• marine_mustang@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    85·
    2 months ago

    Ok, hear me out. The hull number is for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which was deactivated in 2012. After that, instead of decommissioning, Elon Musk decides he needs a private military and hires Erik Prince to set it up. He buys the still-intact Enterprise, gets it modified the way he wants it, and sends it to Brazil to force X/Twitter back into service there. Full of Blackwater/Xe mercenaries, meth and coke are distributed to all personnel as daily rations. Fueled by the success of their first mission (and lots of drugs and alcohol), the bastard craft took to the high seas. It resembled a mobile party now, but a heavily-armed party. They looted, they raided, they held whole cities to ransom for fresh supplies of cheese, crackers, guacamole, spare ribs and wine and spirits that now get piped aboard from floating tankers.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    2 months ago

    I would like to start with the chain of command that insisted a battleship turret be installed on the flight deck.

  • Smokeydope@lemmy.worldEnglish
    451·
    2 months ago

    I have a strange fascination with non credible defense post. Military people are like academic nerds when it comes to hyper specific vocabulary and in-the-know references. So many post and comments are like half ciphers where its a puzzle to piece together what is being talked about ad what the joke is.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      19·
      2 months ago

      I can’t get a bunch of 'em, wish that there was spoiler text with context, especially on current events, where often the first I see of the event is the NCD reference.

      I usually try to hyperlink or provide some context when I comment myself.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    … and someone has allowed a local news helicopter to fly over the ship to provide live video footage of an active war scene.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      I mean, if you were an embedded reporter, would you be willing to miss the opportunity to film this scene?

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

      not only is this the first carrier with a deck mounted 16" turret

      The HMS Furious in 1917 had both a rear 18" turret and a flight deck at the same time, though it might be questionable as to whether-or-not it’d qualify as an aircraft carrier (though the concept of an “aircraft carrier” was pretty embryonic in 1917, so some allowance probably has to be made). And while the turret was on a deck, it wasn’t on the flight deck.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      it’s got a ro-ro ramp for the tank!

      I just laughing at the implications of this.

      Sir, we have to abandon the mission. The enemy has closed their deep sea port - we cannot possibly launch an amphibious assault.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    2 months ago

    After reading that I’m convinced I would love a reaction video series where some military expert just eviscerates G.I Joe episodes.

    I watched an episode just last night where the U.S.S. Flagg got it’s shit slapped by a handful of Cobra aircraft. It basically looked like the picture above.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    24·
    2 months ago

    a deranged lunatic has parked an Abrams on the flight deck

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_17

    On receiving the third order to scatter on 4 July 1942, Lieutenant Leo Gradwell RNVR, commanding the anti-submarine trawler HMS Ayrshire, did not want to head for Archangelsk and led his convoy of Ayrshire and Troubador, Ironclad and Silver Sword north. On reaching the Arctic ice, the convoy pushed into it, then stopped engines and banked their fires. The crews used white paint from Troubador, covered the decks with white linen and arranged the Sherman tanks on the merchant vessels decks into a defensive formation, with loaded main guns. After a period of waiting and having evaded Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, finding themselves unstuck, they proceeded to the Matochkin Strait.

    Now, you might say that the USS Enterprise isn’t a merchant ship desperate for some kind of defensive armament, but on the other hand, it appears to be firing battleship guns at a MiG still flying low right above the ship, and I have to believe that a tank’s main gun, to say nothing of the machine guns, are probably more-suitable as short-range antiaircraft weapons than a battleship gun for that.

    Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.

    • Fashtas@aussie.zoneEnglish
      24·
      2 months ago

      Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.

      That sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like something a JAG defense lawyer might say

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        31·
        2 months ago

        The Brits awarded Gradwell the DSC for putting tanks on his decks.

        There’s been recent doctrinal hotness with the Marines working on the concept of sticking a HIMARS unit on the flight decks of their amphibious assault ships.

        https://taskandpurpose.com/news/himars-marine-corps-ship-deck/

        …chaining the vehicle-mounted system to the vessel’s flight deck before firing off a 227mm GPS-guided M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GLMRS) rocket at a mock target floating in the waters near a Pacific island some 70 kilometers away.

        The results were, well, explosive:

        Sure, parking a rocket truck on the flight deck of a vessel on the open ocean seems simple enough, but Marine officials are overjoyed with the success of the Oct. 22 exercise. “The ability to project power from and at sea is critical,” 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade ops officer Lt. Col. Tom Savage told the U.S. Naval Institute from aboard the Dawn Blitz flagship USS Essex. “It’s a significant capability.”

        The test has been in the works since at least September, when Marine Commandant Gen. Neller dropped a public hint. “We know we can shoot HIMARS [High Mobility Artillery Rocket System] off the flight deck of a ship,” Neller said during remarks at the at the Marine Corps League’s annual Modern Day Marine expo in Quantico, Virginia, on Sept. 21, according to Defense News. “You’re going to see precision fire delivered off amphib ships, whether it comes out of tube guns or rockets or delivered from unmanned systems.”

        I think that the real question here isn’t “should we be court-martialing the captain”, but “what award should the captain receive for use of innovative tactics?”

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      Well yeah its blocked off, thats where you park the tanks! Jeeze, it’s like you’ve never heard of AFV flight deck deployments before.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      I mean, the MiG has his wingman flying at very low altitude directly through what appears to be a napalm strike that he’s just conducted on the starboard side of the carrier, so there’s some questionable behavior on both sides here.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    23·
    2 months ago

    The armored triple turret on the carrier that is apparently being fired at the MiG did not meet the bar to be included in the description.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      That’s there so the ship is classified as a cruiser instead of an aircraft carrier and the Turks let it cross the Bosporus.

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        I’m pretty sure that CVN-65 won’t meet the displacement bar.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)

        Displacement: 93,284-long-ton (94,781 t) full load[3]

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

        https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention

        The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention.

        Article 11.

        Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.

        The US isn’t a Black Sea power (though I guess maybe if the US transferred the Enterprise to Romania…). Russia can do it because it’s a Black Sea power.

        considers

        I guess maybe if they got a whole lot of helium balloons and attached them to cables going down to the carrier, they could get the displacement below 15,000 tons.

        EDIT: Actually, if they can get enough balloons to offset 80,000 tons, you’d think that they could just do the last 15,000 and convert the Enterprise into an airship and fly it into the Black Sea. The Montreaux Convention didn’t think of that loophole!

        Though…hmm. I think that the Enterprise relies on constant seawater cooling for the reactors, so maybe they can’t do that. Maybe the turret does make sense in the context of the helium balloons after all.

        • Geobloke@lemm.eeEnglish
          8·
          2 months ago

          I imagine the conversation went like this

          Turkey: how much doors your ship weigh?

          Coked up admiral: how much should it weigh?

          Turkey: well we can’t let ships over 15000t through

          CUA: it’s 14,999t

          Turkey: …

          CUA: (wipes nose)

          • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Turkey: well we can’t let ships over 15000t through

            CUA: it’s 14,999t

            Turkey: …

            If Japan can do the “conforming displacement claim” thing on the Washington Naval Treaty…

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          It’s displacement, not weight, so theoretically they can convert it into a gigantic hydrofoil and get into the Black Sea with the whole hull out of water at almost supersonic speeds to support all that weight

  • traches@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    17·
    2 months ago

    Also your F-117s are rocket powered or some shit because those flames are coming from the one place that isn’t exhaust

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    2 months ago

    I mean, in fairness, at least the Mig-29 and F-117 are contemporaries, and deployed by enemies. I’ve seen playsets that include (iirc) an F-16 and a B-17 dogfighting against one another.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      23·
      2 months ago

      While the F-16 has the stronger letter, the B-17 takes the lead on the number. It’s still anybody’s game.