this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
105 points (96.5% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7610 readers
127 users here now
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
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You would have to cut the fiber or hope the pulsed laser melts it.
90% of the physics aside, this theory is like saying that crossing flashlight beams would cause interference. This is also ignoring the density difference between the fiber and the air.
All things considered, I think we are looking at the new Russian wunderwaffe. Coming to a T-14 near you.
i worked with fibers before and its 100% possible to inject enough light into a fiber to cause errors at the Rx without melting the fiber, flash lights are not coherent light and are not focused enough for that (also not pulsed)
Into raw unshielded fibers tho probably, right?
That's what they're using for the drones, tho.
Oh i see lol
why tho? a little bit of paint won't be too much weight, right?
Also, you have to consider that a single fiber has pretty high surface-volume ratio.
The space shuttle launch fuel tank was only painted for the first two launches. They stopped because the paint weighed 600 pounds and didnt offer any real benefit. So yeah, a little bit of paint does add up.
Im no expert here, but these drones have to fly many kilometers and they carry the spool on board, so the added weight is probably an issue. I assume the production would be much more complicated too. For normal industrial underground fibers the shielding can be quite thick and stiff, but for this you would need some kinda coating that can be incredibly thin while also somehow blocking all light.
Vapor deposited metal film. Expensive, but I wouldn't be surprised if they already use exactly that to handle interference from the sun. Even non-coherent light can wash the sensors out if you have enough of it.
Hmm. I'd guess that filtering all frequencies outside the data transmission window could help there, but I don't really know.
These are supposed to be disposable, and are hastily being put together in wartime conditions by largely non-Western countries. Exotic solutions are highly disfavored.
With no computer error correction.
I thought that was only really an issue if the fiber was damaged in any way. (It would create a point where the external light could refract into the core) Then again, there isn't going to be a sheath on that cable and its not exactly a sterile environment.
Meh, I'm an idiot and that's OK!
As long as the angle of attack is between 90°-45° between 0->50->0 % of the external light will enter. No matter your angle of attack, half of the light at least is always going to be reflected. The angle of total internal reflection is 45°, so as long as you are greater than that there wont be "total external reflection" aka no light can enter. The issue is that(barring the refraction of the light as it passes through the air/fiber medium) the angle of attack once in the fiber is still maintained, meaning it does not achieve total internal reflection and therefore passes through the cable without interfering at all(in the case of a atraight cable.
In practice, no cable is going to be perfectly straight, and i would imagine the air/fiber medium may bend certain angles enough to where they can enter above the needed angle of attack, but once inside are bent to be under the needed angle of attack. Both of those imperfections would allow this type of attack to work. In reality all you would need to fix this is to use rolling polarities with very minor error correction. On board the drone give it a 10$ thermal infared lens and a basic processor. Tell it if the cable either cannot be read or is missing while the drone is in flight, it targets the last heat signature it saw.
ok so polarize the light in the fiber, gg no interference
Interesting, good to know! I would have thought they'd be pretty good at not scattering anything.
... and its just overpowered spaceheaters with concave reflector/concentrators, made of hand polished titanium for some reason, that have to be manually aimed.
Fluorescence is a thing.
The problem here (despite using a giant laser on the least effective way possible) is that any kind of error correction can deal with your pulsing interference, and you are letting the drone get a bit too close.
But by harnessing disco ball technology, we can make this a multidirectional field defense.