a little red sliver to indicate that it is, in fact, a bad idea to fly very fast at ground level.

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Anecdotal, but I almost exclusively see them flying in VTOL configuration

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's at least partly because that's the easiest time to photograph an aircraft.

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I don't mean in photos, they just fly around town in VTOL configuration all the time. Hardly ever see them at full tilt.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was watching a video about the crash in Japan just last night, actually.

Basically, they dismissed multiple warnings, and should have landed the aircraft much sooner than they did. They were on final approach when the failure happened, meaning if they'd landed a few minutes sooner, they would have been fine.

[–] Estiar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

There's a thing on the stuffy r/credibledefense that might change your mind on pilot error. TL;DR the flight manuals and warning design failed the pilots and the checklists didn't communicate the urgency

[–] deuleb_biezelbob@programming.dev 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Half Life prepared me for this

[–] WanakaTree@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah cool, I was at the park with my kid Tuesday evening and saw this fly over us. We figured Kamala was in there but nice to have confirmation