NonCredibleDefense
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
view the rest of the comments
I dislike Russian aggression as much as the next non tankie but can we agree the Su34 looks fucking amazing?
IMO basically every Soviet / Russian jet has looked better than American jets.
I like the look of the MiG-15, the 21, etc. But, IMO the jets really got beautiful right as the Soviet Union was collapsing.
The SU-27 is a beautiful plane, the MiG-29 too. It just seems like with some of these jets, the American equivalents were designed by computer and manufactured precisely to spec. While, it feels like some of the Soviet planes involved guys with hammers trying to make a beautiful curved surface.
It also helps that the Russians often use colourful paint jobs, while the US uses flat boring grey that shows every flaw.
Luckily the rule of cool doesn't apply IRL
Don't get me wrong, nearly every fighter plane looks cool. But, it's just different varieties of cool. Like, a lot of the US planes look Lamborghini-cool, with hard surfaces and so on. The Russian / Soviet planes just look more sculpted.
And, if the rule of cool doesn't apply, then why did P-40 fighter planes have shark's mouths?
Because Americans are kinda like W40k orcs and think painting something makes it stronger, although it actually works for the orcs.
/jk
It works for America too. Confidence is a hell of a drug.
The raptor definitely looks better than the felon imo, but for 4-4.5 gen, yeah, I’d agree in terms of looks for the most part. Though there are a couple exceptions - the F-104 looks cooler than the MiG-21, imo.
Edit: surprised nobody called me out for citing 2nd gen jets lol
I dunno. The nose of the MiG-21 looks weird, but I really like the look of the delta wings, the rudder and the ailerons. The F-104 with nothing mounted on the wingtips looks like a dart, which is cool I suppose. With the typical big fuel tanks on the wingtips it looks like some kind of catamaran.
F-86 is a work of art, and the Mig-15 looks like a 3D printed copy found on Etsy.
Sukhoi sure makes beautiful planes
Too bad for them their competitors make effective planes.
Hey, they're at least a top five maker, of the five companies that can make a jet from the last forty years.
Not if you include any kind of joint warfare roles or even information warfare. The airframe and powerplant are sufficient but the onboard computing, radios, jamming capabilities, lock detection and radar are all far behind western manufacturers.
It's only natural to be curious. We're human after-all. Just remember you can look but don't touch. I'll never forgive you if you cheat on F35-chan and break her heart.
im more of an assman, myself.
I'm not sure about the different colour on the beak.