this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
350 points (99.4% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

8237 readers
52 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shit@sh.itjust.works
OttoVonNoob@lemmy.ca
fist_of_fartitude@sh.itjust.works
nuke@sh.itjust.works
Estiar@sh.itjust.works
neidu2@feddit.nl
neidu3@sh.itjust.works
350
You did what now? (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 days ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 81 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This happened in 1957. You might think the plane caught up with its own bullets, but what actually happened was the pilot fired a 4-second burst from the 20mm cannon during a test flight, then climbed at high speed and dove back down faster than the speed of sound (i.e. "faster than a apeeding bullet"), where he passed through the cloud of his own rounds which had decelerated due to air friction. So it wasn't a defect in the plane, it was really a random accident nobody had thought about because planes traditionally weren't fast enough to perform a maneuver that would make such a thing possible.

edit: story on wikipedia

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 80 points 4 days ago (4 children)

SR-71 would easily have been able to, they were just too chicken to give it guns and hardpoints like god intended. Cowards.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seeing the blackbird in the Smithsonian with it's engines so close you can almost touch it is a hallowed experience...

[–] Googlyman64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There's an air and space museum near where I grew up that has a real SR-71, and one time when I was visiting, one of the old pilots happened to be there and he gave my girlfriend and I an up-close tour of it. He showed us where him and his buddies signed it and put handprints on the underside. Very fascinating experience.

[–] kalpol@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

OK that's cool.

I was at Udvar Hazy and one of the restorers was poking around a Devastator or similar behind ropes. He was bored and talked to us a while about restoring planes. Lot of fabrication. That was right after the Concorde arrived and the whole area reeked of jet fuel from it.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

That's amazing.

[–] Major_Tsiom@fedia.io 15 points 3 days ago (4 children)

They made an interceptor version of the SR-71 called the YF-12. I don't know if it ever entered service though.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

The also made one with ... a parasite, mini me version of itself.

https://www.museumofflight.org/Exhibits-and-Events/Aircraft/lockheed-m-21-blackbird

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12#M-21

Two, actually.

They made two pairs of the M-21 and D-21.

And yes, that's D for Drone, in 1963.

A nearly hypersonic drone, launched from a Mach 3+ capable mothership, in 1963.

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That is possibly the most sci Fi ass looking thing I've seen outside of an 80s b-movie. You know some hyper nerd designer was extremely proud of that

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It is quite literally fantastic.

The... the thing is constantly leaking, when it is on the runway, prior to take off.

Because its cruise speed and altitude are such that the surface of it is so heated, that it expands the metal, and stops the leaking.

That is how fucking extreme this thing is.

Now if you want might vote for even more scifi than that?

Behold, the SSTO we could have been building for the last 20 years, if we'd just used the construction method for the fuel tanks that the engineers argued should be used, but couldn't be, because we needed to do all the experimental processes on a single craft, and if they didn't all work, Dick Cheney will cancel the program...

The VentureStar.

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

Yep, we built the scaled down mockup of this, the X-33.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

And the summary that I gave earlier is basically the tl:dr of it.

We could have been working on making these things to replace shuttle. A reusable, heavy lift, single stage to orbit craft.

But nope!

Nope, instead we get... what are at now, 13, 14 attempts by Elon Musk to even achieve actual orbit with his Starship? Still haven't managed that yet.

So now the ISS is slated to get deorbited, China will have the only major space station, and we will have a ... Kessler Syndrome generation program, in the expansion of StarLink into 'StarMind', those million orbital AI datacenters Musk has recently had CGI made for, and will never happen.

Nope, I'm not mad, definitely not mad, nope.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

The venture star is the aerospace manifestation of the granny shot free throw in basketball. Sure it's mathematically and mechanically optimal... but you're still gonna look dumb using it

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

God that thing looks like it could be found in one of those toy sets you only ever see at the zoo. I love it!

I also really hope that joke isn't too niche...

But God damn you know some engineer was proud of that anti leak at attitudes feature. You know some guy with a slide role figured that crap out with pencil and paper over the course of days. Absolutely love it

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, the SR 71 is literally the X Jet, from X-men.

Its...

Here:

The design has changed somewhat over the years, but... it just literally is the X Jet.

Its in XMen First Class, where it is of course also now VTOL or STOVL, in addition to being Mach 3+ capable... because... why the fuck not?

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Aight, so you seem very knowledgeable about niche air craft, so I have a pointless question for you...

What's the aircraft that most makes you wonder how tf it even flies?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ahahaha.

Ah.

Well, the actual honest answer is that I've twice seen a quite large, hovering, silent, large equilateral triangle shaped craft.

The greenish, lower left pic is pretty much exactly what I've seen, twice, over the course of 10 years, around Seattle.

The second time I saw it, I was going across the West Seattle Bridge, and saw it hovering, only a few hundred feet over a hangar or some large byilding in Boeing Field, on the west side of Marginal Way.

Ironically, on the other side of the road as the Flight Museum where the extant M21and D21 are on display.

I do not purport to have any fucking clue how this thing works, but I have definitely seen it twice.

So yeah that's my actual answer, I've twice seen something that is apparently called the TR 3B sometimes 'Astra', sometimes 'Black Manta'. I have no idea why it has that name, if thats even kind of accurate to anything... but yep... giant (by normal aircraft standards), black, silent, hovering, equilateral triangle, with a large glowing area in the center, and 3 different glowing areas just inside of the uh, tips.

The second time I saw it, it was close enough that I could see red / green running lights on it... so ... my assumption is that it is some kind of human, experimental aircraft.

Military.com says, unofficially, that it ... well here:

https://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/tr-3b-aurora-anti-gravity-spacecrafts/2860314511001

It doesn't exist officially. It uses highly pressured mercury accelerated by nuclear energy to produce a plasma that creates a field of anti-gravity around the ship. Conventional thrusters located at the tips of the craft allow it to perform all manner of rapid high speed maneuvers along all three axes. Interestingly, the plasma generated also reduces radar signature significantly. So it'll be almost invisible on radar & remain undetected. This literally means that it can go to any country it likes without being detected by air traffic control & air defence systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)#Military_aircraft

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/tr-3b-black-manta-secret-us-aircraft-anti-gravity/

?????

So anyway this would be the thing that I have no idea how it flies.

... Would you believe my cousin actually used to work SkunkWorks, before moving over to BlueOrigin?

Ah... everybody just calls me crazy.

[–] Arkhive@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I remember first learning about that engine design and being similarly mad about why it never saw any use.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeeep.

Its some pretty crazy shit, that we literally know how to do... and just... don't.

Because stock market line go up is more important I guess?

Gotta pay for more missiles to blow up brown people?

But yeah, aerospikes are awesome because they're like the ... jack of all trades of effective thrust at different ambient air pressures/densities.

They're not the most efficient or powerful at any particular altititude band... but they're shockingly decent at a whole bunch of them, across the spectrum, because of their fundamental design.

So they're literally perfect for an SSTO, reusable concept. Definitely do a full inspection and maintenance cycle after every mission, they're kinda complicated... but, if you take care of one... it should just basically keep working for quite a long time.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Guess we'll have to do it the old European boring way? Using old rocket tech

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"The D-21 was designed to carry a single high-resolution photographic camera over a preprogrammed path, then release the camera module into the air for retrieval, after which the drone would self-destruct."

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

It was literally the little spy satellite that couldn't (make it to orbit).

They'd ... they'd either retrieve the photo canister from the ground, or, ideally...

Catch it in the air, using basically the sky hook system, as seen in MGSV.

Its... the ludicrousness of this system is really only slightly exaggerated in its MGSV portrayal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

They only built 3 of them.

1 crashed in California in 1971. Another was given to NASA for testing until 1978. The surviving 2 are in museums. Couldn't find any information on whether they saw actual active duty, but they were technically in service in the 1970s.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

‘Y’ means it was the second prototype batch after ‘X’. Sometimes the Ys would be modified with the final spec and enter service but typically they would lose the Y designation at that time. For instance the prototype YB-36 entered service as a reconnaissance RB-36A after modifications.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I was always a fan of the YF-19

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Isn't that just the su 47, but anime?

Or ... did ... the Russians... make anime space jet plane thing... real?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This wing config it for high speed IIRC and has been tried loads of times, the russian (korbut?) wasn't the first.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

True, to varying extents... but the 47 is well known and also just shocking similar in design elements and proportions to the Macross ... not-a-gundam.

Grumman X-29:

Think it first flew in 84, definitely earlier than the su-47, but also, purely an experimental tech demonstrator, whereas the su-47 was at least ostensibly, potentially, going to be an actual combat aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing

Apparently, quite a lot of people have been futzing about with concept, for a long time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

It has a weapon: information speed.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure a weapons system that could be used before it disintegrated from the stresses of the SR-71 accelerating to cruise speed, exists.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Nah, just slap a GAU 8 onto it, it'll be fine lol.

Fuckin... Mach 3.5 CAS gun run rofl

If you can line up the shot, from 20 miles away, and make the shot, in a roughly 0.5 second window... well the rounds will going roughly Mach 3 faster than from an A 10.

... presuming you immediately pull up, so as to not fly into the rounds.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Didn't the russians do this to? The GSh-6-30 was in theory catastrophically powerful being essentially a gargantuan flak cannon minnigun but had the unfortunate tendency to hit the firing aircraft with its own shrapnel... assuming the vibration from the gun didn't literally shake the plan apart first.

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I came across this years ago and I still love this section from the Wikipedia article.

The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration led to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights on the plane would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The weapons also dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center, including the aircraft firing.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

My god that is a prize

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Different thing - shrapnel from exploding rounds vs hitting the actual bullets. Headline implies the plane ran into its own bullets by flying faster than them, but what happened was a single incident where a pilot fired a burst, did an high speed loop, and on the way down flew through the cloud of bullets - which had slowed down due to air friction, but the speeding plane flew through them faster than a bullet.

[–] Lon3star@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 53 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The Tiger gained the dubious distinction of being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down.[8][9] On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling the aircraft and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae.[10][11]

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)
  • nice
  • so it didn't do much "outrun" the bullets, but moved under them as they fell? Still funny and impressive either way.
  • "survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae" - okay, so maybe "funny" in a different way.
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 3 days ago (5 children)

How is that not catching up to them?

FYI if you're unfamiliar with ballistics, as most people never think about it. When a bullet is fired out of a gun, it is dropping downward at the same speed as if you were holding in your hand and just let it go.

People who don't normally shoot rifles never really stop to think about that. The forward velocity doesn't keep the bullet from falling towards the ground any slower. Rifles usually fire the bullet at a slight upward trajectory because of this. So it may climb an inch and a half higher over the first 100 yards before it starts heading towards the ground.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Since he was decreasing in altitude (presumably at approximately a straight diagonal vector) and the bullets were traveling in an arc, I guess the linear distance travelled by the plane is less than that travelled by the bullets?

Either way, I think "out-ran" is appropriate here since the plane was necessarily ahead of the bullet on the horizontal plane since it was hit by the bullets.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago

He was going around 600 mph, fired the gun, then he dove down more and hit the afterburners to pick up speed and start leveling back out and was around 8 or 900 mph when he met up with his then, much slower than they were going bullets.

So he got faster and went low, while the bullets kept getting lower and slowing down from drag.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You don't actually need to be ahead of them on the horizontal plane. The plane just needs to be able to cover the distance the bullet travels as it slows from drag before the bullet falls to the intercept point.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

I would presume that that distinction would belong to the world war one planes that fired their guns through their own propeller?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

That's just because Lockheed never put a gun on The Blackbird.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lockheed has built some WACKY shit, but I like Grumman better. Grumman made the Avenger the Tomcat and the Apollo Lunar Module. Take that, Stinkbug.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also the LLV, the classic US Mail truck.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They put a government grade box on an S10.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Everything anyone manufacturers is just other parts but remixed.

load more comments
view more: next ›