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 wonder how much energy it would require to fling a warship from, say, NATO lake to Moscow.
Oh I'm going to do the math on this:
assuming the warship is being fired from a naval gun of truly massive proportions based on the AGS Mark 5, firing a saboted warship based on the LRLAP ( since they were made for the Zumwalt class and cost a million a round, making them the obvious best choice.)
And why not, let's also make the warship a Zumwaltz class, for flavor synergy.
The LRLAP weighd 225lbs and had an effective range of 150km, so thats ~ 100kg at 150km, and it would travel at 825 mps, let's say ours needs to go 800, were in no rush.
Projectile Mass: A Zumwalt weighs, rounded down, 15,000 long tons, which is 15,240,704 kg Let's say 15,000,000 kilograms. They emptied it, unloaded the ammunition, decommissioned the AGS, so it weighs a little less. Zumwalts are 610 feet long, let's make that 1000 total to account for an aerodynamic sabot and charge, so 300m. The bore length was 378" and the shell 88", so that gives us a ratio of 4.29:1
Our barrel is 1287m long, let's just say 1200m.
Saboted Zumwalt: 15,000,000Kg
Barrel length of gun: 1200m
Distance: We're gonna park this gun on Gotland, middle of lake NATO. Well need some space, and that's right in the middle. It's 1,168.31 km as the crow flies, so we'll round up to 1200 km.
So, our 1.2Km long nuclear cannon would send our saboted 15,000,000 ton Zumwalt 1200km @ 800 mps, requiring 1200 Kilotons of energy, rounded up. The boat would be in flight for about 25 minutes.
My math is quite accurate, please do not double check it.
at least 3
Not great, not terrible.
For these purposes I am, of course, assuming that air resistance doesn't exist. Which would probably increase this answer by a lot.
Narva bay to Moscow = 713 km Fully loaded Arleigh Burke destroyer displacement = 8,432,800 kg
v = launch velocity d = horizontal distance = 713000 m θ = angle we're launching the ship at = 45 degrees g = acceleration (from gravity) = 9.81 ms^-1
Range of a projectile equation:
d = (v^2 sin(2θ)) / g
Rearrange to find v:
dg = v^2 sin(2θ) dg / sin(2θ) = v^2 v = (dg / sin(2θ))^0.5
Plug our numbers in:
v = (713000*9.81 / sin(2*45))^0.5 v = (6994530 / 1)^0.5 v = 2644.72 ms^-1
So we need to launch at 2,645 metres per second (9,522 kph, 5,917 mph). To get the energy, we use the kinetic energy equation:
e = 0.5 m v^2 e = 0.5*8432800*2644.72^2 e = 29,491,794,808,885.76 joules e = 29.5 terajoules
For comparison, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded with about 60 terajoules of energy. So once you account for air resistance you're probably looking at a nuke of energy.
Honestly that sounds pretty good actually. We get to nuke something AND we get to throw a fucking ship to Moscow
Probably depends entirely on the aerodynamics involved, if we're assuming it's approaching as an aircraft. This is kind of an intermediate range, and it has shitty ballistics, so the energy to just get it off the ground will be dwarfed.
This is NCD, ignoring air resistance or at very minimum using wildly incorrect values is expected
Shit. So I should have gone with the "oversized hyperloop" idea and just said zero. My bad.
So I did some math, and I'm assuming we need about 1/3 of LEO velocity, it would take 707 SpaceX Starship launches to throw USS Abraham Lincoln to Kremlin.
This is of course ignoring air resistance, other physics and common sense + we're assuming spherical aircraft carrier
Okay this might get little bit too credible, but if we were to disassemble the aircraft carrier in 150t pieces and launch to low earth orbit, assemble it again there and then use 1 more starship to slow it's velocity to deorbit and drop it to target, we would need little over 2100 starship launches. Little bit more if we cover the ship with heat tiles to protect during re-entry.
Honestly this seems well worth it considering how much cooler it would be than the usual designs for kinetic orbital strike.
Did you get the 1/3 number somewhere? St. Petersburg is on the Baltic, and Moscow is only like 600 km away.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I can't stop.
Yeah I did some research and calculations, and pulled that number out of my ass
Edit:
Based on this guys math which I trust as much as anything in this community, you'd need 9522km/h velocity, which is pretty damn close to 1/3 LEO velocity (28000km/h).
This makes my ass scientifically proven
I did some math once. The hangover the next day was incalculable.
I would say a rock is a better approximation than an aircraft lmao
If you throw it, and it doesn't go into space, a rock is an aircraft.
Source: Am an airforce geologist. ^/s^
Remember your college physics: First Rule - we can ignore aerodynamics.
So let’s you want to yeet this over 1000km from a NATO country to Moscow.
You’d need at least 3000 m/s of velocity to do this (a ton more since this without air resistance).
A fletcher class destroyer is around 2000 tons.
So you’d need more than 8 terajoules or 2 kilotons of TNT.
Sounds pretty doable with enough boosters and struts. Pretty sure I've flung worse in KSP
Nuclear trebuchet