Hildegard

W.A. Mozart: Don Giovanni , Madamina, il catalogo, aria Leporella

No, I don't really ....personally I don't think the last video counts as necroposting - it's too damn funny ( the reaction of the soldier, not the eventual death of iraqi insurgents) ......when it comes to other videos I posted here: this thread began with a 'war video' so I thought this thread would be adequate to post other videos regarding the on going conflict. Sure some of those videos are pretty dark, but that's just what war is like. Pixie - that's just mean man <_<

Check out the reaction of the US soldier after the airstrike of a building where iraqi insurgents are supposed to be in.... MOD EDIT: I took out the video. For an explanation, see my response below.

A.Vivaldi: Concerto No.1 in G Minor, RV 315, "SUMMER" - Presto

Here's a little bit more info: London Sunday Times August 28 2000 FROM GILES WHITTELL IN MOSCOW http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/t...gnrus01001.html A BOTCHED test launch of a new type of torpedo has emerged as the most likely cause of the Kursk submarine disaster, even as Russian officials claim that an "external collision" was involved. Two civilians on the Kursk when she sank were testing torpedos that may have exploded on launch, detonating the blast that tore open her bow and sent her to the seabed. There was speculation that the torpedos were either a new weapon designed to leave the water, fly in the air and re-enter water to attack other submarines, or a new version of a silent rocket-powered weapon. Reports at the weekend said that the men, from the Dagdizel naval weapons centre in Dagestan, were aboard "to supervise and check if the torpedo was working as it should". A Dagdizel official denied that the men had been working on a new torpedo design, but days after the blast the Red Star military newspaper reported that the Kursk had been carrying liquid-fuel propelled weapons. Officers, including Gennadi Lyachin, the Kursk's captain, had complained that the liquid fuel system could explode inside a torpedo tube, making it more dangerous than the compressed-air one it replaced. Aleksandr Nikitin, a former submarine captain, said he was "almost positive" an accidental torpedo explosion had caused the disaster. He said claims now being investigated by Russian secret police, that an "unidentified object" had hit the Kursk and caused the explosions, were "ridiculous".

Yeah....I believe that would have to be the new liquid fuel-propelled torpedoes that Russia is reportedly getting ready to deploy....

Here's one of the best fighter jets in the world and by many the best: EFA-2000 Eurofighter Typhoon Made in Europe

That's true, it's an advantage of the F-22. F-22 had crashes as well my friend....A problem with a flight-control system caused an F-22 Raptor to crash on the runway at Nellis AFB, on Dec. 20th 2004 according to a US Air Force report " Yes, the thrust vectoring wasn't a mandatory USAF requirement, it is a nice bonus, but you don't pick a plane for production based on 'bonuses' .....in my opinion the F-23 is better because of its bigger range and better ability to be fully stealth unlike the F-22 who's having major problems with that regarding his heat signature. But then again, the F-22 and F-23 have their advantages and disadvantages, so really it could of been both ways, but it's history now and let's leave it there

Does this look 'nicer' to you

YF-23 Black Widow II Death of a beatiful plane In September 1985 the Air Force sent out technical requests for proposals to a number of aircraft manufacturing teams. The October 1986 Milestone I review directed a DEM/VAL phase prior to entry into EMD. On 31 October 1986, the Air Force awarded each team a $691-million fixed-price contract to build two prototypes: Northrop-McDonnell Douglas' YF-23, and the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22. In contrast to the F-117A and the B-2, both of which had been point designed for stealth, these two prototypes were the first airplanes ever to blend stealth with agility and high-speed, supersonic cruise capability. Two YF-23 prototypes were designed and built by the contractor team of Northrop and McDonnell Douglas as part of the demonstration and evaluation phase of the US Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter selection program, which concluded in 1990. During the ATF program, one YF-23 was powered by twin Pratt and Whitney YF119 turbofan engines, while two General Electric YF120 turbofan engines were installed in the other prototype. Featuring a diamond-shaped planform, two large, sharply-canted ruddervators, and a serrated aft profile, the high performance aircraft was larger than the F-15 it was designed to replace. The YF-23 prototypes are 67.4 feet in length and have wingspans of 43.6 ft. The YF-23 employed stealth characteristics and was capable of supersonic cruise flight without afterburner. The aircraft achieved a speed of Mach 1.8 during the program. There was no official USAF "nickname" for the YF-23A. The Northrop YF-23A team personnel chose the name "Black Widow II" -- commemorating the Northrop P-61 Black Widow, the first American aircraft specifically designed as a night-fighter YF-23 YF-22 The YF-22 and YF-23 were different in many ways. The YF-23 was designed for speed and maneuverability. The YF-22, however, was designed more for maneuverability. Both aircraft, were designed for a type of flight called supercruise. Supercruise is when an aircraft is designed to be flown at Mach 1 or above in cruise, that is without afterburners. For this reason, both aircraft had to be more aerodynamic. The YF-23 was slightly more aerodynamic as it's cruising speed was Mach 1.25, Mach 0.08 faster than the YF-22 (roughly). Both of their speeds varied however. That is because the two prototypes were produced and tested. Each one was fitted with a different engine configuration. The exhausts of the two aircraft differed radically. Lockheed chose a layout aimed at maximising lower speed manoeuvrability via the use of thrust vectoring, even though this was not a mandatory USAF requirement. Two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles provide vectoring to enhance response in pitch. Northrop on the other hand rated stealth and drag so important they employed a serrated planform beavertail with B-2-like submerged ventral exhaust troughs. This approach reduced both depressed tail aspect infrared emissions and tail aspect radar cross-section, but precludes any vectoring. The YF-23 took a very raidcal departure from the conventional design of aircraft. By using a very unusual shape the aircraft became very maneuverable and had a high top speed. By using the same angle on all flying surfaces (i.e. the nose, wing fronts, wing backs, ruddervator {rudder/elevator} fronts, ruddervator backs, and engine exhausts), the stealthiness is increased. Another advantage of using such unusualy shaped flying surfaces, is that the uncontrolability of the aircraft is increased so that when fly-by-wire is used, the manueverablity of the aircraft is increased greatly. The Northrop/MDC YF-23 employed planform shaping with extensive blending, the latter technique used to advantage with the large B-2A. Blending has the major strength of not compromising high speed aerodynamics, the blended airframe offering very low drag by avoiding vortices which may be produced by a faceted geometry. In addition to RCS reduction through shaping, the YF-23 also employed carefully shaped exhausts to conceal the engine hot end, yet another technique developed during the B-2A program. The unusual 'diamond' planform of the YF-23 is a 2 major lobe design, as all major edges fall into groups of two parallels. The result of the low observables techniques was a major reduction in aircraft detectability by radar, and in the YF-23, also detectability by Infra-Red Search & Track (IRS&T) systems. This will radically shrink the usable envelope of hostile radar guided weapons and in the instance of the YF-23, also heatseeking weapons. In April 1991, the Air Force selected Lockheed's YF-22 design for full-scale development, now termed "Engineering & Manufacturing Development" (EMD). According to the Air Force, factors in the selection for production of the F-22 were a better designed for maintainability, greater potential for future development, and slightly lower cost. Secretary of the Air Force Donald B. Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. Emphasizing the importance of the Lockheed team's management and production plans, he denied that either prototype was significantly more maneuverable or stealthy. A popular view is that the decision reflected a preference for maneuverability over stealth It is universally held that the YF-23 was by far the better looking aircraft, and supporters offer a number of other reasons why the YF-23 should have won the ATF competition. The YF-23 was a very agile aircraft. The YF-23 is a very unstable aircraft; however, when this instability is coupled with a fly-by-wire control system, this results in a very agile aircraft. Another attribute that lends itself to high mobility is the uniqueness of the tail. On the YF-23, instead of using two rudders and two elevators, it uses a ruddervator, a combined rudder/elevator. This ruddervator is angled at a roughly 45

No, no I'm not. HyperSoar isn't an aircraft yet, all I was saying is that it's not some 'Judgement Day' fiction, it's a very much alive project. Even though HyperSoar is still in the "paper airplane" stage, it has garnered interest from organizations as diverse as Federal Express and STRATCOM (the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command). HyperSoar has appeared in Jane's Defence Weekly, Aviation Week and Space Technology, Scholastic's Weekly Reader, and daily papers from the Los Angeles Times to the Washington Times to local newspapers such as the Valley Times. Passenger flight would be one of the last applications to become reality, but it is the one that the media and the public are most interested in. "To the general public, HyperSoar looks doable. The technology is nearly there, the concept is proven on paper. The thing now is to make it economically feasible to the defense and commercial communities so HyperSoar can get the funding it needs to take the next step in development." Carter(some aerodynamics engineer) estimates that about $500 million would be needed to develop the technologies needed and build and test a 16-meter-long flyable unmanned prototype. Lawrence Livermore is positioned to help bring HyperSoar into reality because of its expertise in thermal protection materials, large-scale computational fluid dynamics, ultrahigh pressure testing design, and modeling the environmental effects of high-speed supersonic aircraft. The question of funding aside, the day when passengers can hop a HyperSoar to London is still a ways off. "When most people hear about HyperSoar," Carter added, "they immediately think big-building big airplanes to carry lots of passengers or cargo. But that's not economically feasible. I propose building small airplanes to justify the market and then building up from there, according to the need. That's how all the different flight technologies-airplanes, jets, helicopters-got started. It's the way that fledgling technologies like HyperSoar take wing. I never did nor I think I will.

First - I posted that, not Lucius Second - HyperSoar isn't some fictional 'Judgement Day' bullsh*t and really it doesn't sound scary, it's called like that because a HyperSoar aircraft would ascend to approximately 130,000 feet - lofting outside the Earth's atmosphere - then turn off its engines and coast back to the surface of the atmosphere. There, it would again fire its air-breathing engines and skip back into space. The craft would repeat this process until it reached its destination. A mission from the midwestern United States to east Asia would require approximately 25 such skips to complete the one-and-a-half-hour journey. In other words the plane 'soars' from the orbit back to the atmoshpere several times at 'Hyper' speed - that's how it got its name, not because it's suppose to be some doomsday weapon like from the "Terminator: Judgement Day," - if you still don't understand here's a picture for you: Third: Every plane began as a theory, so did this one.....it's not that fictional, it all depends on funds and politics now - nothing else. Fourth: I know this was a rethorical question.....but no, no you don't.

Just on a cursory skim of the FAR TOO LONG post, I noticed quite a few liberties being taken with Bible scripture interpretations, for example, and far too few citations from other sources; not once was there a reference to one fo the numerous "scientists who noticed perterbations in the planetary orbits" since the early 1900s. It sounds exactly like every haox ever boradcast. But wait! He has a book I can BUY and read. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wasn't trying to make a scientific point on this matter,if you look up more carefully how that long topic got there in the first place you'll see I was pointing out just an 'urban' legend dating back from the Bible to the current global and space developments - nothing more. P.S..Hope you'll enjoy your new book "

The HyperSoar concept has been under investigation by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for several years and is being discussed with the US Air Force and other government agencies. Livermore has been working with the University of Maryland's Department of Aerospace Engineering to refine the aerodynamic and trajectory technologies associated with the concept. Lawrence Livermore is positioned to help bring HyperSoar into reality because of its expertise in thermal protection materials, large-scale computational fluid dynamics, ultrahigh pressure testing design, and modeling the environmental effects of high-speed supersonic aircraft. In the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 - House Report 108-106" (May 16, 2003) p. 214, line item "0603285E Advanced Aerospace Systems (Hypersoar)" had 7.5 million dollars allocated for fiscal year 2003, with a ramp up over the following years of 21.5 million in 2004, 25 million in 2005, 40 million in 2006 and 50 million in 2007, 2008 & 2009. It all depends on the funds, it could be in the next 10 years, 15 or 20......and it could be never if they cancel the project - look at it this way: if the democrats win the next election - expect nothing and if republicans win again - expect it before schedule

Let's look into the future a little a bit " HyperSoar Hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft A HyperSoar hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft the size of a B-52 could take off from the US and deliver its payload to any point on the globe - from an altitude and at a speed that would challenge current defensive measures - and return to the US without the need for refueling or forward bases on foreign soil. Equipment and personnel could also be transported. HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight. As a military aircraft, a HyperSoar bomber the size of an F-22 could take off from the U.S. and deliver its payload from an altitude and at a speed that would defy all current defensive measures. It could then return directly to the continental U.S. without refueling and without the need to land at forward bases on foreign soil. A HyperSoar aircraft would ascend to approximately 130,000 feet - lofting outside the Earth's atmosphere - then turn off its engines and coast back to the surface of the atmosphere. There, it would again fire its air-breathing engines and skip back into space. The craft would repeat this process until it reached its destination. All previous concepts have suffered from heat buildup on the surface of the aircraft and in various aircraft components due to friction with the atmosphere. A HyperSoar plane would experience less heating because it would spend much of its flight out of the Earth's atmosphere. Also, any heat the craft picked up while "skipping" down into the atmosphere could be at least partially dissipated during the aircraft's time in the cold of space. Other potential applications for HyperSoar aircraft include: Space lift - HyperSoar could be employed as the first stage of a two-stage-to- orbit space launch system. Research shows this approach will allow approximately twice the payload-to-orbit as today's expendable launch systems for a given gross takeoff weight. Passenger aircraft - A commercial HyperSoar airliner or business jet could reach any destination on the planet from the continental U.S. in two hours or less. Freighter - A HyperSoar freight aircraft could make four or more roundtrips to, say, Tokyo each day from the U.S. versus one or less for today's aircraft. Analysis indicates a HyperSoar aircraft flying express mail between Los Angeles and Tokyo could generate ten times the daily revenue of a similarly- sized subsonic cargo plane of today. Proponents estimate that approximately $140 million would be needed over the next few years to advance several technologies to the point where a $350 million one-third-scale flyable prototype could be built and tested. About $500 million would be needed to develop the technologies needed and build and test a 16-meter-long flyable unmanned prototype. The development cost of full-scaled HyperSoar aircraft is estimated at about the same as spent to develop the Boeing Company's new 777, or nearly $10 billion. P.S. Your message Lucius is received and understood

Well they can't be 'functional' as the US when you compare the military budgets of those two countries.......

That's an impressive looking chopper......I was just wondering is the Ka-58 'Black Ghost' experimental or a fictional helicopter, last I heard it's suppose to be Russia's first stealth attack helicopter

....and you need lots and lots of money which the Russians lack at the present moment. Things you said about the design and aerodynamics are true, that's why a child could fly a russian fighter jet while on the other hand you need 5 years alone to become a F-16 fighter pilot. After the colapse of the SSSR when comparing russian and western war planes, experts do agree the US fighters have a certain advantage due to the superior technology, but that diference is too small when you look at the amounts of money spend on research, development and maintance of the US war planes compared to the Russian which are more simple, but are much more robust and 'thougher' then the US......

Well you can call it a new design, but it's the basic MiG-25 configuration retained, but very different aircraft, strengthened to permit supersonic flight at low altitude; more powerful engines than MiG-25; major requirement increased range, not speed; advanced digital avionics; Zaslon radar was first electronically scanned phased-array type to enter service, enabling MiG-31 to track 10 targets and engage four simultaneously, including targets below and behind its own location; fuselage weapon mountings added; crew increased to two. Wing anhedral 4 degrees from roots; sweepback approx 40 degrees on leading-edge, 32 degrees at quarter-chord, with small sharply swept wingroot extensions; all-swept tail surfaces, with twin outward canted fins and dihedral horizontal surfaces BTW: Nice chopper

Also from Russia with love the MIG-31 going 3000kph: :cool:

Tell it to somebody who cares.

When the mods see these planes they'll close this thread in no-time, I made a mistake with the F-37 because it's a fake....regarding the Russian fighters here's my favourite:

Looks awfully familiar to the Israely F-21, I guess it's the predecessor of the J-10, but yet again looks like the Israely pay little attention to design like the US does

I don't know what the hell am I suppose to be excatly

I wasn't joking nor was I serious about the things I posted. I know most of them are bullsh*t, but some things mentioned there are true and they do raise some questions that currently are impossible to answer, aswell as some question that are refused to be answered for reasons unknown to the majority.....