this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
220 points (99.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6588 readers
341 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
[–] WhyFlip@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago

That a few thousand dollar drone will obliterate.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 55 minutes ago

powered by hydrogen fuel cells

I don't think the logistics for hydrogen fuel cells will help in actual combat situations, though it's expected to enter operation in 2040 anyway.

autonomous driving and slave drones

Hopefully one that actually works. As for the drones, I guess for reconnaissance?

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 17 points 6 hours ago

The next-generation tank will have stronger preemptive strike capabilities using an artificial intelligence-based fire control system

Well that's disturbing. I wonder what level of buzz word AI this is? Safe to assume computer vision is involved, target/threat identification... Does "preemptive strike" imply the fire control system is firing by itself? I know it's not the case but it's hilarious to imagine it's ChatGPT doing it.

I am waiting for the non-destructible forever Toyota tank. Just make sure insurgents dont get their hands on one.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago

Hyundai?

Yes, Hyundai.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Capable of the highest next-generation turret toss!

[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 24 points 20 hours ago

Can't wait to see what the N-Line will look like

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Holy fuck that's a sexy tank

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is what I wish the cyber truck was more like ... Not that I would ever buy a Tesla but this thing is perfect for futuristic... Now make it a car... But also fuck cars

What if it had hydrogen cells instead?

[–] Glemek@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

It looks like a miniature

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 17 hours ago

it looks like a bastard kid of PL01 and Abrams-X

[–] jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 125 points 1 day ago (57 children)

Famously transporting large volumes of hydrogen has never gone wrong and hydrogen charging stations have proven very reliable and also hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

Good job hyundai 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

H2 tanks are safer than diesel. It would make a superior tank to diesel in most ways. Quiet, electronics power, portable solar charging in forward position, H2 production in solar rear stations. In war, having all of your large oil refineries and port handling blown up the first day is common, and decentralized and portable H2 production is an important asset.

ROK while leading on H2, is way behind on both solar transition projects/roadpath and have abandoned solar technology themselves. Government does serve its industrial champions but also serves US master. US wants to subjugate colonies to its NG. Industrial champion needs clean energy independence.

[–] FleetingTit@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Do you even realize how much energy is needed to produce significant amounts of hydrogen and then compressing it to a useful pressure? FOB solar isn't going to cut it. Decentralized H2 production isn't a viable thing without fossil fuels or a working power grid.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

For sure, field charging of tanks should be through DC. But H2 is the solution for energy abundance that is 100% renewables based. To have enough energy every day from renewables needs surpluses on most days, and H2 production is the best use of those surpluses because it is transportable/exportable energy that happens to be cheaper than electric transmission.

[–] AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Military vehicles are purpose built. They didn't use hydrogen because it was green, they used it to fulfill their requirements for a silent stealth battle tank. But I'm sure your technical knowledge far outdoes that of the people involved in designing this tank 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

Fuel cell technology will also dramatically reduce the noise the tank generates when on the move.

Literally from the article you failed to open.

[–] jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I thought this was a shidposting community

I do actually agree with everything you and other people in this thread have said, I just don’t care :3

And yes my technical knowledge definitely outweighs the knowledge of hundreds of Hyundai engineers, thank you for noticing <3

I am Jia Tan and I approve this message :3

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 34 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

My dude, the military transports more volatile materials than hydrogen every day. Just because something doesn't make sense for civilian use doesn't mean it's never going to be viable for military use.

If you're worried about the dangers of transporting something like hydrogen, you're going to lose it when you find out what bombs are made out of.

Electric motors are just more efficient in just about every way at scale, the current diesel motors being used in tanks aren't really able to be improved upon. They're at their technological peak, so the only way to move forward with mbt is by figuring out how to make electric motors work.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

Also, the energy density of hydrogen is pretty poor, diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

And yet you don't think they could produce the same safety features for less volatile materials?

diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

Yeah, you just have to add a diesel engine, electric engine, and a giant battery.....The whole point of moving to electric is to increase efficiency and decreasing the weight of primary motive components.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 77 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No no, it’s credible because it decreases the ground weight, and if you fill it up enough, it can just float over AT mines 🤓

From Hyundai to Hindenburg very fast 👏 👏 👏

[–] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

Science man smart!

[–] eggymachus@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (53 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's beautiful and I want one.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Maybe Pepsi will do a new challenge

[–] CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

It looks like a piece of EGO brand lawn equipment (which I also like the look of).

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Does noise really matter that much on a modern battlefield with one surveillance drone every 200 meters?

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 64 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

the other feature is low to no heat, so these things are like tank drop bears

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

drop bears

Instance checks out

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, it would make them a lot harder to spot on infra red cameras.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Most NATO countries are assuming air dominance, which would make drones less survivable. They really thrive in a contested environment.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago

I don't know that NATO's assumption of air dominance is actually applicable. You're not putting a F-35 on anti-drone swarm duties.

If anything you'd want to focus on anti-air.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›