Alpino

Posso supporre che sia una questioni di costi, magari costa troppo. Ci vorrebbe il parere dell'esperto! edito e vi metto il link alla pagina di wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor

Da quello che so io la dragon skin non ha avuto la certificazione come livello IV... non so perché l'esercito sia ostile a questa protezione, però. a me era parsa fenomenale quando avevo visto il documentario sul discovery channel.

Comuqnue io sapevo che le munizioni a caica cava lanciate per esempio dagli RPG nonostante siano pericolose da distanze ravvicinate sono abbastanza imprecise.. sbaglio?

E' chiaro che le forze regolari irachene non sono ancora pronte per tenere in mano il paese da sole.

Mi par di capire che comunque gli F-15 li stiano ritirando o mettendo a terra, visti i recenti problemi. Siamo sicuri che continueranno ad aggiornarli? Secondo me è meglio se portiamo il Raptor come termine di paragone da ora in poi.

Ho messo F-16 perché da ragazzino per me era un mito ancor più del gattone... (e Tom Cruise mi è sempre stato sulle p***e!)

Il filmato sull'esoscheletro è pazzesco, ancor più impressionante del robot a mio avviso. Con una blindatura permetterebbe a dei soldati di ripulire una città piena di terroristi in poche ore. Credo che la limitazione maggiore adesso sia ancora quella di fornire energia all'esoscheletro, nel filmato si vede che è attaccato ad un cavo, che immagino lo alimenti...

Miiii ...questi tra 20 anni saranno ancora li a menarla sulla cope India 2004... che complessati, scusate il termine! A questo punto diciamo anche che nella stessa esercitazione gli f-15 le hanno prese anche dai Mig-21, questo tanto per chiarire in quali condizioni e con quali regole di ingaggio si esercitavano. Avevo letto un articolo in inglese su quella esercitazione un po' di tempo fa, se lo trovo lo pubblico sul forum, così ci chiariamo le idee una volta per tutte sulla famigerata cope India.

Vi mando il link alla pagina del corriere: http://www.corriere.it/scienze_e_tecnologi...3ba99c667.shtml Chissà a cosa serve...

Mi scuso. Io ho guardato il sito del canale italiano e non ho visto niente. Tanto meglio allora, lo consiglio a tutti, tutta la serie mi pare fatta bene!

Ciao, chiedo scusa se tiro fuori dall'armadio questa discussione vecchia ma oggi sono riuscito a trovare il famoso documentario in questione. Purtroppo la serie "dogfights" di History Channel (in Italia "al centro del mirino") non è in vendita in Italia e i DVD americani qui non si possono vedere. L'unica alternativa è il buon vecchio mulo, e spero per te che tu capisca bene la lingua di Shakespeare.

Beh attenzione c'è scritto "stanno ritirando" non che sono già stati tutti messi a terra. Credo che non rimarrà un buco in attesa dell' F-35.

Intanto l'USAF si prepara a dare l'addio al rivoluzionario bombardiere F-117 stealth fighter to be retired The world's first attack aircraft to employ stealth technology is slipping quietly into history. The inky black, angular, radar-evading F-117, which spent 27 years in the Air Force arsenal secretly patrolling hostile skies from Serbia to Iraq, will be put in mothballs next month in Nevada. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, which manages the F-117 program, will have an informal, private retirement ceremony Tuesday with military leaders, base employees and representatives from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The last F-117s scheduled to fly will leave Holloman on April 21, stop in Palmdale, Calif., for another retirement ceremony, then arrive on April 22 at their final destination: Tonopah Test Range Airfield in Nevada, where the jet made its first flight in 1981. The government has no plans to bring the fighter out of retirement, but could do so if necessary. "I'm happy to hear they are putting it in a place where they could bring it back if they ever needed it," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Feest, the first person to fly an F-117 in combat, during the 1989 invasion of Panama that led to the capture of dictator Manuel Noriega. The Air Force decided to accelerate the retirement of the F-117s to free up funding to modernize the rest of the fleet. The F-117 is being replaced by the F-22 Raptor, which also has stealth technology. Fifty-nine F-117s were made; 10 were retired in December 2006 and 27 since then, the Air Force said. Seven of the planes have crashed, one in Serbia in 1999. Stealth technology used on the F-117 was developed in the 1970s to help evade enemy radar. While not invisible to radar, the F-117's shape and coating greatly reduced its detection. The F-117, a single-seat aircraft, was designed to fly into heavily defended areas undetected and drop its payloads with surgical precision. A total of 558 pilots have flown the F-117 since it went operational. They dub themselves "bandits," with each given a "bandit number" after their first flight. Feest, who is Bandit 261, also led the first stealth fighter mission into Iraq during Desert Storm in 1991. He said the fire from surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guns was so intense that he stopped looking at it to try to ease his fears. "We knew stealth worked and it would take a lucky shot to hit us, but we knew a lucky shot could hit us at any time," he said. Incredibly, not one stealth was hit during those missions, he said. Fonte: Associated Press

Nella prima foto sembra di vedere un turista giapponese a Firenze, con tutti quegli aggeggini...

Venerdì sera parlavo con un amico, il cui padre è un generale in pensione. Mi ha detto che tra le regole di ingaggio dei soldati italiani in afghanistan c'è il divieto di prestare aiuto a truppe di altri paesi in combattimenti se questi si svolgono fuori dall'area assegnata. Questo mi rende un po' più comprensibile l'irritazione con cui a volte alcuni ufficiali stranieri parlano dell'impegno dei paesi NATO.

Questo è il video... pazzesco. Ma cosa è meglio fare per il pilota in una situazione del genere?

Ho una domanda, la quale a sua volta porta ad un mio dubbio molto molto più generale: Il lancio riuscito di questo missile ci dice che sono state sviluppate armi in gradi di colpire anche dei satelliti artificiali? Questo potrebbe portare ad una escalation nella corsa agli armamenti spaziali visto che anche la Cina l'anno scorso lanciò un missile per colpire un suo satellite? Questo mi porta anche a chiedervi: Quanto sono vulnerabili i satelliti artificiali? E' un tema importante visto come quasi tutti i sistemi vitali per un esercito ormai si basano sul GPS. Questi satelliti possono essere colpiti? Quali contromisure esistono per questo rischio?

Tornando al discorso plasma-stealth, a me risulta che sia una delle bufale sparate dalla propaganda. In effetti è dall'anno 2000 che ne parlano, e ancora non si è visto niente. Un pò di tempo fa tra l'altro avevo trovato questo articolo in rete che parlava dell'argomento: Stealth's Radioactive Secret This is the first in two-part series from exotic weapons guru David Hambling. There’s a simple technology that could transform civil aviation, slashing fuel consumption, reducing greenhouse emissions and cutting noise. The problem is, nobody knows about it – yet. It's a military secret. The way technology migrates from classified weapons programs to everyday life is the theme of my book, Weapons Grade. (Did I mention it was out in paperback this week?) We wouldn’t have jet aircraft, computers or satellite communications without such programs. But when they stay secret, the public benefit is lost. What would have happened to the electronics industry if the transistor had not been declassified in 1949? Plasma aerodynamics offers tantalizing promises of improving aircraft performance. By producing a thin layer of charged particles around an aircraft you can change the behavior of the boundary layer, significantly reducing friction. The charged layer also absorbs radar, improving stealth. When my colleague Justin Mullins wrote about the subject for New Scientist magazine back in 2000, it seemed to be an obscure Russian technology dating from the late 70’s which the US was just beginning to examine. But it offered real benefits, with a potential drag reduction of up to 30%. “A cut in drag of 1 per cent means you can increase an airliner's payload by about 10 per cent, or it could simply fly farther or faster,” Mullins pointed out, “Just imagine the effect this could have on cash-strapped airlines.” The Russians seemed to be years ahead, even marketing a plasma stealth add-on device said to reduce radar returns by a factor of a hundred. He concludes by wondering if the technology can actually work in practice. “Either the new labs are a huge waste of time and money, or the American military knows something we don't.“ As it turns out, they certainly do. A lot of information on stealth disappeared from the public domain decades ago when the whole subject turned black. Which was why I was surprised to find the original patent for plasma stealth still intact. Patent 3,127,608 is called "Object Camouflage Method And Apparatus," and "relates to a method of making aircraft or other objects invisible to radar." The inventor, one Arnold L. Eldredge, describes the theoretical basis of plasma stealth accurately. The most surprising thing is the date. The patent was filed on August 6th, 1956. The technology has been around for fifty years. But the big problem is with his apparatus – Eldredge uses an electron gun, which would be way too big to carry on an aircraft. In fact, that’s a problem with this whole plasma idea. Apparatus to generate the millions of volts needed is big, bulky and impractical; even these days the Russians are talking 100 Kg and tens of kilowatts. But there is a way - check out Patent 4,030,098 (1962) “Method and means for reducing reflections of electromagnetic waves “ – assigned to the Secretary of the Army and the rather similar Patent 3,713,157 (1964) belonging to North American Aviation, later absorbed by Boeing – “Energy Absorption by a Radioisotope Produced Plasma” Both of these use the same basic concept: a coating of radioactive material producing a flux of either Alpha of Beta particles ionize the air, producing the desired layer of plasma. It’s a clever solution. Radioactive paint weighs virtually nothing, does not require any power input and can be dirt cheap. One of the suggested emitters is Strontium-90, which is produced in abundance as a waste product by nuclear reactors. It’s also quite safe. With a thin protective coating to prevent it from flaking off, the soft radiation (unlike dangerous Gamma radiation) is not a hazard to pilot or maintenance personnel. This type of material is only dangerous if inhaled or ingested. I checked out the idea with some people who know about these things - Martin Streetly, Editor of Jane's Radar & Electronic Warfare Systems and Professor Igor Alexeff, former President of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and an authority on plasma technology. Both confirmed that the idea, though exotic, was sound enough in theory. Interestingly, neither had come across the idea before. And both observed one obvious disadvantage from the point of view of stealth. The radiation levels involved – 10 Curies per square centimeter – would give the plane a visible glow at night, making it a beacon to enemy air defenses. Did this problem mean that the whole idea was shelved - or were radioactive stealth coatings taken further? Glowing Planes, Hidden Bombers This is the second in a two-part series on radioactive stealth from exotic weapons guru David Hambling. Check out part one here. Back in the 60's, there was considerable work done on developing radioactive coatings which would have the double benefit of absorbing radar and reducing drag. We know that from the patents we looked at in part one. What aircraft would have had such coatings? In the late 1950’s there had been several attempts to reduce the radar cross-section of the U2 spy plane under the name Project Rainbow, detailed here. These included the ‘trapeze’, an arrangement of poles and wires, and ‘wallpaper,’ material printed with with radar-aborbent circuitry. The results were not satisfactory – Kelly Johnson called the modified U2s ‘dirty birds’ because of the effect on their aerodynamics which lost them several thousand feet. Even worse, the ‘wallpaper’ caused overheating with the loss of one aircraft and the death of test pilot Robert Sieker. A coating that reduced radar returns and improved aerodynamics would have been the answer – but at the price of a visible glow at night. So, were there any sightings of mysterious glowing U2s? A CIA report on the CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 states: According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. Why would anyone report a U2 as a UFO? The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. I leave it to those who compile statistics on flying saucers to say how many glowing UFOs were sighted under these conditions and how many appeared to be luminous on their own account. Note also the wording in Patent 3,713,157 which says that the plasma cloud produces a combination of ‘absorbtion, reflection, refraction and diffraction’ across frequencies including visible spectrum, which would certainly alter the appearance of an aircraft, perhaps to the point of making it an unrecognisable blob. A radioactive coating would be unlikely to be applied to the entire aircraft – as Martin Streetly of Jane’s pointed out to me, this would immediately block the aircraft's own radar, communications and navigation aids. However, a coating on the locations contributing most to radar returns – inlets and wing-body junction – would have a significant effect, and a coating along the leading edge would give the desired reduction in drag. It might even be possible to have coated surfaces which could be covered or uncovered as needed. Radioactive coatings would cause a major disposal problems. It is alleged that workers at Groom lake - 'Area 51' - were harmed by carcinogens dumped there. The suit was dismissed in 1996 because for reasons of security the materials involved could not be disclosed; but the suggestion is that the material was chemical waste rather than radioactive. Given that the radioactive plasma coating was known to improve aerodynamics and stealthiness in the 1960’s, we would expect the next step to be a way of achieving the same benefits without radioactivity. This brings us to the B-2, an aircraft with has long been the subject of speculation. Even respected aviation writer Bill Gunston has commented on suggestions that the B-2 employs a system which charges the leading wing edge to ‘millions of volts’. (Interestingly, most such speculation is tied up with ideas of ‘electrogravitics’, anti-gravity and alien technology, which belong firmly in the disinformation category). This would chime with a comment in Ben Rich’s book about the Skunk Works . He could not believe that Northrop’s stealth bomber design was 10% more aerodynamically efficient than Lockheed’s competing design, which was externally similar (page 338 in the Warner edition). Perhaps Northrop were exagerating, as Rich suggests; but perhaps their plane had a secret advantage. Many have commented on a photograph of a B-2 from Edwards AFB (published in Air Forces Monthly in October 2000) in which the wing seems to be enveloped in a faint glowing cloud. This was explained by the Air Force as water vapor, but some commentators have argued that such a cloud would not form simultaneously above and below the wing. See also the discussion and perhaps anomalous picture here. The USAF appears to have been using plasma aerodynamics for decades. The Russians certainly know all about it , as does anyone who has bought the technology off them. According to the patents it has additional benefits too – it can muffle the noise produced by engines as well as preventing contrails from forming. The only people not enjoying its benefits are the civilian taxpayers who funded it in the first place.

Ragazzi porto alla vostra attenzione questo articolo... Cosa ne pensate? Credete che la fonte sia neutrale o prevenuta? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-j...problems-04311/

Vi posto il link a questa notizia, anche se ammetto che non so quanto affidabile sia questa fonte. Vi risulta qualcosa? http://www.livescience.com/technology/0802...tic-record.html

Allora non è stato mai provato questo sistema? Che prospettive ha in futuro?

Dal video si capisce quali navi erano state riprese?

Non so quanto c'entri qui ma avevo visto un video in cui si diceva che in Inghilterra stanno sviluppando un sistema per proteggere i carri armati basato su campo di energia statica intorno alla corazza. Non ho capito come funziona, voi ne avete mai sentito parlare?

Oggi su History Channel hanno fatto un documentario di un'ora su questi due piloti, lo avevi visto?

Ho cercato i questo forum (bombardieri e attacco al suolo) ma non ho trovato molto di rilevante...sezione sbagliata? Sarebbe bello se ci fosse una scheda su questo aereo sulla home page...