Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet? Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified! But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)? And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night. It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right? They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars. Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a TH-cam video? Absolutely nothing!
Not the prototype, but a scale model, and it was in 1980. Northrop had not yet won the program, and construction on the prototype (which was also the first production plane) wouldn't begin for another few years, and it wasn't completed until 1987 or 1988.
@@JarrodFratesTHATS BECUSE PRESEDENT DONALD J TRUMP WASNT IN PRESEDENT ONLY PRESEDENT TRUMP CAN PROTECT AMERICA GOD BLESS U PRESEDENT TRUMP ✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️✝️✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️
Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.
Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now
Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)
Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.
However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.
@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth. Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.
They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
6:40 Parasitic drag is a combination of skin friction drag and form drag. Change in shape only affects form, whilst increase in surface area changes skin friction drag. Induced drag only occurs when lift is generated. There is also wave drag as the in transonic and supersonic speeds.
He also made another blunder @2:44 converting the RCS to imperial: He said 0.0001 meters = 0.15 in (which's 50x the actual 0.003 inches). 0.0001 meters = 1/10th of a mm. Anyone familiar w metric should've caught that. (I'd also mentioned the drag mistake 2 weeks ago also). 🙂
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does. A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.
Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend. Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.
@@roo72 Yes, well, the Americans would most probably have studied it for potential advantages, but indeed, the flying wing concept was already well known and used by Jack Northrop and others. Still, the Horten 229 was about to be put into service, if it were not for the war going to an end then.
Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.
this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that? B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway?? your story makes zero sense.
@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well. i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂
@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.
Lemme ask you this, do you have a radar? Did you work on the su 57? Are you an expert on military shet? Who are you to say it isn't stealth, as if you truly understand it?
@@krystalmae5557well, the actual experts all agree beyond doubt that it’s not stealth but has some stealthy features. Russia, as usual, lies out their ass
@@krystalmae5557 yeah, rotormotor. you never heard of hop skip and jump? 6th gen, 7th gen, 10 and back again. does seem whenever science leaps, everyone gets some soon enough. like electric, like tv, like atom bombs, like ssssh... we need the whole wide world's best scientists at cern but you all promise not to tell your own governments, just uncle sam/uncle schwaab/uncle xi?
Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.
I've seen them do low flyovers multiple times at the Rose Parade. When they're flying head-on, they're surprisingly quiet. Most of the time, without checking the timing, we wouldn't have known it was even coming until it passed over us. Only once it had gone past (and from the side as it banked) were we able to finally hear the roar of the engines. Incredible aircraft.
@@NotWhatYouThink ah hell nah it will sound very strange speaking with the normal Arabic accents there are hundreds of Arabic accents and if I hear a different one I get annoyed and start laughing English is good
I came here to check by Google advertisement saying that's B2 bomber have upgraded to have a sub machine gun hidden in secret for any case 😅🎉❤ Oh 😱 sorry 😐 My reading in Google advertisements took a wrong concept 😅😢🎉
The title is clickbait. It does not explain why flying wings are not suitable for commercial use. It explain the military flying wings history instead.😤
@@NotWhatYouThink a small portion of video is about commercial planes. most of the video is about military planes. For just two minutes of knowledge, you have to watch 15 minutes unnecessary detail. Unefficient way of storytelling :(
There are both advantages and disadvantages with nuclear submarines. The disdavantages include higher cost to purchase, higher cost to operate, larger size, larger crew, more noisy, the inability, do hide on the sea floor or run to close to the sea floor (because the cooling of the reactor could suck up sediments) and the submarine being possible to detect, via the nuclear isotopes and hydrogen that it dumps into the sea. The avantages is greater (but noisy) speed for longer transits, greater endurance, and that they never needs to get close to the surface. So nuclear submarines are relatively more useful for nations with global commitments, and nations that need to escort aircraft carriers. D/E-subs are relatively more useful for nations that needs to operate closer to port and/or in shallow waters.
I love how they show the stealth Iranian knockoff drones with a bottle rocket like engine. You know flames shooting out the back really helps with the stealthy-ness especially with the multiple mach speeds you will be flying. Sounds about Iranian.
I wonder if tails decrease efficiency just because they increase drag or also because stabilizers usually have a negative lift. Moreover, I wonder if B2, B21 or in general long-range stealth airplanes could carry air-to-air missiles to take at least part of fighters' role or if that isn't a good idea, as it is better to use stealth bombers to destroy anti-aircraft systems and air bases and leave the rest of the job to stealth fighters or conventional planes.
@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.
@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended. Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.
If Russian were able to hit their proposed manufacturing targets, we'd already be drowning in T14 Armatas and SU-57 Fighter Bombers. SU-75? Similar story. First scheduled maiden flight was 2023. Then 2024. Currently 2025...
@@anbujosh1413 there was only 1 flight and it was a glide test, any other footage is northrop that rebuilt it to disprove the conspiracy it was stealthy
Don't believe those who say this is a good design, the drag will be crazy, and fuel consumption will be shot straight up. This design is so not efficient.
$700 million per aircraft The versions of the 2017 NDAA as initially passed by the House and Senate would have required public disclosure of the total cost of the B-21, but this provision was removed in the final conference report version. In December 2022, the cost of the B-21 was estimated at $700 million per aircraft. The average unit procurement cost (APUC) for the B-21 Raider stealth bomber is $692 million as of 2022, which includes the cost of aircraft, support equipment, training, spares, and engineering change orders. The Air Force estimates that the total cost to develop, purchase, and operate a fleet of at least 100 B-21s over 30 years will be at least $203 billion. However, in January 2024, Northrop Grumman reported a $1.56 billion charge on B-21 development in the fourth quarter of 2023, citing rising production costs and macroeconomic disruptions. This led to a $535 million loss for the company in the quarter. Northrop Grumman's president and CEO, Kathy Warden, said that she believes it's likely that each of the first five lots of low rate initial production (LRIP) will be performed at a loss. However, in April 2024, the Pentagon cut its cost forecast for the B-21 by $2 billion, requesting $2.7 billion for procurement in fiscal 2025, compared to the $4 billion projected in 2022.
No, there's little risk of collision with Commercial or Civilian traffic, as the B-2 flies above them, where only the military drones and U-2's fly. The XB-35 & YB-49 we're not failures, they were bypassed thanks to Jobs Lobbyists for Convair having more money to spend, and because the Air Force decided that if the USSR found out how low the Radar return was for them, they would copy the Wings and make Soviet bombers harder to see by US Radar. If flying wings aren't maneuverable, why are they the only choice for the high maneuverability requirements of FPV Pylon racing and FPV long range mountain diving?
USAF should have replaced the aging B-52 Stratofortress bomber with the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber . . . the B-52 has no credible relevance in present day combat situation . . . continuing to operate the B-52 is a blatant waste of tax payer's money . . .
It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few. Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?
@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.
When talking of history of flying wings you focus just on the US. But the idea is much older then that. First flying flying wing 🫣 date back to before WW I.
I've always thought that B-2 crews would don batlike mantles and sortie in their sinister machines every night to put the fear od God back in the ungodly. 😁
The sound that went with the submarine traveling underwater is just odd. Sounds like some bubble chamber. You know subs are about "not aound" ya? You kind of say it, and then use a delay effect, so you should know what you're doing with audio ya?
FUN FACT: during ww2 germany tried to produce a flying wing design called the horton ho229 now there was supposed to be a bigger brother from it but they had the same problems as usa and at the end of the war it was never used and they used their new jet engines for it.
I had to make three attempts to get this video to load. The reason I got from TH-cam was that it has sponsor. When I saw the ad, I understood why TH-cam ran its interference.
Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
vids 8 mins ago this comment is an hour, how? 😟
@@AFG.1youtube lets you schedule when videos go live, even if they are fully uploaded already
@@misterperson3469 ohh makes sense thanks
I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet?
Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified!
But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)?
And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night.
It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR?
They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57.
They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings.
The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right?
They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system.
Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR.
Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky).
The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including...
Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a TH-cam video?
Absolutely nothing!
I thought they weren't invisible on radar... that it makes it impossible for counter measures to get a lock on the target to fire.
"Comrade, that bee is flying at Mach 2. Is that normal?"
Isn't the B2 a subsonic plane?
“Ah, yes comrade, bees fly at mach 2 around here all the time. For some reason though, every time they do, our stuff starts to explode.”
Only Tu-160 can reach that speed, not B-2
Top speed of the B2 is Mach 0.95. You don’t need speed when you’re invisible.
@@bettyswallocks6411 it was a joke my guy
"The future of military aviation will, without a doubt, be very triangle-shaped" lol I love this channel
Jack Northrop was fortunate to see the B-2 prototype before he passed away.
Not the prototype, but a scale model, and it was in 1980. Northrop had not yet won the program, and construction on the prototype (which was also the first production plane) wouldn't begin for another few years, and it wasn't completed until 1987 or 1988.
@@JarrodFratesTHATS BECUSE PRESEDENT DONALD J TRUMP WASNT IN PRESEDENT ONLY PRESEDENT TRUMP CAN PROTECT AMERICA GOD BLESS U PRESEDENT TRUMP ✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️✝️✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️
@@VladimirPutin-p3twhat are you on about?
Grumman
@user-zb9lv3gh8s 😂😂
Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.
Say that like it's a bad thing... maybe I want the roller-coaster experience..
There are private jets.
Not just that, but it would be nearly impossible to meet the emergency exit requirements.
Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now
Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)
Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.
However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.
@@luther0013 Indeed.
@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth.
Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.
@@marcondespaulo if your invisible what does it matter if you move slower than an iceberg.
They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.
Like how the B2 looks like an eagle from the side
i'd say it looks more like a falcon while diving, a lot of modern aircraft are inspired by bird shapes
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
Yea… cuz it was literally inspired by falcons. It’s supposed to mimic their shape
My favorite fact about flying wings is that Northrup (the guy) was able to see the B2’s first flight
Jack Northrop died 8 years before the first flight of the B-2.
He only was able to see the concept plane after getting special clearance
Grandpa Buff is never going away.
It's getting upgraded with new engines and radar.
It will never be useful either
@@MaticTheProto Found the Russian 😂
@@bigchungus1848 nah. You also wouldn't ride a horse to war nowadays
@@MaticTheProtoYou would. B52 may get old, but it is THE MOST terrifying bomber EVER. B52 is forever
Another excellent video covering the subject from a-z 😊
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
Stealth + range = strange, which is what the B-2 and B21 are.
6:40 Parasitic drag is a combination of skin friction drag and form drag. Change in shape only affects form, whilst increase in surface area changes skin friction drag. Induced drag only occurs when lift is generated. There is also wave drag as the in transonic and supersonic speeds.
He also made another blunder @2:44 converting the RCS to imperial:
He said 0.0001 meters = 0.15 in (which's 50x the actual 0.003 inches).
0.0001 meters = 1/10th of a mm. Anyone familiar w metric should've caught that.
(I'd also mentioned the drag mistake 2 weeks ago also). 🙂
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does.
A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
Lift surfaces produce drag, so if you can use fuselage to produce part of the lift itself, you can reduce wing size, thus reducing total drag.
16:10 Highly doubt it. Grandpa Buff will outlive them all.
Huh, a man of culture.
The Buff is eternal.
Bro u explain so good!! I know more about military stuff then I know about anything in school! Love u bro
*than
@@Rotorhead1651 the irony xD
@@Rotorhead1651 be nice to the kid
Glad you enjoy our stuff!
@@Rotorhead1651 XD see? I told u I know better about military stuff THAN school.
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
Vertical stabilisers drag and "turn" capabilities should also be re-considered ;)
You say YB-49 ..
I say .. why not?
Dorito is also making a comeback with the aerospace industry
Let's be honest here. Despite most people not liking the movie, "Stealth" was ahead of its time. I know I still enjoy it when I watch
That was a fun one still own the DVD
F-37 Talon design soo good that it became reason i like to play ace combat❤. I wish i can build detailed model of it
Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.
just a theory but maybe he wanted to focus in bombers wing shaped
Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend.
Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.
@@roo72 Yes, well, the Americans would most probably have studied it for potential advantages, but indeed, the flying wing concept was already well known and used by Jack Northrop and others. Still, the Horten 229 was about to be put into service, if it were not for the war going to an end then.
Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.
is it does lines on the tarmac that i've seen on military airfields? the description is the same I believe just want to know if i saw the in person.
this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that?
B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway??
your story makes zero sense.
@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well.
i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂
@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.
@@syntactyx my previous reply above this one answers your question.
Awesome B2 footage. Great video thank u.
Once more, for the slow kids. The SU-57 is NOT stealth, and Russia can't develop a 6th generation aircraft until they develop a 5th generation unit.
Lemme ask you this, do you have a radar? Did you work on the su 57? Are you an expert on military shet? Who are you to say it isn't stealth, as if you truly understand it?
@@krystalmae5557well, the actual experts all agree beyond doubt that it’s not stealth but has some stealthy features. Russia, as usual, lies out their ass
@@cruisinguy6024love the explenation
@@krystalmae5557 yeah, rotormotor. you never heard of hop skip and jump? 6th gen, 7th gen, 10 and back again. does seem whenever science leaps, everyone gets some soon enough. like electric, like tv, like atom bombs, like ssssh... we need the whole wide world's best scientists at cern but you all promise not to tell your own governments, just uncle sam/uncle schwaab/uncle xi?
Said the slow kid
Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.
B-52 will remain in service as long as the Air Force continues to operate.
I saw a B-2 when I was hiking one day, it was flying pretty low and you could hear it from a while away.
I've seen them do low flyovers multiple times at the Rose Parade. When they're flying head-on, they're surprisingly quiet. Most of the time, without checking the timing, we wouldn't have known it was even coming until it passed over us. Only once it had gone past (and from the side as it banked) were we able to finally hear the roar of the engines. Incredible aircraft.
Su57 “stealth fighter” it doesn’t have a radar cross section, it’s got a zip code
not gonna lie, that echo bit was a nice touch
"How does the flying wing stay stable in flight without a tail?"
"That's the neat part. You don't!"
I think you used the wrong clip in the beginning. I only see a United 777...
after seeing how Russia has performed in Ukraine I doubt they can make more than 3 drones.
Please provide more videos that support the Arabic voice translation feature
Did you find the Arabic voice quality acceptable?
@@NotWhatYouThink Not the best, but acceptable
@@NotWhatYouThink ah hell nah it will sound very strange speaking with the normal Arabic accents
there are hundreds of Arabic accents and if I hear a different one I get annoyed and start laughing
English is good
I clearly remember the Bone being developed by the Ronald Regan presidency. I was in grade 3 and it was broadcast on Canadian national tv.
I came here to check by Google advertisement saying that's B2 bomber have upgraded to have a sub machine gun hidden in secret for any case 😅🎉❤
Oh 😱 sorry 😐
My reading in Google advertisements took a wrong concept 😅😢🎉
“… or a bumble bee.” - Puts up picture of honey bee.
Interesting Video.THX-🇺🇸
Damn those WWII flying bombers are cool as F.
It was exactly what I thought this time.
Edit, the Iranian flying wing drones are already armed. Even some propeller driven drones have some small bombs
U.S and USSR in Cold War spending centuries for Piece Art of Technology they build then later see some Chinese straight copypaste their Work LMAO.
Thanks, I love what you do
The title is clickbait. It does not explain why flying wings are not suitable for commercial use. It explain the military flying wings history instead.😤
We do explain it, if you watch the whole video :-)
@@NotWhatYouThink a small portion of video is about commercial planes. most of the video is about military planes. For just two minutes of knowledge, you have to watch 15 minutes unnecessary detail. Unefficient way of storytelling :(
@6:12 be careful what you say 😂😂 that was said for so many planes 🤣
Looks like Flying Doritos are a thing now… so what’s next? More flying Doritos? 😂
15:01 finally, a worthy opponent
Solution, stealth tanker
Thanks for sharing guys!
Where was our example of the Ho-229?
Dude, it's always what we think. That wore off a long time ago.
So AC7's MQ-99 and MQ-101 is somewhat real. It won't be long before we'd see Arsenal Bird-like planes that could carry lots of these drones.
There are both advantages and disadvantages with nuclear submarines. The disdavantages include higher cost to purchase, higher cost to operate, larger size, larger crew, more noisy, the inability, do hide on the sea floor or run to close to the sea floor (because the cooling of the reactor could suck up sediments) and the submarine being possible to detect, via the nuclear isotopes and hydrogen that it dumps into the sea. The avantages is greater (but noisy) speed for longer transits, greater endurance, and that they never needs to get close to the surface. So nuclear submarines are relatively more useful for nations with global commitments, and nations that need to escort aircraft carriers. D/E-subs are relatively more useful for nations that needs to operate closer to port and/or in shallow waters.
Absolutely Positively with Computer flight Controlled !!!
But why would a radar tech not be suspicious of a bee flying at more than 500mph at 60000 feet?
Very nice discription
Such an impresive technology. So many smart minds and so much usefull money wasted on the military...
I love how they show the stealth Iranian knockoff drones with a bottle rocket like engine. You know flames shooting out the back really helps with the stealthy-ness especially with the multiple mach speeds you will be flying. Sounds about Iranian.
Doritos gonna take over the skies once more
외계인 고문시켜서 만들었다는 폭격기가 바로 이건가요???? ㅎㄷㄷ
A bumblebee sized object travelling at 400mph and 50000ft for arguments sake is unlikely to be anything other than a stealth aircraft right?
the hand outside the window is Not What You Think!😂
Me realizing that in a totally global nuclear apocalypse, only nuclear submarines and a few navy vessels (and their crews) would survive.
I wonder if tails decrease efficiency just because they increase drag or also because stabilizers usually have a negative lift.
Moreover, I wonder if B2, B21 or in general long-range stealth airplanes could carry air-to-air missiles to take at least part of fighters' role or if that isn't a good idea, as it is better to use stealth bombers to destroy anti-aircraft systems and air bases and leave the rest of the job to stealth fighters or conventional planes.
Why not build a B2 refueling tanker? Which is a stealth tanker too
Next-Generation Air Refueling System program, also known as KC-Z, aims to replace KC-46 and KC-135 tankers with a stealth tanker in the 2030s.
The Hidden Advantage of the Ultimate Stealth Machine
how did a 17 minute video about flying wings not mention the horten Ho 129 or Ho 229, The grand parents of all flying wings
Because the grandfather of all flying wings is jack northrop. His first flying wing flew in 1929.
@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.
@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended.
Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.
@@USMC6169 and yet, I can't find a single trace online to verify.
including the Horton brothers contributions
16:34 I highly doubt that
If Russian were able to hit their proposed manufacturing targets, we'd already be drowning in T14 Armatas and SU-57 Fighter Bombers. SU-75? Similar story. First scheduled maiden flight was 2023. Then 2024. Currently 2025...
"Flying wings are not very manouverable" enter the ho 229
It never flew and therefore of unknown maneuvearibility
@@JoaoLuizLima-xw1nd the first versions did, theres even footage of it
@@anbujosh1413 there was only 1 flight and it was a glide test, any other footage is northrop that rebuilt it to disprove the conspiracy it was stealthy
What do you mean, ultimate stealth machine? It's right there!
Where?
Yooo *this* is Awesome! The B2 🤘
It is what you think.
What is the neglected side ?
Design stolen from Germans
Don't believe those who say this is a good design, the drag will be crazy, and fuel consumption will be shot straight up. This design is so not efficient.
Free range freedom dispensers
Make a video on how many aircraft the US lostin Vietnam
Nothing can replace the BUFF.
Except a bigger buff
Except itself
The one chip challenge... but spicier
That ECHO, ECHo, Echo, echo, ech, ec, e, .....
$700 million per aircraft
The versions of the 2017 NDAA as initially passed by the House and Senate would have required public disclosure of the total cost of the B-21, but this provision was removed in the final conference report version. In December 2022, the cost of the B-21 was estimated at $700 million per aircraft.
The average unit procurement cost (APUC) for the B-21 Raider stealth bomber is $692 million as of 2022, which includes the cost of aircraft, support equipment, training, spares, and engineering change orders. The Air Force estimates that the total cost to develop, purchase, and operate a fleet of at least 100 B-21s over 30 years will be at least $203 billion. However, in January 2024, Northrop Grumman reported a $1.56 billion charge on B-21 development in the fourth quarter of 2023, citing rising production costs and macroeconomic disruptions. This led to a $535 million loss for the company in the quarter. Northrop Grumman's president and CEO, Kathy Warden, said that she believes it's likely that each of the first five lots of low rate initial production (LRIP) will be performed at a loss. However, in April 2024, the Pentagon cut its cost forecast for the B-21 by $2 billion, requesting $2.7 billion for procurement in fiscal 2025, compared to the $4 billion projected in 2022.
No, there's little risk of collision with Commercial or Civilian traffic, as the B-2 flies above them, where only the military drones and U-2's fly.
The XB-35 & YB-49 we're not failures, they were bypassed thanks to Jobs Lobbyists for Convair having more money to spend, and because the Air Force decided that if the USSR found out how low the Radar return was for them, they would copy the Wings and make Soviet bombers harder to see by US Radar.
If flying wings aren't maneuverable, why are they the only choice for the high maneuverability requirements of FPV Pylon racing and FPV long range mountain diving?
USAF should have replaced the aging B-52 Stratofortress bomber with the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber . . . the B-52 has no credible relevance in present day combat situation . . . continuing to operate the B-52 is a blatant waste of tax payer's money . . .
Jack Northrop at least got to see his dream fly.
Nobody in the real world says "I think I'll go consume some news today. Must you use the depersonalized jargon of the Haavaad MBA programme?
“ATC,why is there a bee going Mach 0.95?”
“Its normal,there’s a lot of speedy bees over here. Tho stuff below them keep blowing up for some reason.”
Thanks for explaining unit cost.
It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few.
Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?
@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.
When talking of history of flying wings you focus just on the US. But the idea is much older then that. First flying flying wing 🫣 date back to before WW I.
"by it's shape and it's geometry"?
The geometry IS the shape.
I've always thought that B-2 crews would don batlike mantles and sortie in their sinister machines every night to put the fear od God back in the ungodly. 😁
The sound that went with the submarine traveling underwater is just odd. Sounds like some bubble chamber. You know subs are about "not aound" ya? You kind of say it, and then use a delay effect, so you should know what you're doing with audio ya?
FUN FACT: during ww2 germany tried to produce a flying wing design called the horton ho229 now there was supposed to be a bigger brother from it but they had the same problems as usa and at the end of the war it was never used and they used their new jet engines for it.
4:07 worn out tires?? 😰
I always liked Thunderbird 2. Turns out it wasn't scifi, it was just 50 years ahead of its time... 😂
Everything China does is just literally a copy of an American design but with made up ridiculous specs lol
Genuine question, why does NWYT constantly change the tieles of his vids? He releases a video and a day later it's got a different name.
Arsenal Birds are eating good with this one
16:55,bro china copes every detail of the b-21 raider and made a side copy of it just by watching a video of its inauguration
I had to make three attempts to get this video to load. The reason I got from TH-cam was that it has sponsor. When I saw the ad, I understood why TH-cam ran its interference.
B2: Refuels
The russians 100 miles away: "Why is there a flying christmas tree?"
Go back and reread your script, you combined diesel electric subs and nuclear subs in the same statement this is apparently your job now do it right
After Iran captured the drones, did the US try anything to destroy them? I imagine they weren't super happy about that.