this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
129 points (97.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6793 readers
384 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 24 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I just want to point out that a civilian airliner with no defense, warning, or maneuver was struck by Russian anti-air and almost made it back home.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

I haven't been reading up on the thing, but from both ADS-B data and people talking about the video of the crash, it sounds like it was pitching up and down alternately and in the video, at least some of the flight surfaces appeared to be disabled, were flopping around with gravity.

That airliner that crashed on a runway in Sioux City some decades back exhibited similar symptoms. Basically, after an engine tore itself apart, they had all three redundant hydraulic systems be penetrated, so they had no control of the flight surfaces. They managed to figure out that they could use engine power to the remaining engines alone -- which didn't use the hydraulic systems -- for sufficient control to crudely fly the airplane. The problem was that they had this pitching up and down that happened -- they managed to get it to the airport and line it up with the runway, but right as it was landing, it did one of those pitching motions, and so it crashed, which it sounds like is pretty much the same thing as what the Azerbaijan Airlines airplane here did. In both crashes, about half the people aboard died, half lived. I believe that at the time, it was considered to be quite a feat of piloting to figure all this out and manage to save half of the people.

kagis

United Airlines Flight 232.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

So if the missile ruptured all of the the hydraulic systems on Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 -- which is what happened with another SAM attack on an airliner, the 2003 Baghdad DHL shootdown -- that might be a route for the same phenomenon to occur.

UA232 was a triple-engine aircraft, and lost an engine in the failure that severed the hydraulics, so had two remaining engines, which is the minimum you'd need to fly without control surfaces. Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 had only two engines to start with, so if they were controlling the aircraft with engine power alone, all the engines would have had to be functioning up until the end, or the aircraft would have needed to have have gone down right after being struck.

EDIT: It looks like someone's already updated the UA232 Wikipedia page linking to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 as a similar incident and saying that it also probably suffered total hydraulic control system failure, so it's not just me speculating along those lines.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 10 points 14 hours ago

MH17 never forget

Chairman Xi says: "噢SHIT,这群外国人又在放烟花啦?我们也来凑热闹吧!来人!预备,发射导弹!"

Translation:"OH SHIT, these groups of foreigners are playing with fireworks again? We should join in the fun too! Servants! Ready, and FIRE THE MISSILES!"


Well its funnier if you are bilingual in English/Chinese 😓 (Any bilingual people here? Is there a Taiwanese forum I can share this to?)