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

NonCredibleDefense

6625 readers
695 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
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 80 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (21 children)

Their rocket exhaust as they're being fired would slow the planes down, rather than providing a boost

For the same reason, cars have exhaust on the rear so that they can go much faster forward than backward

Edit: /s since you apparently need it after every joke. I know that missiles aren't really fired, they detach and then propel themselves. Also, anyone who's ever idled their car on a flat surface knows that the exhaust thrust cannot even overcome rolling resistance.

[–] modeler@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

Ackshually they do this, not with cars but, with WW2 era prop planes.

The Spitfire for example:

The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.

During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 mph (480 km/h), or roughly 70 hp (52 kW) was obtained, which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h). The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used "fishtail" style outlets, which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.

From Wikipedia

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 55 points 3 months 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.

[–] marretics@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 3 months ago

What the actual fuck.

[–] SaintWacko@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago

That's a fun movie

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 3 points 3 months ago

This movie seems horrible. I have to see it.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago (1 children)

embrace tradition

[–] F04118F@feddit.nl 39 points 3 months 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.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure those are Mark 14's.

[–] F04118F@feddit.nl 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 months 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.

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

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

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

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

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

I'll just leave the implementation details to you.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 20 points 3 months ago

Submarines used to have torpedo tubes in the back.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 19 points 3 months 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.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, just put a ludicrously powerful engine on it.

[–] Ioughttamow@kbin.run 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s against the standards set down in Strunk and White’s Elements of Dogfighting

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The missile would have to cancel out the speed of the plane before achieving any meaningful acceleration.

[–] yggdar@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, speed is relative. Imagine a plane flies at 500 km/h and is pursued by another plane at the same speed. If the first plane fires a rocket backwards that accelerates for a total of 200 km/h, then for an observer on the ground the rocket will still do 300 km/h, in the same direction as the planes. However, the guys in the second plane will see a rocket approaching them at 200 km/h.

Wind resistance, aerodynamics, etc. will have an impact, but it can work.

[–] waigl@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, speed is relative.

Sure, but the relevant speed up there is relative to the air around you. The missile will have a negative air speed at first, than accelerate to positive, briefly passing through 0 in between, which comes with weird consequences for lift and steering.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

The zero doesn't matter all that much, but I think going negative 1000kph is probably a great way to get it into an uncontrolled tumble.

[–] F04118F@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago

Thrust vectoring though

🥺

👉👈

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OutsizedWalrus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Which would be meaningless. Those missile accelerate to like Mach 4 in a second.

A plane going forward at Mach 2 would add .5 second to a missile fired backwards to get to Mach 4.

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

Because you have to think in russian to fire them.

load more comments
view more: next ›