I was in the Air Force for more than 20 years and saw a lot of weird, cutting edge classified aircraft. After watching this video, a lot of the strange things I saw make much more sense.
My Grandfather, who passed in 2002, had worked in the Skunkworks from the 60s to the mid 90’s. He worked on the SR-71, F117 and B2, that he would admit to. The F117 and B-2 was worked on in the 70’s and early 80’s. He said he couldn’t talk about what he had worked on in the 90s but imagine what it could be if we had the F117 and B2 in the 70’s. He did say something like anti-gravity, the ability of being in two places instantly fast is something he could imagine would be released in my lifetime. The old man took these secrets to his grave, but did say he has never seen an alien craft and everything is US built.
I think a lot of it was probably what we just saw. Nozzle control demonstrator tests. Magnetic field flight would be the holy grail for sure. Maybe it injures the pilots, and we need to wait for AI advancements as satellite feeds can be hacked.
@@Skunkhunt_42@Skunkhunt_42 The B-2 (ATB) was originally a sole-source contract to Lockheed with North American as a partner under the Carter administration. Not quite following the acquisition rules. Then the Reagan administration followed the rules and restarted the program as a competition between Lockheed-North American and Northrop-Boeing. Northrop lied, won, failed, but got to start over. B-2 is a good name because the taxpayers paid twice. Due to the egregious cost and schedule overruns, the production was halted after only 20 aircraft.
Good of you to mention BAE before I did. The BAE Demon was tail-less and could fly flap-less using thrust vectoring and air-flow control. It could also handle ATC autonomously.
@@simonrobins4316 Yes, they gave it a voice and (apparently) the ability to parse clearances and vectoring. Can ur drone do that? One would hope it filed its own paperwork. AFAIK they did NOT use William Daniels' voice.
I had a friend who told me that "hard light holograms" have been in use for years but the public have no idea about it - RIP, WO2 James Walsh of the Royal Scots, gone but never forgotten you legend
sounds like the UK BAe's Demon UAV which flow in 2010 with Cranfield uni - no moving surfaces (no elevators or ailerons) - was defined as the world's first flapless a/c - turning by air blown at trailing edges of wings
I see that the technology is maturing. Active flow control has been a dream of aviation engineers for about four decades that I know of. Next up will be active flow control for submarines and even surface warships, both for reduced friction and for noise control.
When I first heard they were making an aircraft with no flight surfaces I imagined they were bleeding off thrust from the engines somehow, and thrust vectoring that way. So using compressed air is interesting. Makes sense. Way more controlable, and we've been using compressed air for God knows how long. I know it would be reliable. Much better at high speeds than flight surfaces, and no mechanical failures. Yet after learning they use compress air I have this illogical fear that I would run out of it... Which I know is stupid. "Ah crap I was maneuvering so much my air tank is all empty!" Then have an uncontrollable dive to my death. Kind of curious on what pressures are involved.. How much it holds at any given moment. How fast it takes to fill the tank up. How much it uses. Just general details I will never know most likely for a long time.
@@dianapennepacker6854 I don't think you can exclude bleed air as the source of the compressed air. At the 5:23 mark the narrator says an upper intake and exhaust would be a source for the compressed air. Bleed air would be the easiest way to provide compressed air without adding too much weight.
Interesting progress since the US Army's first drone contract for the Lockheed Aquila, a project on which I worked in the late 1980s at Lockheed Austin Division. Development of the Aquila and control vehicle was done in Austin, Texas, followed by trips to Ft. Huachuca, AZ, to work on the launch and recovery vehicles.
If they say testing is scheduled for 2025, that means testing won’t start until 2027- At which time, they’ll cut testing short to prevent Congress and the Pentagon from finding grounds to cancel it because of all the bugs and cut corners they don’t want uncovered, then shove it into production at a sad factory in a gutted part of the country, for a company only staying afloat because of government spending life support. Then, of course, as soon as it enters service, untested and sloppily manufactured, it will break and kill at least a few service members. Our generals will act surprised, suspend its usage, and the national security apparatus will be tasked with damage control-in other words, paying underpaid contractors to make positive comments on Facebook and begging the New York Times to shelve any criticism. By then, it’ll be 2030, we’ll be in at least one (more) major war, so they’ll have even less trouble than usual getting billions more in funding approved by Congress to patch its issues-gladly paying extra for what they were supposed to get from the start-only to race through the absolute bare minimum updates and testing. Of course, they’ll face zero criticism, besides being shouted down by their Facebook army and bought mainstream media, we’ll be scared and desperate, so nobody will speak up. So it’ll be 2035, probably, when this concept ever returns any value. During this long wait, in its place, we’ll undoubtedly spend billions more on bringing Cold War era technology out of storage-for yet another reboot after many-forcing it back into operations to answer our desperate needs in ISR, high-altitude and low-orbit air space interception and denial. The F-117, SR-71 will be back in service, rusty and rickety, with no mind paid to cost effectiveness. We’ll be told that this is our best option, by the same people who willingly went along with the cancellation of F-22 production, at the exact point that economies of scale would pay off, making additional F-22s free and a huge return to the American people. Of course, at that point, it wasn’t paying the military industrial complex-primarily the careerists and cronies any more money. Cui bono. It wasn’t always like this. Not long ago, “scheduled for testing” meant it was top secret and already in service. We used to develop technologies at a rapid pace-PGMs, UAVs, Manhattan Project, B-2, F-117, USS Nautilus, GPS, JDAM….nowadays, we’re riddled with parasitic bureaucracies, an utter lack of nationalism or even social cohesion, and our military and defense contractors filled with incompetent “equity” hires. Our military brass, after years of peace and unipolar dominance, are largely undeserving paper-pushing officers using our Air Force and Navy as a fast track to the board of directors of a tech company. Kathleen Hicks is a cancer, Mark Milley is a fool, Kendall and Austin at least seem to be qualified and care about our capability. Lately, the only things that give me even minimal optimism are the sensors and missiles that Raytheon Technologies is developing, Northrop’s B-21 and Lockheed Martin’s F-35B and F-35C variants. In terms of aerospace, these appear to be the only quality companies we have left, who are capable and motivated to provide quality weapons to our armed forces, even when the very officers they’re dealing with are looking for little beyond a paycheck. Oh and DARPA, ARL, AFRL still appear to be legit.
Your videos are typically the most informative and concise I've continuously watched on TH-cam. I apologize for saying it, but this one seemed very repetitive, and I was waiting the whole time for a more in-depth explanation as to how these 14 "nozzles" work to control flight aspects of the aircraft. Does it spoil lift to induce rolls? How does it make tight turns or changes in elevation? Please understand, I'm not just trying to complain or speak negatively about your video's, they are incredible and I appreciate everything you put out, including this one. I just want to know these things. The concept is exciting, but I didn't understand it. Sorry for whining. Thank you for all the amazing videos.
I had the exact same feeling. This was less informative than usual. Not that this was so bad, but we are used to excellent info. We're soiled by excellence.
It's like those Dyson fans, you blow air through a tiny hole and surrounding air is pulled along with it creating a much stronger flow of air. You can also change air pressure using gauze like sheets which is something a lot of Aircraft like Typhoon use to help deal with supersonic boundary airflow entering the engines, preventing stall. There will probably be another video explaining all this to the many many viewers that don't have Physics PHD's XD
1) It's DARPA. You get the shiny overview meant to make the US military look tough, but they keep secret the part that makes it work. (That part gets sold quietly to China for 10% for the Big Guy). 2) It's a 10 minute video. Breaking down the aerodynamics and specifics of modifying flight in the 3 axes would definitely require a longer video. It's a revolutionary concept. More importantly, see part 1. We don't want Iran making these things (but China's cool, as long as they pay).
@@kma3647To be fair you put trust the government too much. It is not that smart. Instead of selling to China, they wait for them to inevitably steal and copy 😂
One issue with AFC in commercial aviation is the total loss of control in case of engine failure, so some backup traditional control surfaces would still be needed
Same could be said about hydraulics. The accumulators can keep some pressure when the pump stops but not for long. If there is a backup system that powers the hydraulic pump during engine failure then a similar backup system could easily be used on the air compressor
They have Nikola Tesla saucer type craft with electromagnetic field propulsion that can take you half across the universe in a matter of hours. This stuff is a dark ages joke in comparison but it keeps the power structure what it is with them sitting high on the hog making money off us killing each other.
My son is a doctor of mechanical engineering and has an undergraduate degree in chemical and biological engineering. Some of the things he is working on are are almost magical - from super-high tech materials to superfast devices controlled by superhuman AI and machine learning programs. Every time I talk to him, I feel like people are almost obsolete.
Fun fact: Drones can eliminate surrendering forces without legal issues. The law is you have to be able to recover their bodies, drone operators can not.
One other benefit, is an extended AoA envelope, by kinda forcibly circumventing stall. Also, unlike the prototype, the best way I think to gather compressed air for the system, is too tuck a flow diverter inside of what externally looks like a divertless intake. And just use that air for the compressed air system. As far as stealth goes, there's kind of a mix of pros & cons.
how do you think a harrier moves - it has moving parts for when moving at speed, but also air-flow holes along its wings for much slower speeds - holes are the size of your fist - a number going down each wing - but this tech is far more advanced than the 70's+ tech of the harrier
The potential for whoopie-cushions over specific regions as an air show prank is near limitless . Hilarity potential is off the charts as DARPA designs the most farty plane ever .
@@SabbaticusRex one thing the US does well is in finding funds for new toys - that new ship the US is bringing out (the 3 hulls) was based on a UK design from back in the 90's - the UK was mucking around with doing something, annoying all the researchers at DERA with this radical concept (destroyers and a/c carrier, with ability to sink close down to shore line to hide signature), and then the US came in and funded all the trials the US came over saw our version of Augmented Pilot concept (the US version called 'Pilots Associate', the UK version called 'Mission Management Aid (MMA)') and wanted to play with us, we were told NO by our masters - the autonomous Tank project (the land based project to the MMA) in the UK was eventually sold to the US, along with many of its lead researcher oing over - the US had over 400 researchers on their PA programme, whilst the UK had 40, and even the US were quoted as saying, how could the UK be ahead of them - they tried to embed some of their pilots into our programme, but the RAF front liners stated we fly different to the US and was of no benefit to the UK more to the US - when we talked about putting our solutions on the AWACs and SIgInt solutions, the US pressured very hard, as there was a joint interest - it went black later shortly after a joint venture was announced identifying good tech and ideas is not totally one-sided to the US, all nations have their ideas, but it seems the US is good at seeing the end-result and funding it - at the time, RAe / DRA / DERA / Qinetic (whats left if now called DSTL - project managers) before the UK destroyed its research base, had when over 4000+ world leading researchers within it - but some one thought it was a good idea to let industry run such research programmes and then costs went hypersonic to help such companies make profits - can remember seeing something akin to the rail-gun back in the early 90's - where the UK designed the first parallel computing element - known as the Transputer, were you could in theory put thousand together for truely massive computing tasks - the autonomous UK tank programme had a few of these computing devices embedded with in it who you think came up with the idea of replacing CRT's from cockpit with flat screen in the 90's - had the effect of considerably reducing weight and space in the a/c, and giving the a/c more fuel space - came out of a project at DERA at Malvern - the UK recieved considerable patent payments for many years over that
I'd be interested to know/see if they used "warpable" surfaces, as well, since moveable shapes allow widely varying performance across speed and AoA, perhaps adding another dimension of control...just a thought
@@elultimo102current aileron and such have breaks in the surface where they are hinged. As I understand stealth, these breaks contribute more to radar signature. Warping would remove the gaps. Funniest part is that wing warping was one of the earliest forms of control.
I'd imagine that with computing power and wind tunnel time, attitude, etc alteration in conjunction with shape would be well understood and with air laminar type flow disruption, become somewhat like the effects of warping surfaces. You'd be warping the passing air envelope instead.
I remember (maybe it was two decades ago) seeing morphic drones with electro-magnetic thrust vectoring that 'fly' in the water as well as being able to fly in the air like a fixed-wing glider (with no ailerons or rudders) because fundamentally both mediums allow certain dynamic shapes to pass through them with less resistance than others. I'm pretty sure the manta ray was the 'ideal shape' that the scientists discovered for this craft, so maybe submersibles that can also double as aerial craft will be developed in future based on this advanced research?
This is how the Russian navy developed super fast torpedoes. Compressed air is expelled from the nose. The torpedo doesn't so much as power through the water, it "flies" through the expelled air.
The problem would be the engines. What would you use to fly in both air and water? Some sort of Ionic drive that pumps air or water without discrimination? That would need a LOT of power.
@@watchthe1369How it's done is a good question, but it works somehow. There have been way too many USO(unidentified submersible objects) sightings by reputable people. UAP's have been seen flying straight into the ocean. They've been captured on radar going from space, into the ocean, and vice versa. I don't know how they're doing it, but they're doing it.
It's not only about reduction in stealth but the reduction in parts, pumps, and hydraulic fluid which would be a huge weight saver. An F18 runs 18.5 gallons of hydraulic fluid at 9lbs per gallon and multiple electro hydraulic pumps. Less maintenance.
Of course, that's partially offset by the weight of the servo valves and piping for the control airflow. I'm sure they've optimized the tradeoff between one-valve-per-nozzle (maximum control) and all-nozzles on one valve (minimum weight and complexity). It's an interesting tradeoff problem.
The greatest thing since laminar flow was invented and in a way, it appears to be a natural development of that concept. This is so elegant and will really improve aerodynamic efficiency.
This is a generation of aircraft design that could be used in the future to fly in both atmosphere and space. This is basically how things move in space.
I saw a documentary about this in the early 2000s. It mentioned the F22, in regards to smoothing out air flow so it could super cruise. This already exists.
Active and passive systems used to control boundary layer separation have been around for a long time, yes. Using these principals to steer fixed blended box wing configuration stealth aircraft is relatively new.
@RKisBae agreed, what i was thinking is how adaptive the current systems are. Can they be retrofit to increase manoeuvrability? There is still a tone about bleeding edge aircraft we do not know. I was just wondering if the F-22's full capabilities might include a steering assist from its current setup.
I have a funny feeling that they are way ahead of this technology, this is a crowd pleaser to quite the voices and gain more funding. Interesting though. 🇬🇧👍
I was reading about this very program about two years ago. Most times the public won't get a glimpse of this type of tech for at least ten years. So it's probably been moving on for at least 15 years already.
Fascinating. Makes me wonder if there is redundancy in this design. If your only source of compressed air fails (eg engine failure) you lose the ability to control the aircraft. Would also be interesting to know if it has inherent stability.
This sort of thing has been going on for many decades. Transfering fuel to control pitch and roll. Dual engine asymmetrical throttle control to control yaw. The most important part tying it into the regular flight controls so the pilots do not have to use specialized controls to use the non-traditional control methods.
And? Research and development in aircraft control has been going on for more than a hundred years. Weight redistribution Surface warping Hinged surfaces of different types (ailerons, flaps, spoilers, elevators, rudders, canards, air brakes...) Asymmetrical thrust Directional thrust And now, maybe manipulation of the boundary layer. Could be something, may be nothing. Who knows? I'm not excited by the hype, as this may be just another technological dead end. I am excited that research is continuing into this frontier. Even if this idea proves near useless for controlling military aircraft, the technology holds promise in the areas of efficiency and stability in commercial aircraft. Look at a random patch of land. Does it contain anything of value? Won't know until you look, right? Probably nothing to get excited about. Wait! See that yellowish glint on that bit of rock just there? The geography looks right. The rocks look right. Could be gold. Could be fool's gold. Time to assay a sample, figure out if there's enough promise for a full-scale mining operation or you're just wasting time. Don't get your hopes up, could be a bust. But if it isn't... That's what DARPA is doing.
Aircraft designers tried something similar in the 60s as a way to increase lift but the found problems with the air vents clogging in actual day to day operations, dirt plugged up the vents. You save weight from hydraulic systems to move control surfaces but now they have to add complex plumbing for control. Pretend I’m from Missouri and show me.
Aurora (Conspiracy) = Get it to go as fast as possible untill it starts to burn because of friction. X-65 (Confirmed) = Figure out how to control it while it's going as fast as possible Concept End Result = Ground to Orbit Space "Plane" (Totally not a space fighter like the X-Wing, honest)
This is not new, I tested that basic technique on model rockets except I called it Ram Air. I had an intake nozzle on my model rocket plane and a hose leading to an exit nozzle used instead of a rudder to have vehicle perform a circular flight path, worked the first time, works just like a reaction control system on Space Shuttle.
The harrier jump jet could control a lot of direction by swivelling the jet nozzles, and was eventually called vectoring in flight. Not quite the same as this "new" idea but same principal
STOL is one of the best attributes of such systems . Look at the new JDP seaplane and its new STOL assisting system that uses directed airflow over channels on the top rear of the wing .
Speaking of the UK drone BAE systems Demon flown in 2010: "Termed fluidic flight controls, the arrangement used on the Demon reportedly functions by directing air from a rectangular exhaust nozzle over upper and lower surfaces, using the Coandă effect to establish control over pitch. For roll control, bleed air is blown over a Coanda surface installed on the trailing edge of the wing. By controlling boundary layer conditions, the fluidic controls can also generate either greater lift or drag during the take-off and landing phases of flight." From what I've seen here, it looks like the US is taking this science project and throwing money at it. If they can find a way to make it successful and commercialise it, I'm sure they will.
I don't think its like space ships or missiles during terminal, but more like changing lift by intentionally stalling the wing by adding air where it shouldn't be causing the other side to lift.
a round aircraft wouldn't have all that great of an RCS. F-117 took angular stealth to kind of an extreme, but all stealth aircraft have carefully managed angles to them.
@kathrynck maybe not just cross section but also if the propulsion can be done without having to ignite fuel you would want aerodynamics at 360 degrees so a saucer is oddly starting to make sense
A highly interesting technology with incredible potential. The real struggle I see is to make this ducting system relatively immune to battle damage through either redundancy or some type of material that can self-seal when perforated.
Modern flight controls would suffer the same fate if a hydraulic/electrical line is severed. That’s why they have redundant systems for flight controls. This would be no different. A failure I one section would not affect the whole system. Air ducts can have check valves and fuses just like current hydraulic systems.
You know, at least if your engine malfunctions, you can at least glide using flight controls. I’m just curious what happens if something goes wrong and the nozzles fail therefore eliminating control. For example, it’s doing whatever it will be doing and a hose ruptures or loses pressure, supplying the air to the side, which is also the same area it uses to control the aircraft, a temporary blockage or corruption of the system and you have an out of control aircraft! Then, again, instead of going for the defiant X they chose the bell tilt rotor. Again, something happens to one of the engines you’re completely screwed at least with the defiant Something happens you can use auto rotation. But nope they chose an aircraft where if you’re coming out of cruising and one of the mechanisms and or something wrong with one of the engines the process of having the rotors tilt 90° same thing if you’re just hovering and all the sudden, something happens well you’re screwed. “ I’m mean if I’m wrong, correct me” It just seems like America’s military doesn’t have enough contractors /vendors competing for different contracts when the military wants a new vehicle or aircraft! I can only imagine if World War III breaks out it’s going to be an even playing field. or they’re going to find out, they ultimately chose the shittier design!
I would design it around the GE90 engine with top Y inlet and Y outlet. The outlet should have a port or starboard thrust diverter as well as thrust vectoring. At speed the double Y air path changes to ramjet left inlet to left nozzle, right inlet to right nozzle, bypassing the GE90. I would suspect all up weight to be around 65,000lbs fully fueled and loaded with a thrust capability of over 100,000lbs without burners. I would scavenge the shockwave air for compression and ramjet operation. Designed to dogfight and move fast and far with minimal signature. High alt supercruise then ramjet higher altitude and speed travel/intercept, then back to the nearly 2:1 thrust weight ratio and super manouverability of twin vector nozzles and instant port/starboard thrust differential from the diverter. If you mashed the lessons of the sr71, av8b, and F22 all together into the fastest, furthest, tightest, quickest, unlimited nose authority extreme fighting vehicle.
Damn man. You've entirely missed the point of this DARPA project, because you don't understand what is being investigated. We already know about thrust vectoring, no need for a DARPA project, already investigated, already applied. This isn't about creating a super-fast, super-maneuverable uberdogfighter. This is about determining whether manipulation of the boundary layer with jets of air might be a viable method for controlling an aircraft. It's okay to dream about super weapons if that's your thing, but do some basic research before proposing that your fantasy weapon could be made reality. SciFi books are full of fantastical weapons like yours, weapons that aren't possible with current technology.
Yes he totally missed it didn't he ..............a teenager still thinking 4th gen warfare. Imagen a research stealth aircraft with no vertical or horizontal stabilizers, no rudders, no elevators and ailerons just vectored thrust and designed boundary layer control.........nothing to disrupt stealth also to investigate new ways of control and fuel efficiency drag reductions, very high altitude controls even space flight. @@warpedweirdo
@@Leon1Aust I don't think this research will do much for space flight. The concept of a plane using a jet engine in the atmosphere, then switching to rocket propulsion for space, will continue to be a dead end for a long time to come, and this project won't solve the problems that make it so. Systems for manipulation of the boundary layer are unlikely to be well-suited for use as thrusters in space. What works well with high volumes of relatively low pressure air from the engine bleed system probably won't work so well with low volumes of high pressure cold nitrogen from bottles. Additionally, the nozzles / ports ejecting the gas will likely be optimized for efficient flow rather than generation of thrust. All that to say, don't hold your breath waiting for a stealth space plane.
No way that's sci fi stuff, but it could reduce stealth detection as an F-35 has to keep his flight controls neutral to remain in stealth configuration. The Blackburn Buccaneer used vacuum to keep the boundary layer from separating and reduced landing speed by tens of miles per hour. Many reasons for experimentations but a Battlestar Galactica Viper fighter controlled by an AI Cylon warrior will be the NGADs replacement.🤣@@warpedweirdo
60,000 feet is by no means out of the range of any but MANPAD systems. Many anti-air systems have been easily capable of striking targets at far above that altitude since the late 1960s.
@@space.youtube Because it relies on action/reaction from internally produced air, like maneuvering thrusters on a spaceship. Instead of airflow that is almost non existent at higher altitudes and slow speeds?
The cool part is that because of the lack of control surfaces, and using rcs thrusters should allow it to operate in low earth orbit, or at higher altitudes that the Blackbird.
@@pompeymonkey3271 Not on the X-65, but it wouldn't take much of a leap to make a toggle so those same nozzles could switch from a compressed air tank to a fuel tank.
seems to be derived from MAGMA/ British BAE SYSTEMPS and the University of Manchester. Add 3D printing and possibly laminar flow, and you have something new and ready for industrial production
I am amazed...i have been thinking about this very idea for years. I figured it would have to have flaps for take-off, but not for landings. I never figured i would see this, thank you! What started my thoughts about pressurized air used for improved aerodynamics was watching automobiles race in F1. I wondered if anyone had ever cheated doing this?
If discharging air on one side changes orientation of the aircraft would it change a little bit quicker if it sucked air in one side and blew it out the other ?
As elon said the limiting factor in fighter aircraft is the pilot sat in it. we can make aircraft produce far more g forces than the human body will ever be able to handle
you can bet they have been testing these for at least a decade, could explain the high speed aircraft reportedly seen in near earth orbits pulling incredible manoeuvres
@@christasker2944 They can a wind turbine that deploys giving emergency power to maintain basic flight characteristics. For a single engine military craft? I’d love to know how they will produce power. Obviously, whilst airborne there will be air entering the air intakes. As one slows this force will lessen. Will they have enough simple ram air to manoeuvre?
The TR3B is the craziest aviation vehicle so far. Radar absorbing, 6k mph, 89% antigravity, can go submersible, can turn invisible..... Yeah this is nothing compared.
The moment I saw Disney's "Flight of the Navigator" I thought to myself, the manipulation of control surfaces without flaps would allow wings to be so much better, and then, jets of air to effect these manipulations without wing deformations, could be even better... well looky looky, we got that on the way now. Just three decades later.
Interesting, but if this kind of tech becomes common (resulting in being undetectable to radar - which I'm sure he said), isn't it possible for in-air collisions? Isn't the ability to avoid another aircraft partly/wholly dependent on radar? Or am I missing something?
If they say testing is scheduled for 2025 that means it's been fully operatioanal since 2015.
UFO doncha know
Your right
Lol or even earlier then that
I've seen artist drawings of the Aurora for the last 30 years.
The pictures I saw look much cooler.
@@protorhinocerator142 Funny how that works.........
I was in the Air Force for more than 20 years and saw a lot of weird, cutting edge classified aircraft. After watching this video, a lot of the strange things I saw make much more sense.
Don't say too much
🙄
This thing is already obsolete.
@@JoeGator23 Yesssir If we get to see it, its old news
I do understand why they can’t say what they are currently working on
@@TheeSlickShady_Dave_K Definitely don't ask about any reverse engineer alien crafts or what was that light-thing above Jerusalem a few years ago.
My Grandfather, who passed in 2002, had worked in the Skunkworks from the 60s to the mid 90’s. He worked on the SR-71, F117 and B2, that he would admit to. The F117 and B-2 was worked on in the 70’s and early 80’s. He said he couldn’t talk about what he had worked on in the 90s but imagine what it could be if we had the F117 and B2 in the 70’s. He did say something like anti-gravity, the ability of being in two places instantly fast is something he could imagine would be released in my lifetime. The old man took these secrets to his grave, but did say he has never seen an alien craft and everything is US built.
Any idea what he mean by "being in two places instantly fast"? Only subatomic particles can do that right?
Wasnt the B2 was a NorthropGrumman design, not Lockheed
I think a lot of it was probably what we just saw. Nozzle control demonstrator tests. Magnetic field flight would be the holy grail for sure. Maybe it injures the pilots, and we need to wait for AI advancements as satellite feeds can be hacked.
@@Skunkhunt_42@Skunkhunt_42 The B-2 (ATB) was originally a sole-source contract to Lockheed with North American as a partner under the Carter administration. Not quite following the acquisition rules. Then the Reagan administration followed the rules and restarted the program as a competition between Lockheed-North American and Northrop-Boeing. Northrop lied, won, failed, but got to start over. B-2 is a good name because the taxpayers paid twice. Due to the egregious cost and schedule overruns, the production was halted after only 20 aircraft.
@@MrKentaroMotoPI neat! Thanks!!
Politicians are already aware that directing hot air can be beneficial for movement control
Yet they remain.🤗
Hot air balloons.
Lol!
Especially upward movement!
Good of you to mention BAE before I did. The BAE Demon was tail-less and could fly flap-less using thrust vectoring and air-flow control. It could also handle ATC autonomously.
ATC - air traffic control and autonomously??
@@simonrobins4316 Yes, they gave it a voice and (apparently) the ability to parse clearances and vectoring. Can ur drone do that?
One would hope it filed its own paperwork.
AFAIK they did NOT use William Daniels' voice.
@@simonrobins4316 That's right.
I had a friend who told me that "hard light holograms" have been in use for years but the public have no idea about it - RIP, WO2 James Walsh of the Royal Scots, gone but never forgotten you legend
sounds like the UK BAe's Demon UAV which flow in 2010 with Cranfield uni - no moving surfaces (no elevators or ailerons) - was defined as the world's first flapless a/c - turning by air blown at trailing edges of wings
I love how you get to the point in your videos and don't spend time with irrelevant things. Keeps things interesting. Thank you for your videos.
I see that the technology is maturing. Active flow control has been a dream of aviation engineers for about four decades that I know of. Next up will be active flow control for submarines and even surface warships, both for reduced friction and for noise control.
When I first heard they were making an aircraft with no flight surfaces I imagined they were bleeding off thrust from the engines somehow, and thrust vectoring that way.
So using compressed air is interesting. Makes sense. Way more controlable, and we've been using compressed air for God knows how long.
I know it would be reliable. Much better at high speeds than flight surfaces, and no mechanical failures. Yet after learning they use compress air I have this illogical fear that I would run out of it... Which I know is stupid. "Ah crap I was maneuvering so much my air tank is all empty!" Then have an uncontrollable dive to my death.
Kind of curious on what pressures are involved.. How much it holds at any given moment. How fast it takes to fill the tank up. How much it uses. Just general details I will never know most likely for a long time.
@@dianapennepacker6854 I don't think you can exclude bleed air as the source of the compressed air. At the 5:23 mark the narrator says an upper intake and exhaust would be a source for the compressed air. Bleed air would be the easiest way to provide compressed air without adding too much weight.
Interesting progress since the US Army's first drone contract for the Lockheed Aquila, a project on which I worked in the late 1980s at Lockheed Austin Division. Development of the Aquila and control vehicle was done in Austin, Texas, followed by trips to Ft. Huachuca, AZ, to work on the launch and recovery vehicles.
If they say testing is scheduled for 2025, that means testing won’t start until 2027-
At which time, they’ll cut testing short to prevent Congress and the Pentagon from finding grounds to cancel it because of all the bugs and cut corners they don’t want uncovered, then shove it into production at a sad factory in a gutted part of the country, for a company only staying afloat because of government spending life support.
Then, of course, as soon as it enters service, untested and sloppily manufactured, it will break and kill at least a few service members. Our generals will act surprised, suspend its usage, and the national security apparatus will be tasked with damage control-in other words, paying underpaid contractors to make positive comments on Facebook and begging the New York Times to shelve any criticism.
By then, it’ll be 2030, we’ll be in at least one (more) major war, so they’ll have even less trouble than usual getting billions more in funding approved by Congress to patch its issues-gladly paying extra for what they were supposed to get from the start-only to race through the absolute bare minimum updates and testing. Of course, they’ll face zero criticism, besides being shouted down by their Facebook army and bought mainstream media, we’ll be scared and desperate, so nobody will speak up.
So it’ll be 2035, probably, when this concept ever returns any value. During this long wait, in its place, we’ll undoubtedly spend billions more on bringing Cold War era technology out of storage-for yet another reboot after many-forcing it back into operations to answer our desperate needs in ISR, high-altitude and low-orbit air space interception and denial. The F-117, SR-71 will be back in service, rusty and rickety, with no mind paid to cost effectiveness. We’ll be told that this is our best option, by the same people who willingly went along with the cancellation of F-22 production, at the exact point that economies of scale would pay off, making additional F-22s free and a huge return to the American people.
Of course, at that point, it wasn’t paying the military industrial complex-primarily the careerists and cronies any more money. Cui bono.
It wasn’t always like this. Not long ago, “scheduled for testing” meant it was top secret and already in service. We used to develop technologies at a rapid pace-PGMs, UAVs, Manhattan Project, B-2, F-117, USS Nautilus, GPS, JDAM….nowadays, we’re riddled with parasitic bureaucracies, an utter lack of nationalism or even social cohesion, and our military and defense contractors filled with incompetent “equity” hires.
Our military brass, after years of peace and unipolar dominance, are largely undeserving paper-pushing officers using our Air Force and Navy as a fast track to the board of directors of a tech company. Kathleen Hicks is a cancer, Mark Milley is a fool, Kendall and Austin at least seem to be qualified and care about our capability.
Lately, the only things that give me even minimal optimism are the sensors and missiles that Raytheon Technologies is developing, Northrop’s B-21 and Lockheed Martin’s F-35B and F-35C variants. In terms of aerospace, these appear to be the only quality companies we have left, who are capable and motivated to provide quality weapons to our armed forces, even when the very officers they’re dealing with are looking for little beyond a paycheck. Oh and DARPA, ARL, AFRL still appear to be legit.
Your videos are typically the most informative and concise I've continuously watched on TH-cam. I apologize for saying it, but this one seemed very repetitive, and I was waiting the whole time for a more in-depth explanation as to how these 14 "nozzles" work to control flight aspects of the aircraft. Does it spoil lift to induce rolls? How does it make tight turns or changes in elevation? Please understand, I'm not just trying to complain or speak negatively about your video's, they are incredible and I appreciate everything you put out, including this one. I just want to know these things. The concept is exciting, but I didn't understand it. Sorry for whining. Thank you for all the amazing videos.
I had the exact same feeling. This was less informative than usual. Not that this was so bad, but we are used to excellent info. We're soiled by excellence.
It's like those Dyson fans, you blow air through a tiny hole and surrounding air is pulled along with it creating a much stronger flow of air. You can also change air pressure using gauze like sheets which is something a lot of Aircraft like Typhoon use to help deal with supersonic boundary airflow entering the engines, preventing stall.
There will probably be another video explaining all this to the many many viewers that don't have Physics PHD's XD
1) It's DARPA. You get the shiny overview meant to make the US military look tough, but they keep secret the part that makes it work. (That part gets sold quietly to China for 10% for the Big Guy).
2) It's a 10 minute video. Breaking down the aerodynamics and specifics of modifying flight in the 3 axes would definitely require a longer video. It's a revolutionary concept. More importantly, see part 1. We don't want Iran making these things (but China's cool, as long as they pay).
@@kma3647To be fair you put trust the government too much. It is not that smart.
Instead of selling to China, they wait for them to inevitably steal and copy 😂
@@kma3647 Are you ok?
One issue with AFC in commercial aviation is the total loss of control in case of engine failure, so some backup traditional control surfaces would still be needed
Same could be said about hydraulics. The accumulators can keep some pressure when the pump stops but not for long. If there is a backup system that powers the hydraulic pump during engine failure then a similar backup system could easily be used on the air compressor
Parachute
Beautiful, ingenious, and absolutely mind boggling engineering.
They have Nikola Tesla saucer type craft with electromagnetic field propulsion that can take you half across the universe in a matter of hours. This stuff is a dark ages joke in comparison but it keeps the power structure what it is with them sitting high on the hog making money off us killing each other.
My son is a doctor of mechanical engineering and has an undergraduate degree in chemical and biological engineering. Some of the things he is working on are are almost magical - from super-high tech materials to superfast devices controlled by superhuman AI and machine learning programs. Every time I talk to him, I feel like people are almost obsolete.
Fun fact: Drones can eliminate surrendering forces without legal issues.
The law is you have to be able to recover their bodies, drone operators can not.
"...and you can play air hockey on it when it's in the hanger."
win win !
One other benefit, is an extended AoA envelope, by kinda forcibly circumventing stall.
Also, unlike the prototype, the best way I think to gather compressed air for the system, is too tuck a flow diverter inside of what externally looks like a divertless intake. And just use that air for the compressed air system.
As far as stealth goes, there's kind of a mix of pros & cons.
Gathering compressed air isn’t an issue on a jet aircraft.
how do you think a harrier moves - it has moving parts for when moving at speed, but also air-flow holes along its wings for much slower speeds - holes are the size of your fist - a number going down each wing - but this tech is far more advanced than the 70's+ tech of the harrier
Well said ! 😮
The potential for whoopie-cushions over specific regions as an air show prank is near limitless . Hilarity potential is off the charts as DARPA designs the most farty plane ever .
@@SabbaticusRex one thing the US does well is in finding funds for new toys - that new ship the US is bringing out (the 3 hulls) was based on a UK design from back in the 90's - the UK was mucking around with doing something, annoying all the researchers at DERA with this radical concept (destroyers and a/c carrier, with ability to sink close down to shore line to hide signature), and then the US came in and funded all the trials
the US came over saw our version of Augmented Pilot concept (the US version called 'Pilots Associate', the UK version called 'Mission Management Aid (MMA)') and wanted to play with us, we were told NO by our masters - the autonomous Tank project (the land based project to the MMA) in the UK was eventually sold to the US, along with many of its lead researcher oing over - the US had over 400 researchers on their PA programme, whilst the UK had 40, and even the US were quoted as saying, how could the UK be ahead of them - they tried to embed some of their pilots into our programme, but the RAF front liners stated we fly different to the US and was of no benefit to the UK more to the US - when we talked about putting our solutions on the AWACs and SIgInt solutions, the US pressured very hard, as there was a joint interest - it went black later shortly after a joint venture was announced
identifying good tech and ideas is not totally one-sided to the US, all nations have their ideas, but it seems the US is good at seeing the end-result and funding it - at the time, RAe / DRA / DERA / Qinetic (whats left if now called DSTL - project managers) before the UK destroyed its research base, had when over 4000+ world leading researchers within it - but some one thought it was a good idea to let industry run such research programmes and then costs went hypersonic to help such companies make profits - can remember seeing something akin to the rail-gun back in the early 90's - where the UK designed the first parallel computing element - known as the Transputer, were you could in theory put thousand together for truely massive computing tasks - the autonomous UK tank programme had a few of these computing devices embedded with in it
who you think came up with the idea of replacing CRT's from cockpit with flat screen in the 90's - had the effect of considerably reducing weight and space in the a/c, and giving the a/c more fuel space - came out of a project at DERA at Malvern - the UK recieved considerable patent payments for many years over that
If they're announcing and telling everyone, "Look what we're developing" this is actually yesterday's designs.
I'd be interested to know/see if they used "warpable" surfaces, as well, since moveable shapes allow widely varying performance across speed and AoA, perhaps adding another dimension of control...just a thought
No offense, but wouldn't warpable surfaces also cause a an increased radar signature, although less than conventional controls?
The whole point of the design study is to eliminate "movable surfaces" and your first thought is to add some "movable surfaces"? 🤣
@@elultimo102current aileron and such have breaks in the surface where they are hinged. As I understand stealth, these breaks contribute more to radar signature. Warping would remove the gaps. Funniest part is that wing warping was one of the earliest forms of control.
I'd imagine that with computing power and wind tunnel time, attitude, etc alteration in conjunction with shape would be well understood and with air laminar type flow disruption, become somewhat like the effects of warping surfaces. You'd be warping the passing air envelope instead.
We are thousands of years behind those who make the TickTacks.
I remember (maybe it was two decades ago) seeing morphic drones with electro-magnetic thrust vectoring that 'fly' in the water as well as being able to fly in the air like a fixed-wing glider (with no ailerons or rudders) because fundamentally both mediums allow certain dynamic shapes to pass through them with less resistance than others. I'm pretty sure the manta ray was the 'ideal shape' that the scientists discovered for this craft, so maybe submersibles that can also double as aerial craft will be developed in future based on this advanced research?
This is how the Russian navy developed super fast torpedoes. Compressed air is expelled from the nose. The torpedo doesn't so much as power through the water, it "flies" through the expelled air.
Remember The Fly Sub from the 1960’s TV series Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea.?
The torpedoes do not blast compressed air. It is surrounded by water vapor from the seawater.
The problem would be the engines. What would you use to fly in both air and water? Some sort of Ionic drive that pumps air or water without discrimination? That would need a LOT of power.
@@watchthe1369How it's done is a good question, but it works somehow. There have been way too many USO(unidentified submersible objects) sightings by reputable people. UAP's have been seen flying straight into the ocean. They've been captured on radar going from space, into the ocean, and vice versa. I don't know how they're doing it, but they're doing it.
I very much enjoy your videos. They're concise without extra nonsense like so many other sites
Bravo! A next step type concept.
It was a real good one. Thanx!
So basically it's like Bae systems MAGMA drone with sane technology concept 🙀
It's not only about reduction in stealth but the reduction in parts, pumps, and hydraulic fluid which would be a huge weight saver. An F18 runs 18.5 gallons of hydraulic fluid at 9lbs per gallon and multiple electro hydraulic pumps. Less maintenance.
Of course, that's partially offset by the weight of the servo valves and piping for the control airflow. I'm sure they've optimized the tradeoff between one-valve-per-nozzle (maximum control) and all-nozzles on one valve (minimum weight and complexity). It's an interesting tradeoff problem.
@@hagerty1952 Air solenoids are miles lighter than hydraulic servos, hydraulic rams and pivoting control surfaces.
@@oldskoolbmw - No argument here. Just pointing out there's no free lunch. Of course, this lunch is pretty cheap!
The greatest thing since laminar flow was invented and in a way, it appears to be a natural development of that concept. This is so elegant and will really improve aerodynamic efficiency.
I am totally confident that the airlines will pass those savings onto the customers. They are so selfless and kind.
Please close the air nozzle above you as we need it to land
This is a generation of aircraft design that could be used in the future to fly in both atmosphere and space.
This is basically how things move in space.
I saw a documentary about this in the early 2000s. It mentioned the F22, in regards to smoothing out air flow so it could super cruise. This already exists.
Active and passive systems used to control boundary layer separation have been around for a long time, yes. Using these principals to steer fixed blended box wing configuration stealth aircraft is relatively new.
@RKisBae agreed, what i was thinking is how adaptive the current systems are. Can they be retrofit to increase manoeuvrability? There is still a tone about bleeding edge aircraft we do not know. I was just wondering if the F-22's full capabilities might include a steering assist from its current setup.
US is so nice to share and teach anyone on this Channel❤
I have a funny feeling that they are way ahead of this technology, this is a crowd pleaser to quite the voices and gain more funding.
Interesting though.
🇬🇧👍
I was reading about this very program about two years ago.
Most times the public won't get a glimpse of this type of tech for at least ten years. So it's probably been moving on for at least 15 years already.
Imagine releasing that puff of compressed air to change your direction and it's just a hair over and you start flipping
Fascinating. Makes me wonder if there is redundancy in this design. If your only source of compressed air fails (eg engine failure) you lose the ability to control the aircraft. Would also be interesting to know if it has inherent stability.
That was my thought as well. This may be fine for drones but put a person on board and backups start to sound like a great idea.
How about anti-grav and magnetism then ? Technologies that have been hidden away from the public for decades…..🙄🤦🏽♂️
This sort of thing has been going on for many decades.
Transfering fuel to control pitch and roll. Dual engine asymmetrical throttle control to control yaw. The most important part tying it into the regular flight controls so the pilots do not have to use specialized controls to use the non-traditional control methods.
And? Research and development in aircraft control has been going on for more than a hundred years.
Weight redistribution
Surface warping
Hinged surfaces of different types (ailerons, flaps, spoilers, elevators, rudders, canards, air brakes...)
Asymmetrical thrust
Directional thrust
And now, maybe manipulation of the boundary layer.
Could be something, may be nothing. Who knows? I'm not excited by the hype, as this may be just another technological dead end. I am excited that research is continuing into this frontier. Even if this idea proves near useless for controlling military aircraft, the technology holds promise in the areas of efficiency and stability in commercial aircraft.
Look at a random patch of land. Does it contain anything of value? Won't know until you look, right? Probably nothing to get excited about. Wait! See that yellowish glint on that bit of rock just there? The geography looks right. The rocks look right. Could be gold. Could be fool's gold. Time to assay a sample, figure out if there's enough promise for a full-scale mining operation or you're just wasting time. Don't get your hopes up, could be a bust. But if it isn't...
That's what DARPA is doing.
It's amazing that we can now build aircraft that resemble crafts from science fiction.
Comics come alive. 😁
If Darpa is showing us this just imagine what they have that they don't show us....
Aircraft designers tried something similar in the 60s as a way to increase lift but the found problems with the air vents clogging in actual day to day operations, dirt plugged up the vents. You save weight from hydraulic systems to move control surfaces but now they have to add complex plumbing for control. Pretend I’m from Missouri and show me.
Aurora (Conspiracy) = Get it to go as fast as possible untill it starts to burn because of friction.
X-65 (Confirmed) = Figure out how to control it while it's going as fast as possible
Concept End Result = Ground to Orbit Space "Plane" (Totally not a space fighter like the X-Wing, honest)
Use the heat for energy
Fireball 😊
These are the things to see, future tec and great ingenuity.
Theoretically if you’re effectively using ECS for rotation, this design of craft could potentially be retrofitted to operate somewhat in space.
These are not vernier thrusters. Get your head out of the clouds.
What do you mean by "space". Do you mean the upper atmosphere?
The tick tack is a prime example of how far we’ve gone.
This is not new, I tested that basic technique on model rockets except I called it Ram Air. I had an intake nozzle on my model rocket plane and a hose leading to an exit nozzle used instead of a rudder to have vehicle perform a circular flight path, worked the first time, works just like a reaction control system on Space Shuttle.
That sounds awesome, did you post pictures of it anywhere?
You fixed your voice, much better. I subbed. Keep these settings
My father worked in the Aero-space industry in the 70's and said they were working on tech 30 to 50yrs ahead
The harrier jump jet could control a lot of direction by swivelling the jet nozzles, and was eventually called vectoring in flight. Not quite the same as this "new" idea but same principal
No, literally a completely different principal.
How's it going to cope with maintaining lift at low speeds without moving flaps when, e.g., landing?
My thoughts as well.
STOL is one of the best attributes of such systems . Look at the new JDP seaplane and its new STOL assisting system that uses directed airflow over channels on the top rear of the wing .
Speaking of the UK drone BAE systems Demon flown in 2010:
"Termed fluidic flight controls, the arrangement used on the Demon reportedly functions by directing air from a rectangular exhaust nozzle over upper and lower surfaces, using the Coandă effect to establish control over pitch. For roll control, bleed air is blown over a Coanda surface installed on the trailing edge of the wing. By controlling boundary layer conditions, the fluidic controls can also generate either greater lift or drag during the take-off and landing phases of flight."
From what I've seen here, it looks like the US is taking this science project and throwing money at it. If they can find a way to make it successful and commercialise it, I'm sure they will.
Crane commercially sells HVAC systems
Excellent writing, dude.
Bravo!
It sounds like they’re going to using control thrusters used in spaceships? Similar to at least.
my first thoughts as well
I don't think its like space ships or missiles during terminal, but more like changing lift by intentionally stalling the wing by adding air where it shouldn't be causing the other side to lift.
@@shveylien7401 It's kinda in a gray area between. It's manipulating airflow to do "RCS-thruster _like_ effects"
Sounds like some interesting technology. Thank You for the heads up.
So at this point shouldn't they just make a flying saucer with lowest radar cross section as possible?
a round aircraft wouldn't have all that great of an RCS.
F-117 took angular stealth to kind of an extreme, but all stealth aircraft have carefully managed angles to them.
@kathrynck maybe not just cross section but also if the propulsion can be done without having to ignite fuel you would want aerodynamics at 360 degrees so a saucer is oddly starting to make sense
Who to say that they havent already done it?
How will it control its glide if it has an engine failure? What if the air compressors fail.
It also has 2 C4 pockets for self detonating when all else fails. Just kidding 😊
A highly interesting technology with incredible potential. The real struggle I see is to make this ducting system relatively immune to battle damage through either redundancy or some type of material that can self-seal when perforated.
Isn’t that already a control surface issue?
@@nicholaselliott2484 Not as acutely, it would seem that in this situation a compromise would affect the whole system
Conveniently self-healing materials already exist and are used in many different applications.
Modern flight controls would suffer the same fate if a hydraulic/electrical line is severed. That’s why they have redundant systems for flight controls. This would be no different. A failure I one section would not affect the whole system. Air ducts can have check valves and fuses just like current hydraulic systems.
Theyll all be drones, just send more
Find it hard to believe that this tech will be able to do high G maneuvers and recover from them.
There’s no reason it couldn’t
You know, at least if your engine malfunctions, you can at least glide using flight controls. I’m just curious what happens if something goes wrong and the nozzles fail therefore eliminating control. For example, it’s doing whatever it will be doing and a hose ruptures or loses pressure, supplying the air to the side, which is also the same area it uses to control the aircraft, a temporary blockage or corruption of the system and you have an out of control aircraft!
Then, again, instead of going for the defiant X they chose the bell tilt rotor. Again, something happens to one of the engines you’re completely screwed at least with the defiant Something happens you can use auto rotation. But nope they chose an aircraft where if you’re coming out of cruising and one of the mechanisms and or something wrong with one of the engines the process of having the rotors tilt 90° same thing if you’re just hovering and all the sudden, something happens well you’re screwed. “ I’m mean if I’m wrong, correct me”
It just seems like America’s military doesn’t have enough contractors /vendors competing for different contracts when the military wants a new vehicle or aircraft! I can only imagine if World War III breaks out it’s going to be an even playing field. or they’re going to find out, they ultimately chose the shittier design!
The tiltrotor engines drive both rotors that are connected to a single shaft. If one engine fails both rotors are still operational.
Theyve got things you couldnt comprehend this is Old Technology .
I would design it around the GE90 engine with top Y inlet and Y outlet. The outlet should have a port or starboard thrust diverter as well as thrust vectoring. At speed the double Y air path changes to ramjet left inlet to left nozzle, right inlet to right nozzle, bypassing the GE90. I would suspect all up weight to be around 65,000lbs fully fueled and loaded with a thrust capability of over 100,000lbs without burners. I would scavenge the shockwave air for compression and ramjet operation. Designed to dogfight and move fast and far with minimal signature. High alt supercruise then ramjet higher altitude and speed travel/intercept, then back to the nearly 2:1 thrust weight ratio and super manouverability of twin vector nozzles and instant port/starboard thrust differential from the diverter. If you mashed the lessons of the sr71, av8b, and F22 all together into the fastest, furthest, tightest, quickest, unlimited nose authority extreme fighting vehicle.
Damn man. You need to be working for the DOD. I hope we have people like you who are actually designing and building this stuff.
Damn man. You've entirely missed the point of this DARPA project, because you don't understand what is being investigated.
We already know about thrust vectoring, no need for a DARPA project, already investigated, already applied.
This isn't about creating a super-fast, super-maneuverable uberdogfighter.
This is about determining whether manipulation of the boundary layer with jets of air might be a viable method for controlling an aircraft.
It's okay to dream about super weapons if that's your thing, but do some basic research before proposing that your fantasy weapon could be made reality. SciFi books are full of fantastical weapons like yours, weapons that aren't possible with current technology.
Yes he totally missed it didn't he ..............a teenager still thinking 4th gen warfare.
Imagen a research stealth aircraft with no vertical or horizontal stabilizers, no rudders, no elevators and ailerons just vectored thrust and designed boundary layer control.........nothing to disrupt stealth also to investigate new ways of control and fuel efficiency drag reductions, very high altitude controls even space flight.
@@warpedweirdo
@@Leon1Aust I don't think this research will do much for space flight.
The concept of a plane using a jet engine in the atmosphere, then switching to rocket propulsion for space, will continue to be a dead end for a long time to come, and this project won't solve the problems that make it so.
Systems for manipulation of the boundary layer are unlikely to be well-suited for use as thrusters in space. What works well with high volumes of relatively low pressure air from the engine bleed system probably won't work so well with low volumes of high pressure cold nitrogen from bottles. Additionally, the nozzles / ports ejecting the gas will likely be optimized for efficient flow rather than generation of thrust.
All that to say, don't hold your breath waiting for a stealth space plane.
No way that's sci fi stuff, but it could reduce stealth detection as an F-35 has to keep his flight controls neutral to remain in stealth configuration. The Blackburn Buccaneer used vacuum to keep the boundary layer from separating and reduced landing speed by tens of miles per hour.
Many reasons for experimentations but a Battlestar Galactica Viper fighter controlled by an AI Cylon warrior will be the NGADs replacement.🤣@@warpedweirdo
After engine failure what flight controls are left? Pretty bad feeling to have if you're the pilot.
This system is particularly useful above 60,000 feet altitude. Expect this thing to fly out of range of surface to air missiles.
60,000 feet is by no means out of the range of any but MANPAD systems. Many anti-air systems have been easily capable of striking targets at far above that altitude since the late 1960s.
Bro everyone is making lasers these days. That a laser only moves in straight lines is perfect for high flying targets.
@@craftpaint1644Perfect on a cloudless day, defeated with foil paper 😂
Why do you think a system reliant on ejecting compressed air to enact directional changes would be more effective in a thinner atmosphere?
@@space.youtube Because it relies on action/reaction from internally produced air, like maneuvering thrusters on a spaceship. Instead of airflow that is almost non existent at higher altitudes and slow speeds?
Dark
Great video. Thanks for the info. Keep up the great work.
The cool part is that because of the lack of control surfaces, and using rcs thrusters should allow it to operate in low earth orbit, or at higher altitudes that the Blackbird.
These are most certainly not RCS thrusters.
@@pompeymonkey3271 Not on the X-65, but it wouldn't take much of a leap to make a toggle so those same nozzles could switch from a compressed air tank to a fuel tank.
I like the idea.
but you are obviously not an aeronautical engineer. lol@@blindalienproductions5589
seems to be derived from MAGMA/ British BAE SYSTEMPS and the University of Manchester. Add 3D printing and possibly laminar flow, and you have something new and ready for industrial production
DARPA: Don’t Assume Realistic Performance Anymore. All show no go.
Yeah, they only gave us the internet. How useless
bUt tHey GaVe uS thE iNteRneT
And by that logic; the Wright brothers gave us the space shuttle.
This internet we are using came from darpa.
I am amazed...i have been thinking about this very idea for years. I figured it would have to have flaps for take-off, but not for landings. I never figured i would see this, thank you! What started my thoughts about pressurized air used for improved aerodynamics was watching automobiles race in F1. I wondered if anyone had ever cheated doing this?
So how do you trim in flight?
The UK had an aircraft that used a blown trailing edge. I saw it at an air show in the late 60's
The Buccaneer and Harriers had it
Alien 👽 tech. 😆
Yes@@sichere
No freaking way. Ive been designing something like this in my mind for the last 5 years!!
If discharging air on one side changes orientation of the aircraft would it change a little bit quicker if it sucked air in one side and blew it out the other ?
Very interesting video 👍👍
Ok, I'm not the only one who wants to see an X-Wing break down from this channel right?
Seems like this could be useful on helicopter rotor blades.
Already patented 8D
Nice piece of diversion and misrepresentation of advance weaponry. I like it!
If Boeing is building it, we are safe for now.
Hope it's able to work out!!
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Excellent channel and content.
It's so fast, you'll never see it coming for you.
No matter how much you push the envelope, It will always be stationary. 😂
I pray I will be able to witness the initiation of this man made and designed flying object worthy of our quest for world peace and order. 👍🇺🇸
As elon said the limiting factor in fighter aircraft is the pilot sat in it. we can make aircraft produce far more g forces than the human body will ever be able to handle
Engineering: Breaking the rules of yesterday to define the rules of today.
Using compressed air ability to guide the plane, how to you recharge that?
They’re definitely further along than they’re saying. Somebody must have seen one flying.
I heard about this years ago. I thought they would have it done by now.
This sounds like a true space plane.
I did the Air cadet training and built model planes.. This is cool.. 😊
The active air control system was Pioneered about 10 years ago by BAE and a UK University as the MAGMA concept drone, not new.
you can bet they have been testing these for at least a decade, could explain the high speed aircraft reportedly seen in near earth orbits pulling incredible manoeuvres
What’s going to power the active control jets effectively if engine failure occurs??
Emergency compressed air reservoir
One small move
What happens to normal fly by wire aircraft when the power fails? Every system has its Achilles heel.
@@christasker2944
They can a wind turbine that deploys giving emergency power to maintain basic flight characteristics.
For a single engine military craft?
I’d love to know how they will produce power.
Obviously, whilst airborne there will be air entering the air intakes.
As one slows this force will lessen.
Will they have enough simple ram air to manoeuvre?
Yaddda yadda yadda !
STILL waiting for the Flying Cars we were promised for the 21st century!
They had flying cars in the 1950's.
What a fantastic development 👌👌👌👌🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It's projects like this that make me question who really made the tictacs
Mainly the Ferrero factory in Cork, Ireland . The orange ones are my favorite .
@@SabbaticusRex 🤣🤣🤣 👏
The TR3B is the craziest aviation vehicle so far.
Radar absorbing, 6k mph, 89% antigravity, can go submersible, can turn invisible.....
Yeah this is nothing compared.
The moment I saw Disney's "Flight of the Navigator" I thought to myself, the manipulation of control surfaces without flaps would allow wings to be so much better, and then, jets of air to effect these manipulations without wing deformations, could be even better... well looky looky, we got that on the way now. Just three decades later.
Have heard these kind of stories fir a long time. Good kite flying.
Wont the nozzles freeze and plug up?
Interesting, but if this kind of tech becomes common (resulting in being undetectable to radar - which I'm sure he said), isn't it possible for in-air collisions? Isn't the ability to avoid another aircraft partly/wholly dependent on radar? Or am I missing something?
yes you are missing the transponder signals every aircraft has that tells ATC exactly where they are.
If they pull this off on a modern fighter it'll be like the Eminem of aircraft technology.
Moms spaghetti
Interesting idea, but you'd lose all attitude control if the engine goes out. So there's that issue.
This level of manoeuvrability explains some UFO sighting! 🛸
um what does it fly like if the air compressor system of flight controls suffer a fault not many moving surfaces for any redundancies^^
Fascinating, but wouldn't changing the airflow cause drag too? Or is it significantly less?
I like the design
You could kill way more children , medics and journalists with these drones . Very cool , man . Very cool .