The B-21 Bomber: America's Power, th-cam.com/video/4QgdWLJfk34/w-d-xo.html Join this channel to support it: th-cam.com/channels/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw.htmljoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Join the Discord server discord.gg/qAYf2kjjrK Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173 ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/ --------------------- All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the TH-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & TH-cam terms of service.
Do you really believe the new stealth US hype? The yanks track record is dismal .. What are your thoughts on the dismal technology the USA has developed? The PAk3’s, 25% only confidence of impacting target, the cracking hulls on ships, the F-35 constant failures.. the hypersonic lagging technology, The propaganda we were fed throughout the Cold War that soviets were technologically inferior whilst they CLEARLY were far superior in many technological areas.. i have serious doubts the USA ever was able to genuinely compete military wise other than SSBN In early years and nuclear weapons.. I keep remembering the two RAF war gaming the USA both times 7 vulcans sim nuked all major centres with only one loss:. The only type of warfare the west really appears to have a superiority in is the information/propaganda warfare.. helps to have imported all those Nazis.. when you think the tizzard mission and immigration to the USA where undoubtedly they lead the world in innovation they sure are great farmers when it comes to inventions..
@@deven6518 I don't know if the air-frame they shown will be flying, but it is not just a mock-up either. Way to detailed, especially in the gear well area, If I had to bet, I'd say she's gonna fly.
I'm certain of that. it would be much better without the weird fucked up cringe comedy attempt relief. it's shit. If I come for youtube for comedy I wouldn't be watching this.
Just to clarify, when you talk about range, do you mean combat radius? Because the B-2 has a range of ~11,000 km, so without refueling it can only reach targets ~5,500 km away (assuming it is returning to the base it took off from). The longest B-2 combat mission was a ~20,000 km round-trip (assuming they stayed in international airspace for all but the attack) and it required at least four refuelings. A bomber with a 12,000 km combat radius would be an incredible feat.
Hi! At the beginning of the video (0:11) you can see what I feel like it’s the most important detail of the B 21: the wingtip is bent up at the trailing edge, to create upwash. This means that the design is based on the Prandtl’s Wing, which allows planes without the rudder to coordinate a turn without the use of drag increasing devices on the wings (like the split ailerons on the b2). In this case it would be the outside tip to create traction, causing proverse yaw and so lining up the nose. The only modern aircraft, that I’m aware of, that uses this same concept is the Dassault Neuron. It’s a huge step forward in fuel efficiency and stealth characteristics. It would be awesome if you did a video regarding this topic. It’s a niche but it would be worth it, because it will be the very near future of aviation. Al Bowers, a guy from nasa, currently it’s the only one talking about it on yt. 😄
@@Millennium7HistoryTech sorry but that is a very nerdy topic therefore you must cover it in a vid. this what made your channel popular to begin with...
...it would be fine w me if all aviation / mil channels used just one format. Irritating for the value to be repeated in the other format. Pick one - stick with it. We can handle it. But imperial is more fun cuz it makes no sense.
Wasn't the restart of the Tu-160 line possible simply because the Russians didn't disassemble it, while the F-22 line has already been retooled for the F-35 and thus they would have to build it anew or stop the F-35 production?
The F-22 line was not only disassembled, the tooling has been destroyed, to prevent it from being a security threat if details about it would fall into unwanted hands.
@Kilian Ortmann is correct. The F-22 production line was deliberately shutdown and destroyed. The Tu-160 production line was just abandoned for 25 years. When the USSR collapsed everything came to a screeching halt. Factories just stopped. There was no money or direction to properly wind them down so they just stayed as they were, like time capsules. When Russia recently-ish resumed production of the Tu-160, the first airframe to be completed was one that had been sitting on the production line, half-finished, since the early 90s. This wasn't some brilliant forethought on Russia's part, it was just a consequence of the chaos when the USSR fell apart and Russia's economy imploded.
Excellent video! The winner in this battle is not necessarily the first, but the one who can complete the mission. Note: The Airbus A350-900ULR and Boeing 787-9 have the longest flight ranges, respectively, 9,537 miles and 9,010 miles; keep this in mind with passengers and luggage. Further, business class planes have similar configurations as strategic bombers, though some are also capable of very long range. Boeing Business Jet 777X - range 11,645 nm., Bombardier Global 8000 - range 7,900 nm just to list few, Thus, the 6th generation bomber could do better.
In regard to the metric system … the US Federal hydrographic survey body, 6:08 whose name I forget, has always used the metric system. They have been converting metric survey data into imperial units for a couple of centuries, more or less.
With the knowledge and experience the US has its hard for this to be called a race. They’ve actually had and used this tech for years. In combat situations. They have a proven doctrine and direction of what does and doesn’t work. The US is in its second iteration of stealth bomber tech. Meaning refinements from the first lessons. This experience is lacking in Russia and China.
@@TheGrindcorps I wrote a sci-fi novella series centered around a space plane borne of something I called the Tiger Hawk Project. The 30% scale testbed changed hands into an intelligence agency for orbital cyber and signal warfare and surveillance, and the ship of the story became the ISS-454 Mockingbird and other ships of the ISV-71 Raven class.
@@robertsneddon731 Nah, maybe if they made a brand new version of bomber like B-52. B-21 is much smaller than B-1B, B-52 and B-2 and is most technologically advanced. I’m car terms it is more like a special edition 100k pickup truck like a Shelby Raptor F-150 or the likes. That’s my 2 cents at least.
I just travel last month to Ushuaia (Argentina). There is no Chinese Navy base there. Right now Argentina's Navy and Air Force are working on a Argentinian base. There will be just behind the Civil Ushuaia Airport (Close to Ushuaia city) and can be seen from any civil plane. There is a lot of oficial info of the project in Argentina oficial sites.
If you read the tweet, it says that China is putting pressure on Argentina for it, not that it is already there. Consider that Argentina is already hosting Chinese space telecommunication infrastructure. We'll see.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech One thing is a deep space network communication (with close to null military implications) another absolute diferent thing is a full military naval base.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechfrom a neutral viewpoint, I don't think it's a that of a big deal if China operates a base in Argentina since USA already have hundreds of military bases overseas.
Pretty sure the real reason why the F-22 wasn’t restarted is because the planes architecture is extremely difficult to modernize and the USA is seeing great results with the NGAD.
@Phillip Banes Digital systems, the raptor is running computer hardware from the early 2000's and those systems were not built with upgradability in mind.
I think Ukraine showed the importance of having low tech heavy weapons (i.e., Artillery and lots of shell inventory) and lots of them. The U.S. can’t rely solely on big ticket items like stealth fighters and bombers. They make for good deterrents, but we also need to have enough in the budget for weapons we require to fight wars like in Ukraine. I hope the new U.S. fighter program doesn’t break the bank.
Thing is Ukraine doesn't have the airforce to really get air dominance, if they did they wouldn't need half as much artillery as they could utilize PGM's to dominate Russian ground forces.
Metric system and Americans....lol ...Be happy you are where you are. I am in Canada. The hot spot for hyper confusion in measurement of pretty much any liquid or measurable weight. Here at any given time you can run into....metric imperial UK and US measures. EG litre ,UK gallon and US gallon.....Even a mix of metric and imperial fasteners on any given item that needs repair I feel pretty confident the whole thing is set up from day one to both confuse the bejezuz out of and screw the consumer over indefinitely. - to fix or install anything....two complete sets of tools. - at least 20 litres ,3.4 UK gallons or 5.3 US gallons of various oils on the shelf in the garage at any given time because while the manual might cll for 5 litres of XX/XX oil it only can be found in US gallons that are 3.7 litres - I have a small farm here.....while it doesn't affect me much it has caused problems in the past....the US bushel system. A measure that changes weight/volume by the sometimes very specific commodity that is being bought. I just avoid anyone who uses this measure now - then you go to the grocery store.....bring your calculator/spend the time and save Thanks for reading the rant....keep up the vids I watch them all
For the Russian air forces, long ranges have always been a key parameter, as is determined by their massive land mass. Even if the threat to sovereignty of their nation was less urgent potentially, the number of time zones that need transiting to fly the EW-WE course, is extremely large. They must have range, for the simple fact of geography.
The F-22 is last-generation stealth technology and is really a plane looking for a job to do nowadays, that is air-to-air interception. The US has over 200 F-22s with very few airframe losses from the initial production runs since in large part it has seen little or no combat. Building more F-22s just to put them in the back of a hangar and polish them occasionally is rather pointless especially since multiple 6th-gen fighter programs are well under way in the US and elsewhere.
@@robertsneddon731 yeah it was pointless to have a military in Europe as well until recently as well Things change and development of new tech is allways pricey so when we build the next trillion dollar fighter might as well double the order
@@robertsneddon731- Last generation stealth doesn’t mean inferior, it just means more expensive. The B-21 reportedly inherits the easier-to-maintain stealth tech from the F-35. Iirc, they figured out how to build the F-35 is so precisely that it doesn’t need special coatings to compensate for gaps.
Question: why is anti-stealth radar detection and interception not effectively a function of a (relatively) small array of L-band radar with fully overlapping sweeps to vector interceptor aircraft, combined with optical and thermal local detection? Very high altitude and nighttime would thwart both of those to an extent (which is why the B2 exhaust is both mixed with ambient air like a high bypass turbofan and exhausted above the body of the aircraft). But if you have two radars with a localized detection and no civilian transponder you know it’s a military aircraft (or a flock of geese, of course), and a high altitude intercept from an aircraft with downward looking radar and (probably more importantly) thermal I would think would be enough to get close enough to get a firing solution - if the interceptor is higher that would largely defeat a cooled exhaust over the ocean, and if they’re within a few kilometers of the stealth aircraft (unless it’s gotten a lot better) a high powered radar would still yield a sufficient return to detect, I would think. Where am I going wrong here? Context: I’m a submariner originally (so sonar is what I know really well - and we can detect jellyfish if we go active, are close enough, and don’t let the computers filter them out), then low level ground attack (the rest is classified) that didn’t rely on nor was detectable by radar because (still classified - hey, I know which parts of my file were redacted after I got out, and (redacted) were very clear on when I had to shut my trap), so while I understand how radar and stealth work, I know it from the functional perspective - my engineering degree isn’t electrical or composite engineering.
I am not in the business, but I can think of two good reasons: 1- Optical sensors have very limited FOVs and ranges. This would be very different from the sonars you are familiar with. This means that you need a lot of them to cover an area, which might not be possible in some terrains. And they are unable to perform their functions because they are outranged by the enemy aircraft. Hence as the video said, the fun starts when you combine stealth with long range weapons. 2- The problem with the interception assumes there is an aircraft in the position to intercept. Which is very hard to do. As stealth aircraft are very hard to detect. Given that you are a submariner, a hostile frigate with a sonar and torpedos is deadly. But, how often did they get close enough to be a threat? You did what you could to avoid the situation entirely. 3- extra - You might not even be able to get a location, let alone a track, with the radar. Stealth technology makes it really difficult to discern the damn things from clutter and other things. imagine you put the kill chain in action, scramble aircraft, activate sensors, compute the things, finally get a track, then a firing solution and, finally, identification. Turns out it was a bird. Oopsie. Not only is it a waste of resources, you have made yourself vulnerable to DEAD and other forms of SEAD. And that really is a big brown pants possibility. With a new sub analogy, imagine you had to discern between an enemy sub and that jellyfish. You can, but not only is it hard, you have to go active (I know sonars have gotten better and might be able to do so passively, but the point stands regardless). So not only can you be wrong, it might just have cost your own sub because hostiles around the area might still be passive and listening.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 thanks, those are good points. I’m always concerned when I see a problem and think there’s an easy and obvious answer, because those tend to be wrong, and means there’s something I’m missing. 1) post military my experience has been in big data machine learning, and you’d be surprised what we can detect from images and video - especially when you know the lenses being used by the camera only a few frames and a couple of pixels allows you to calculate approximate size, distance, and speed. I haven’t had to include a rapidly moving platform, but it’s essentially the same equations just with additional variables. If you’ve ever watched a documentary on deep sea fish it’s the same basic way they calculate size, just a lot more sophisticated. On the other hand, there was a recent football/soccer game where the AI thought the referees head was the ball (because he was bald), so it tracked the referee the entire game rather than the ball. AI can do a lot that humans find difficult, but can still make dumb decisions. 2) yeah, the “close enough” problem is a good point. The part I’m missing is how far can L-band radar “detect” a stealth aircraft. We (where “we” means whoever wants to build the defensive detection radar net) could learn on our own aircraft, but you really want to detect your potential adversary and that means you either build a lot more radar arrays than you think you need based on your own technology (because you don’t know how good theirs is), or you build to detect only your own and possibly leave great gaping holes in your detection jet. 3) and that’s pretty much why subs never go active :)
You’re so dead on it’s hard to believe you are just a submariner: that’s exactly what is being attempted right now by quite a few actors and it is possible, unlike what the other replies are saying (for some reason). The method you described would work. That’s kind of the entire point of L-band radars: to provide early warning and vector fighters. And if you could get a fighter in range of the stealth aircraft, say 10 miles or so depending on the aspect of approach, it could detect and fire on said stealth aircraft. Now, getting within 10 miles of a stealth fighter without getting shot down, that might be a little tricky. But it would work as long as you survive until then. And EOTS/IR systems are THE systems for detecting stealth, although they suffer from a lot more limitations than radar does. That’s one of the reasons you see a lot more EOTS/IRST systems on modern fighters nowadays, and on modern SAM systems. Modern ones could detect stealth aircraft at potentially much longer ranges than their radars could, but as always that is dependent on the conditions. These systems are also greatly benefitted by being paired with L band radars, since a fighter can use the data it gives to slave their EOTS/IR systems to sector search that band of space, which would increase the detection range of those fighters significantly.
Going to be interesting to see how the U.S reacts to the introduction of such aircraft. No longer will we be only worried about ICBMs. The Think Tank reactions will be especially juicy. I can imagine them calling to try and bring the Chinese H-20 into part of an arms control treaty. Informative as always M7.
@user-hh9pr2ek4p Cause Strategic bombers were part of the SALT treaties with the Soviet Union and Russia. And in the case of the H-20, we have already seen America try and push the Chinese into arms control especially in regards to their extensive IRBM's inventory that the Americans don't have. Americans don't like joining or being part of treaties that restrict them, and especially don't like others having the means to hit them back.
The one thing that I would say is that I think you are evaluating the generations and where different systems are incorrectly. I mean this specifically about 5th Generation and 6th Generation aircraft. I also think what you try to do will become almost impossible. The reason I say that is that 5th and 6th generation aircraft are software machines. What is really important is the quality of the code base and the ability to move that forward into the future. I would argue that none of us can really know where all this stands until these systems actually go into combat. How good is F-35 sensor fusion? How much better or worse are Chinese systems at this? How about being a drone control node? Who has the lead there? Who has the best software architecture? Who has the most mature code base? Who has put money into automated regression testing? I know I don't know. I don't believe this is knowable at the moment.
Hi! I have a question I am not able to understand the importance of bombers when there are icmbs for nuclear warheads and cruise missiles for precise strikes, furthermore I don't understand why putting effort into developing stealth bombers rather than stealth long range guided munitions Apart from this I also don't understand the use of an autonomous bomber when countries are now developing autonomous long range cruise missiles Obviously I'm not saying that countries are stupid, but rather that I'm apparently missing something to understand their tactics
Because missiles are predictable and if you need to hit a potentially mobile target you need up to date knowledge of it's position which satellites can't always do. Also stealth is expensive which would make stealth munitions non attritable.
@@georgethompson1460 i guess the second point makes sense, but I'm not convinced about the first one I mean, if you need up to date info about your target for guided munitions you need it also for bombers: they need to know where to go rather than you know, running circles trying to find a target Furthermore, wouldn't hit moving targets be the aim of strike/multirole aircrafts such as F-35, Su-34 and so on?
@@cristianocaccia347 the main reason is that a flying wing bomber has a way longer range than any fighter. it also is stealthier in both RCS and IR, and as they have long edges they have a LOT smaller RCS in long wavelengths such as L-band (The whole concept of it is very complicated but you can find info about it in the surface web). It also have enough space to deploy more powerful ECM systems. So the F35 is a jack of all trades, it can do ground strikes as well as air superiority. the B21 lacks AA functions but masters ground attacks way better than a F35.
In addition to what User said, keep in mind that ICBM launches are observable via satellite as well: their launch sites are static and under observation, and create a large and distinctive IR signatuture. Submarines mitigate much of that for launching nukes, but that's the second part of this: launching nukes isn't supposed to be the prime option, because MAD. Bombers are therefore needed for conventional weapons, so a potential war can be fought short of triggering nuclear exchange. Now, cruise missiles and glide weapons with conventional warheads can be delivered by non-stealthy bombers, and that is part of the strategy, which is why the B-52 is being retained in service. The thing is, platforms like B-52 are also highly vulnerable to advanced SAMs, and going into the future, things like HK RPVs or autonomous UCAVs, and perhaps even directed-energy weapons, all of which a near-peer like PRC may have soon. In other words, SEAD and offensive counter air would need to be done to create an environment where B-52 and such could effectively deliver conventional stand off weapons, and to do that, ie. destroy or hobble advanced IAD, stealth will be required. This leads back then to what User's reply detailed, ie. how a stealthy bomber platform is in turn necessary, to perform missions beyond what F-35 can do, or to complement F-35 strike packages, as well as cruise missiles delivered from naval assets, so that the cumulative effect is great enough ("1 +1 +1 = 5, not 3"). So the short of it is: ICBMs are relatively predictable and signal move to MAD; conventional weapons must be delivered; to do that, standoffs are very important in a modern, high-threat environment; further, stand off platforms are themselves vulnerable in the first phase of the war, so IAD of enemy must be as destroyed as possible; this requires stealth; stealth fighter bombers alone are not sufficient to that mission, because of what User was talking about, eg. aircraft such as B-21, with large wing planform and big linear segmentubg, are more stealthy against low-frequency search and track radars than airframe designed for high G maneuver (ie. dogfighting), can carry heavier ordnance than fighters, can carry larger and more varied ECM equipment, etc.
The B-2A is not a VLO stealth. Look at the cockpit/windscreen glass. It is almost conventional. The B-21 looks closer to the F-117. How does that stand with your '35 years ahead of its time' assertion? People will, someday, wake up to the Great Stealth Myth that is the F-22/F-35/PAK-FA etc. ad nauseum and understand that cutting a giant hole in your jet and then covering it in complex curveature ITO treated glass panel to make it behave like a metal scatterer instead of a cavity reflector is not a solution to the Stealth Engineering problem. It is simply the lesser of two evils. The B-2A has a Reduced Observables RCS, probably in the range of the Super Hornet, around .1m2/-15dbsm, band dependent. Everything else is jamming (on and offboard) and some minor degree or restrictive viewing aspect. If you could see the globals for the B-2A, F-22A and F-35A, you would be astonished at how NON STEALTHY they actually are, at anything more than 20-30` to either side of head on and probably 10-20` below waterline.
Why not use drones at this point? Or cruise missiles? Considering B bombers cost like a billion dollars each or more I'm starting to think I'd prefer 1000 cruise missiles.
I see a sort of problem. If a US stelthbomber fly close to or slightly into china, realize a missile turn around, they probobly be beoyned Taiwan before Chinese fighters are scrambled. If a Chinese Stealth bomber would do the same, they would need to pass a dussin or so fighter bases on there way back. And even if the play would not be detected at this point, there is really just a limited pathways and time slots to go back. It would be incredibly hard to dodge fighters if they know somewhat where you would be. On top of that, pretty much all stealth aircrafts are more visible from behind than front or side. With aircraft like F22 and F35 able to super cruse they will catch up after they detected the aircraft. Back in gen 2 or 3 when a fighter was behind a bomber it would have very little time to catch up. Now with gen 5 the ability to catch up a enemy bomber is quite considerably higher.
The Tu-160 resuming production while the F-22 being put to pasture is not the food for thought you think it is. It’s more likely that their next gen bomber is out of reach while the F-22 is considered to be surpassed by the NGAD and F/A-XX. For more context America is in the middle of a trillion dollar infrastructure rebuild while in Russia Putin was recently embarrassed by at his yearly press conference with questions about towns promised funds to replace Soviet era power infrastructure never getting the money.
They do, they’re meant for detecting ICBM launches. How sensitive they are and what they could track beyond ICBM launches is classified and anyone’s guess, so no point speculating.
um... i think tu160 are old frames or old parts not really new build anyway. also what would be purpose of new stealth bomber? seems russia already has lots of types
As John Martin already mentioned, it seems you are referring to combat radius (at least in some cases) and not total range. A radius of 12,000 Km would be immense, given that the B-2 “radius” is 5,500 km and the total range of the longest ranged airliner, the 777-8 is 16,200 km.
Yes, I realized that there was some confusion. For range I mean combat radius. I should have used the latter even if it is understandable from the context. I was sidetracked by the fact that my brain calls what you call range the "transfer autonomy", literally translating the Italian term.
A high speed bomber that is relatively economical to use and limited low observability is also needed. Something to replace the B-1B while retaining all of its features. Just extend range, improve situational awareness, ease maintenance, and improve stealth slightly. B-1B has been the workhorse bomber for the last few decades, being tasked with the majority of missions in or near hostile areas. B-2 spend most of the time on standby for the nuclear deterrence role. B-21 will likely do the same, at least until there are over 50 in inventory. B-52 backup the B-2 for the nuclear deterrence role because B-1 is not allowed to by treaty. But they seldom do more than show up and show the flag sitting on an airstrip within range of an adversary. This is because the B-52 is not considered survivable in a contested environment and hasn’t been since the 1980s. Even when used over Iraq after the air defenses were suppressed the USAF was less confident in their survival and gradually shifted most missions over to B-1B. A fast bomber can provide faster response to urgent time sensitive missions and can provide extra energy to launched cruise missiles, extending their range.
People everywhere seem to think that the shape of the plane is what it is important. I understand why Lockheed, Boeing and Cia want all to believe that, but one could argue if we had learned something in this channel and know better now.
The idea that A russian/chinese stealth bomber, with the range figures you quoted. could strike mainland US is ridiculous. This completely ignores the idea of a combat radius. There is no point in flying all the way to strike mainland USA if you don't have to fuel to make it back. Also both Russia and China have a nonexistent tanker fleetr to support such operations, or the basing to do so. Even if they HAD tankers comparable to the US, who's gonna defend them hundreds if not thousands of miles deep in the pacific??
EDIT: Confusion solved with replies An aircraft requires to land too... So your range representation on the map is misleading, unless they go on suicide mission. They would need carriers to be effective no?
No, they are really thinking about these extremely long range aircraft. 8000Km is two ways, call it the combat radius. I say 12000 is very difficult, but 8000 is ~50% more than civilian airliners that are not flying wings. Obviously in flight refuelling would help, but they know these assets are vulnerable, hence the emphasis on the extremely long range.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I'm very skeptical of their claims. A Tu-160's combat radius with only 9 tonnes of payload is 7000 km. Payload of 40 t brings it down to 5250 km. A B-52H with only 5 t (of its max 31.5 t capacity) has a radius of 7100 km. The Tu-95 can go a bit further, 7500 km, with 5 t. A B-2 with 5 t has a radius of only 5500 km. An empty B-1B has a radius of 6000 km, half-load brings that down to 4700 km and chock full brings it down to 2800 km. There is no way Russian and Chinese engines have surpassed the Americans in specific fuel consumption, so if the range numbers being tossed around are correct the planes must be huge and absolutely stuffed with fuel.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech The B-2 has a reported 5500 km combat radius with a 5 t bombload. This lines up with how a pair of B-2s performed the January 2017 raid on Sirte, Libya, so we have a pretty good handle on the B-2's unrefueled range & radius. Considering that the official maximum payload for the B-2 is 18 t, what can we say about the reported ranges for the PAK DA and H-20? Having a combat radius of 8000+ km with a useful bomb load means that they are either huge and fat with fuel or that Russia and China have taken a stupendous leap forward to surpass the US, and by quite a ways.
Hmm, the claimed photo of the claimed Chinese stealth bomber, is not really a plausible image. The intake ducting, in themselves, present the rearward view of several horses. Which is not a feature of stealth aircraft, as I understand it.
Hello! Great overview indeed, thanks for all your work. About Russia was able to easily restart Tu-160 production, unfortunatelly it is not so easy. I know they were have to rebuild the electron beam chamber to produce the titanium backbone of the plane, and the engine seems to be produced in Ukrain when USSR was in existannce, so they had the documents but were have to redesign it,as they also did it with helicopter engines for Mi 8/24 etc, as they were all built at MotorSich in Zaporozhye region.
I have the slight impression that after 1990 all actually produced implementations designated as "bomber aircrafts" are practically outdated the moment they became operational. History suggests that all "mega" war tools (in their field of use) were actually useful as intimitading factors for a first blow or/and for brief period and that was all. War is a very complicated "job". Relying on a "super" weapon has proved rather optimistic so far. As technological exercises are undoubtably more than useful.
engines for russian aircraft are ready? what engines would it use than? edit 5:21 wow thats old engine. i wonder if something more modern would be better something with higher bypass ratio russian one would be huge...
About that south base in south America to be able to hit the USA Venezuela has a security agreement with Russia I believe they already have rotation of tu 144
America can neutralize any Venezuelan airbase pretty quickly. About time that murderous evil socialist dictatorship in Venezuela be destroyed, for the good of the Venezuela people.
Please allow me to compliment you on your tremendous achievements over the past many years. I have been an ardent follower of you and your channel, since its early inception, at which time, you were much less familiar with the spoken English language. The improvements you have since achieved are of the highest order, and are no longer of any possible consequence for any fan. I would go on to suggest that Lockheed Martin should hire you, in what ever capacity, for your skill set and breadth of knowledge in aerodynamics and avionics systems. BRAVO!
The sad thing will be that we will probably never see the stealth bomber from Russia, unfortunately. I like the PAK-DA design, the renders look very promising (I know it's just CGI, but from the looks of the SU-57 etc. it's very likely that it would look like this). You may think what you want about Russia's politics, but they have always built beautiful aircraft.P erhaps their designs were more promising than their performance, but that still doesn't make them bad. Always show respect to your opponent. That is what distinguishes us from the animals.
I think and hope we might see a prototype, but certainly no series production. They can (fortunately) barely produce the Su-57 as is and even calling that series production is almost a stretch.
Well they seem to be doing better than what the US government expected them to be at with sanctions but its still a blow to their budget and imports for now. Ive heard theyre trying to be self reliant on themselves so maybe that'll help them out in the future but for now they will probably be doing little advancements in the bomber
I'll be seriously surprised if a nation that's had stealth for over 3 decades doesn't have at least some research and development into identifying and tracking stealth aircraft... Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
There is some news of India planning on acquiring bombers. While I don't think we'll be making a stealth or regular bomber anytime soon. Buying some from the Americans or Russians is being discussed. India is in need of around 2 squadrons at the least I believe. We do have platforms like the Rafale, mirage and the jaguar for nuclear and conventional delivery, but a dedicated bomber fleet is still needed to bring parity against the Chinese.
Gen 6 the b21 is way move advanced than the b2 everything is just different, different stealth coating different engines different shape different everything and it's unmanned or manned
@@Americaisgreat12 We know very little about the B-21 at this point and the B-2 is officially a third generation stealth aircraft (the SR-71 being the first gen, the F-117 being the second generation). What we do know is that there was no massive investment in leap ahead technology for it that would normally associate with a generational change. It appears to draw heavily on the systems developed at great cost of in both time time and money for the F-35. It looks more like Fifth generation tech perfected, like we saw with the 4.5 and 4.5 generation aircraft of the nineties.
@@marktucker8896 I think you’re forgetting this is the US Air Force here. They will never allow a plane which isn’t leagues ahead of their previous planes to roll off the tarmac. Look at the B-2, there were basically no targets which it was needed to destroy yet it was still incredibly advanced. Now with more advanced opponents I don’t doubt that the USAF could settle with another 5th or 5.5th gen bomber. This is most definitely a 6th gen bomber.
@@Custodes_Veritatus what makes it gen 6? lol. revealing ceremony? lmao. it's just opening a new production line for more advanced and glorified b2 as it getting retired off the sky, because it's already shown how expensive it is to revive older production lines.
Americans - Hold My Beer ! Did someone say we did have something !! US Congress - here’s $100 billion enjoy - oh yeah that’s every year just for this !!
The SPY-1 S-Band PESA Radar of the Ticonderoga class cruiser and flights one and two Arleigh Burke are supposedly not capable of easily detecting flying wing aircraft and have limitations against other stealth platforms. The AN/SPY-6 S-bwnd radar on Burke flight 3 and Constellation class frigate might do a better job as these are active electronic scanning arrays. Ticonderoga class used to have the AN/SPS-49v8, which might allow them to detect stealth aircraft under the right circumstances. Most of our carriers also have this radar. But it dates back to the 1960s and I don't know how well it's been integrated into the Aegis system. Many European countries use the Smart-L and derivatives which are AESA L Band radars and supposedly have some ability to detect flying wings. I really think we should have upgraded our carriers to have this but we completely rely on the E-2 Hawkeye. I'll be curious to know how well the E-7 Wedgetail can't detect still aircraft with its modern L band array. The US Navy is planning to purchase the G550CAEW which is a Gulf stream business jet modified to carry the EL/W-2085 L-Band Radar and S-Band radar. Supposedly, these are just going to be used for missile tests, but I think they would be quite effective at detecting stealth aircraft.
there seems to be this tendency, where people take something the US did/does (as a standard, a reference) and then exaggerate everyone else's capabilities and abilities just to make a "comparison" "race" "competition" "rivalry", ... content.
Good chance PAK DA may not even see the light of day…Moreover, IF the discussion point is the range along, pretty sure Tu-160 can also get close Enough to North America to launch cruise missiles
@@Millennium7HistoryTech indeed, though both financial resources and sanctions on critical components seem to spell bad news for the PAK-DA program thus far
Interesting speculation. Arguably, there other - already developed means - to deliver _strategic_ , conventional surprise strikes upon US territory like *_orbital glide bombing_* at hypersonic speed e.g. from the direction of the South Pole, literally 'under the RADAR' of NORAD. Long range bombers may well serve as cruise missile carriers, reminiscent of strategic submarines within 'a naval bastion' - difficult to track, delivering retaliatory strikes into the Arctic, Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific - or supporting ground operations.
Bro; so what? US$20K Teheran drones redefined the Zussia Wukelan war; the way Exocet ASMs redefined the Falklands War & beyond back in 1982. FORTY years ago. Moral of story, one B21 bomber won't change the game.
People like to throw these nonsense terms around without defining them. What is a sixth generation bomber? There were no previous generations of bombers because the concept of bombers having generations never existed before but suddenly the B-21 is a sixth generation bomber for reasons? Progress in bomber development has been almost continuous since 1913. A lot of modern bombers aren't meant to drop bombs at all. Now we're capable of throwing pallets of precision guided cruise missiles out of ordinary transport planes and hitting targets hundreds of miles away. What generation bomber is the C-130?
Great video, i hope you make a video about southamerica (Argentina in particular There are a lot of operations against the relationship betweem Argentina and China. First one being a deep space base,with the same characteristics as one that the EU already has here, and idiots call it "military base". Now we have a competiton for buying a new fighter which is between jf17 and f16. We are making a logistics base in the south (Ushuahia) for our operations in Antarctica, it is said that China wants to finance it but i cant find anything clear, to me it looks like fear mongering. And of all places, Ushuaia doesnt make sense as a base to operate bombers, its literally the southern most city in the world
I think it would be good if you did an article on the SU 57 being used in Ukraine as its becoming increasingly apparent, the SU 57 is the 1st gen 5 aircraft that has taken out a fighter aircraft of an adversary. With their long range air to air missiles.
@@artiefakt4402 war isn't about a fair duel. A kill is a kill, from an engineering perspective, as well as from a commander's perspective. And from a commander's perspective, even a plane that isn't shot down can be a mission kill (as explained in another video on this channel). Only from a war planner's perspective it may be different, if the fox 3 is more expensive than the target. But that is virtually never the case for a manned plane.
Yeah, cool, though its not at all performing in the role it is superior to the f-22 in, aerial dogfighting. If you are talking Long-range kills, the F-22 will see first, acquire target first, score the kill and probably get away before being detected. Though playing a game of chicken with an airframe you barely have more than a dozen of and has your most cutting edge tech, that is a bit iffy to me. Seems like Russia wants propaganda wins.
They can… But it’s too expensive at this point. It’s makes more sense to make new fighters. That will surpass the F-22. Hence the F-22 should have never been pulled out of production.
I'm a bit skeptical on a Russian bomber with reasonable stealth characteristics, the 76 or so Su57 are being delivered in the single digit unit per year, we are talking about an airplane that is an order of magnitude more complicated, plus the semiconductors aren't there for russia (it's biggest Weak point bar none)
I would disagree on that. They have reasonable amount of experience on stealth aircraft at this point(Su 57 and S 70), experience that they can directly use in designing a stealth bomber. S 70 is also a flying wing design, a very important aspect of modern stealth bomber design. As for the delivery, it doesn’t entirely rely on their technical prowess but also their industrial capacity and even their economy (Russia is 2 trillion economy and their aircraft production rate isn’t far away from other 2 trillion economies). The whole Russian semiconductor thing is just a myth, born from their lack of presence in the commercial semiconductor space but the reality is, they do have ample capacity is producing semiconductor for military use, otherwise, Su-57, S-70 and even Su-35 wouldn’t have been a reality.
"plus the semiconductors aren't there for russia" even the most advanced aircrafts only have very little actual electronics on them. An F35s computer is less powerfull than a 2 year old midrange PC. They have just too different requirements, but the manufacturing of semiconductors is not a problem.
@@aswinottapilavil495 No, semiconductors under 90 nanometers are out of the reach of even their most advanced fabs, and remember the Su57 is covered with radar absorbing paint, no Ram integrated into the skin, have you ever seen a Russian made car, they sure do the work but the finish quality eghhh....
I just do not understand your optimism in regards to soviet or chinese airplane design. Just remember in 50`s myasishchev designs, tu-144 design, tu-22 (any mods) in comparison to their western counterparts, or just promises attached to them. I am more than sure that it is still the same song 70 years later. What is giving me the conviction? rusians, they do not have modern power plants for the aircrafts. They are just resuscitating engine designs from 70`s. And almighty china? They cant even properly copy those... But that is not even the biggest laughing point: Where is rusian air force right now? Why there are not red star planes over Kyiv? Not because of the planes (tactical part) but because the state of entire rusian military (strategy).
What do you think of the lower lift to drag wing proposed by Albion Bowers? Do you think this is viable for a flying wing bomber with extra range? th-cam.com/video/bCwtcDNB15E/w-d-xo.html
Incorrect. The B21 is said to have next gen stealth which absorbs all radar frequencies including that low band frequencies the S400 and S500 claim to be able to track but have never demonstrated. This new stealth coating is also said to include thermal control which which will make the aircraft near invisible to (infrared)IRST. That's why the B21 stealth coating is lighter color.
Like with the other russian "high tech" projects like armata and pak-fa their new pak-da is just boasting on paper. And like with armata and pak-fa, we might see one or two pak-da planes for propaganda and their real capabilities against western or chinese counterparts are pure trash.
The premise that the US is protected by oceans is ridiculous. Both China and Russia have nuclear submarines that patrol the coast lines of North America and can launch way more cruise missiles than a bomber ever will. And of course we are not even talking about submarine drones that are going to become a big issue in this decade.
@@alexdunphy3716 US will think many times going to war if its enemy can destroy its nuclear submarine bases or electric power plants or the military industrial complex plants. Essentially Russia and China want to have conventional weapons deterance power besides nuclear deterance.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Reply just shows how bias you are. The clown above claims that America the nation that has been building defenses from submarines for decade don't know if there are nuclear submarines along their coast. Just say next time "I'm bias so please don't watch me of you want unbias viewpoint".
Russia doesnt seem to be in the power projection business as much as the u.s is. And thats a good thing. So they wouldnt have a need for too many stealth bombers
7:14 , I can't believe you fell for those fake news, there's no Chinese military naval base in Ushuaia (a city that's in the southern extreme of Argentina, BTW), and there will never be. If the US and western hemisphere is soooo concerned, they can do what China does: come to invest and offer a better deal for the construction of the port. As simple as that. We need a new fighter, we wanted FA-50 LIFT, *blocked*, the US offers those battered Danish F-16s trash, we're gonna buy JF-17 then. Just offer a better deal.
Please allow me to disagree on the status of US bases. In all cases, Russia and China have been systematically boxed in by the US, with the tacit approval of all concerned, except or the potential adversary of course. In the European theatre, by NATO and further afield by the various islands or harbours of widely spread elements. The advantage of this, is a limited concentration of weaponry for both defence and attack of allied aircraft and naval vessels. It should bare little influence on the decisions made by ourselves and our allies, of course, if we make our potential adversaries uncomfortable militarily. For that is the very objective. We are not bobbing for apples, for god’s sake.
Sure. Now USA is ahead in offensive terms (even though the numbers will be small till the B-21 enters service) but China and Russia have deployed during the years several systems to mitigate the risk. How effective, let's hope we will never find out.
@Millennium 7 * HistoryTech I was talking more about how would USA attack Russia or China, like how would USA use it bases and alliances? Similar to how you show chine or Russia would use it
@@Millennium7HistoryTech If the Russia is benchmark of top of the line air defense system then the Ukraine war show that it is not very effective. offensive still over match defense.
I think you are buying into the PR Hype about the B21, Stealth and it's ability to penetrate an opponents air space. Think of the B21 as modern more affordable and maintainable replacement for the aging B2. Improved LO characteristics give the B21 more options. With the advent of the new Stealth Strategic Cruise missile penetrate enemy air space is not necessary.
From my understanding, the US has new ceramic coatings that not only absorb the low band freqs. the S400 and S500 claim able to track, but can also change the tempeature of the skin to fool infrared tracking as well. They have also touted holographic heat emitters to confuse heat seekers. It's hard to think China and Russia have serious competitors when neither have produced any full aspect stealth aircraft at all. They may be low observable from the front but nothing they have produced should lead to the reckless speculation that can even make an aircraft with comparable capabilities. I'm sure they'll be able to fly and look cool though.
The B-21 Bomber: America's Power,
th-cam.com/video/4QgdWLJfk34/w-d-xo.html
Join this channel to support it:
th-cam.com/channels/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw.htmljoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Join the Discord server discord.gg/qAYf2kjjrK
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the TH-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & TH-cam terms of service.
Do you really believe the new stealth US hype? The yanks track record is dismal .. What are your thoughts on the dismal technology the USA has developed?
The PAk3’s, 25% only confidence of impacting target, the cracking hulls on ships, the F-35 constant failures..
the hypersonic lagging technology,
The propaganda we were fed throughout the Cold War that soviets were technologically inferior whilst they CLEARLY were far superior in many technological areas..
i have serious doubts the USA ever was able to genuinely compete military wise other than SSBN In early years and nuclear weapons.. I keep remembering the two RAF war gaming the USA both times 7 vulcans sim nuked all major centres with only one loss:.
The only type of warfare the west really appears to have a superiority in is the information/propaganda warfare.. helps to have imported all those Nazis..
when you think the tizzard mission and immigration to the USA where undoubtedly they lead the world in innovation they sure are great farmers when it comes to inventions..
No one knows if the b21 is completed though. What they showed us was just a mock-up, much like how sukhoi showed the su75. It's first to the flight
@@deven6518 I don't know if the air-frame they shown will be flying, but it is not just a mock-up either.
Way to detailed, especially in the gear well area, If I had to bet, I'd say she's gonna fly.
@@kilianortmann9979 they are usually detailed. Again, the su75
I'm convinced the videos wouldn't be the same without Otis
Call him(?) ‘Roomba’ to provoke a response :)
Without comedic relief the subject material would be too heavy.
I'm certain of that. it would be much better without the weird fucked up cringe comedy attempt relief. it's shit.
If I come for youtube for comedy I wouldn't be watching this.
They'd be more concise and focused.
@@ObeyNoLies without such relief these videos would be ‘heavy bombers’ :)
Just to clarify, when you talk about range, do you mean combat radius? Because the B-2 has a range of ~11,000 km, so without refueling it can only reach targets ~5,500 km away (assuming it is returning to the base it took off from). The longest B-2 combat mission was a ~20,000 km round-trip (assuming they stayed in international airspace for all but the attack) and it required at least four refuelings. A bomber with a 12,000 km combat radius would be an incredible feat.
I see, you already made that comment 😄.
Yes if it's combat range, then that's ok but range alone would be a false representation.
I like yer explanation of air power ,itz history, & current relivance... thanks fer the hard work.
No, the B-2's range is 6897 miles. We are not communists. 😉
@@maestromecanico597 Metric was invented by french monarchists and later formalized by (extreme) republicans, everything but communists !
Yeah this one made me unsure
Hi! At the beginning of the video (0:11) you can see what I feel like it’s the most important detail of the B 21: the wingtip is bent up at the trailing edge, to create upwash.
This means that the design is based on the Prandtl’s Wing, which allows planes without the rudder to coordinate a turn without the use of drag increasing devices on the wings (like the split ailerons on the b2).
In this case it would be the outside tip to create traction, causing proverse yaw and so lining up the nose.
The only modern aircraft, that I’m aware of, that uses this same concept is the Dassault Neuron.
It’s a huge step forward in fuel efficiency and stealth characteristics.
It would be awesome if you did a video regarding this topic.
It’s a niche but it would be worth it, because it will be the very near future of aviation.
Al Bowers, a guy from nasa, currently it’s the only one talking about it on yt. 😄
I am not sure if this is the case, I wait for more pictures. Anyway it is really niche... Please use English as everybody should understand.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechcomment updated in English 👍🏼
@@Millennium7HistoryTech sorry but that is a very nerdy topic therefore you must cover it in a vid. this what made your channel popular to begin with...
I had upturned wingtips on my hanglider, supposedly to counteract tuck under effect of that flying wing design.
This is most definitely worth an episode, in fact, let me know where to find this data. Thank you.
IM AMERICAN ... AND I DO ENJOY YOUR VIDS!
...it would be fine w me if all aviation / mil channels used just one format. Irritating for the value to be repeated in the other format. Pick one - stick with it. We can handle it. But imperial is more fun cuz it makes no sense.
Wasn't the restart of the Tu-160 line possible simply because the Russians didn't disassemble it, while the F-22 line has already been retooled for the F-35 and thus they would have to build it anew or stop the F-35 production?
thats what i was thinking
The F22 line just shut down. The Merietta GA plant is defunct
@@appa609 Didn't they say that parts of the F-22 lines were reused in the F-35 line though?
The F-22 line was not only disassembled, the tooling has been destroyed, to prevent it from being a security threat if details about it would fall into unwanted hands.
@Kilian Ortmann is correct. The F-22 production line was deliberately shutdown and destroyed. The Tu-160 production line was just abandoned for 25 years. When the USSR collapsed everything came to a screeching halt. Factories just stopped. There was no money or direction to properly wind them down so they just stayed as they were, like time capsules. When Russia recently-ish resumed production of the Tu-160, the first airframe to be completed was one that had been sitting on the production line, half-finished, since the early 90s. This wasn't some brilliant forethought on Russia's part, it was just a consequence of the chaos when the USSR fell apart and Russia's economy imploded.
Excellent video! The winner in this battle is not necessarily the first, but the one who can complete the mission. Note: The Airbus A350-900ULR and Boeing 787-9 have the longest flight ranges, respectively, 9,537 miles and 9,010 miles; keep this in mind with passengers and luggage. Further, business class planes have similar configurations as strategic bombers, though some are also capable of very long range. Boeing Business Jet 777X - range 11,645 nm., Bombardier Global 8000 - range 7,900 nm just to list few, Thus, the 6th generation bomber could do better.
In regard to the metric system … the US Federal hydrographic survey body, 6:08 whose name I forget, has always used the metric system. They have been converting metric survey data into imperial units for a couple of centuries, more or less.
With the knowledge and experience the US has its hard for this to be called a race. They’ve actually had and used this tech for years. In combat situations. They have a proven doctrine and direction of what does and doesn’t work. The US is in its second iteration of stealth bomber tech. Meaning refinements from the first lessons. This experience is lacking in Russia and China.
Good video, very good information, and the humor is awesome! Keep up the great work! Stay healthy this year! I appreciate the metric jokes! Lol
They USAF had a naming contest, and I'm still stewing over the fact they didn't take my suggestion of Tiger Hawk.
i feel you, i suggested Man Bear Pig and got no love at all
I’m stewing over the fact that they didn’t take my suggestion of the Tiger Woods.
Dump Truck gets my vote (trucks lots of bombs and dumps them over the target).
@@TheGrindcorps I wrote a sci-fi novella series centered around a space plane borne of something I called the Tiger Hawk Project. The 30% scale testbed changed hands into an intelligence agency for orbital cyber and signal warfare and surveillance, and the ship of the story became the ISS-454 Mockingbird and other ships of the ISV-71 Raven class.
@@robertsneddon731 Nah, maybe if they made a brand new version of bomber like B-52. B-21 is much smaller than B-1B, B-52 and B-2 and is most technologically advanced. I’m car terms it is more like a special edition 100k pickup truck like a Shelby Raptor F-150 or the likes. That’s my 2 cents at least.
I just travel last month to Ushuaia (Argentina). There is no Chinese Navy base there. Right now Argentina's Navy and Air Force are working on a Argentinian base.
There will be just behind the Civil Ushuaia Airport (Close to Ushuaia city) and can be seen from any civil plane.
There is a lot of oficial info of the project in Argentina oficial sites.
If you read the tweet, it says that China is putting pressure on Argentina for it, not that it is already there. Consider that Argentina is already hosting Chinese space telecommunication infrastructure. We'll see.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech
One thing is a deep space network communication (with close to null military implications) another absolute diferent thing is a full military naval base.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechfrom a neutral viewpoint, I don't think it's a that of a big deal if China operates a base in Argentina since USA already have hundreds of military bases overseas.
Pretty sure the real reason why the F-22 wasn’t restarted is because the planes architecture is extremely difficult to modernize and the USA is seeing great results with the NGAD.
@Phillip Banes Digital systems, the raptor is running computer hardware from the early 2000's and those systems were not built with upgradability in mind.
I think Ukraine showed the importance of having low tech heavy weapons (i.e., Artillery and lots of shell inventory) and lots of them. The U.S. can’t rely solely on big ticket items like stealth fighters and bombers. They make for good deterrents, but we also need to have enough in the budget for weapons we require to fight wars like in Ukraine. I hope the new U.S. fighter program doesn’t break the bank.
Thing is Ukraine doesn't have the airforce to really get air dominance, if they did they wouldn't need half as much artillery as they could utilize PGM's to dominate Russian ground forces.
I can't take the Pak-DA seriously with those winglets 💀💀💀
Metric system and Americans....lol ...Be happy you are where you are. I am in Canada. The hot spot for hyper confusion in measurement of pretty much any liquid or measurable weight. Here at any given time you can run into....metric imperial UK and US measures. EG litre ,UK gallon and US gallon.....Even a mix of metric and imperial fasteners on any given item that needs repair
I feel pretty confident the whole thing is set up from day one to both confuse the bejezuz out of and screw the consumer over indefinitely.
- to fix or install anything....two complete sets of tools.
- at least 20 litres ,3.4 UK gallons or 5.3 US gallons of various oils on the shelf in the garage at any given time because while the manual might cll for 5 litres of XX/XX oil it only can be found in US gallons that are 3.7 litres
- I have a small farm here.....while it doesn't affect me much it has caused problems in the past....the US bushel system. A measure that changes weight/volume by the sometimes very specific commodity that is being bought. I just avoid anyone who uses this measure now
- then you go to the grocery store.....bring your calculator/spend the time and save
Thanks for reading the rant....keep up the vids I watch them all
I feel your pain!
You speak the truth. Think of the tools need. American cars are not metric! Asian or European vechicles are.
Canada is like that too, like what is a inch? What is a foot???? How many cm is 5'11???????????
For the Russian air forces, long ranges have always been a key parameter, as is determined by their massive land mass. Even if the threat to sovereignty of their nation was less urgent potentially, the number of time zones that need transiting to fly the EW-WE course, is extremely large. They must have range, for the simple fact of geography.
The F-22 production was cannibalized for the F-35 program in turn, so it was one for the other and I feel the F-35 is a good enough JSF
Yes and no
Yes they cannibalized production space and no the f35 alone is not enough in my opinion
The F-22 is last-generation stealth technology and is really a plane looking for a job to do nowadays, that is air-to-air interception. The US has over 200 F-22s with very few airframe losses from the initial production runs since in large part it has seen little or no combat. Building more F-22s just to put them in the back of a hangar and polish them occasionally is rather pointless especially since multiple 6th-gen fighter programs are well under way in the US and elsewhere.
@@robertsneddon731 yeah it was pointless to have a military in Europe as well until recently as well
Things change and development of new tech is allways pricey so when we build the next trillion dollar fighter might as well double the order
@@robertsneddon731 I believe 183 F-22 units were built and not all of these were upgraded
@@robertsneddon731- Last generation stealth doesn’t mean inferior, it just means more expensive. The B-21 reportedly inherits the easier-to-maintain stealth tech from the F-35. Iirc, they figured out how to build the F-35 is so precisely that it doesn’t need special coatings to compensate for gaps.
Question: why is anti-stealth radar detection and interception not effectively a function of a (relatively) small array of L-band radar with fully overlapping sweeps to vector interceptor aircraft, combined with optical and thermal local detection? Very high altitude and nighttime would thwart both of those to an extent (which is why the B2 exhaust is both mixed with ambient air like a high bypass turbofan and exhausted above the body of the aircraft). But if you have two radars with a localized detection and no civilian transponder you know it’s a military aircraft (or a flock of geese, of course), and a high altitude intercept from an aircraft with downward looking radar and (probably more importantly) thermal I would think would be enough to get close enough to get a firing solution - if the interceptor is higher that would largely defeat a cooled exhaust over the ocean, and if they’re within a few kilometers of the stealth aircraft (unless it’s gotten a lot better) a high powered radar would still yield a sufficient return to detect, I would think. Where am I going wrong here?
Context: I’m a submariner originally (so sonar is what I know really well - and we can detect jellyfish if we go active, are close enough, and don’t let the computers filter them out), then low level ground attack (the rest is classified) that didn’t rely on nor was detectable by radar because (still classified - hey, I know which parts of my file were redacted after I got out, and (redacted) were very clear on when I had to shut my trap), so while I understand how radar and stealth work, I know it from the functional perspective - my engineering degree isn’t electrical or composite engineering.
Because current computing technology is not yet at the state of being capable of giving a usable firing solution or even usable tracking solutions.
I am not in the business, but I can think of two good reasons:
1- Optical sensors have very limited FOVs and ranges. This would be very different from the sonars you are familiar with. This means that you need a lot of them to cover an area, which might not be possible in some terrains. And they are unable to perform their functions because they are outranged by the enemy aircraft. Hence as the video said, the fun starts when you combine stealth with long range weapons.
2- The problem with the interception assumes there is an aircraft in the position to intercept. Which is very hard to do. As stealth aircraft are very hard to detect.
Given that you are a submariner, a hostile frigate with a sonar and torpedos is deadly. But, how often did they get close enough to be a threat? You did what you could to avoid the situation entirely.
3- extra - You might not even be able to get a location, let alone a track, with the radar. Stealth technology makes it really difficult to discern the damn things from clutter and other things. imagine you put the kill chain in action, scramble aircraft, activate sensors, compute the things, finally get a track, then a firing solution and, finally, identification. Turns out it was a bird. Oopsie. Not only is it a waste of resources, you have made yourself vulnerable to DEAD and other forms of SEAD. And that really is a big brown pants possibility.
With a new sub analogy, imagine you had to discern between an enemy sub and that jellyfish. You can, but not only is it hard, you have to go active (I know sonars have gotten better and might be able to do so passively, but the point stands regardless). So not only can you be wrong, it might just have cost your own sub because hostiles around the area might still be passive and listening.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 thanks, those are good points. I’m always concerned when I see a problem and think there’s an easy and obvious answer, because those tend to be wrong, and means there’s something I’m missing.
1) post military my experience has been in big data machine learning, and you’d be surprised what we can detect from images and video - especially when you know the lenses being used by the camera only a few frames and a couple of pixels allows you to calculate approximate size, distance, and speed. I haven’t had to include a rapidly moving platform, but it’s essentially the same equations just with additional variables. If you’ve ever watched a documentary on deep sea fish it’s the same basic way they calculate size, just a lot more sophisticated. On the other hand, there was a recent football/soccer game where the AI thought the referees head was the ball (because he was bald), so it tracked the referee the entire game rather than the ball. AI can do a lot that humans find difficult, but can still make dumb decisions.
2) yeah, the “close enough” problem is a good point. The part I’m missing is how far can L-band radar “detect” a stealth aircraft. We (where “we” means whoever wants to build the defensive detection radar net) could learn on our own aircraft, but you really want to detect your potential adversary and that means you either build a lot more radar arrays than you think you need based on your own technology (because you don’t know how good theirs is), or you build to detect only your own and possibly leave great gaping holes in your detection jet.
3) and that’s pretty much why subs never go active :)
You’re so dead on it’s hard to believe you are just a submariner: that’s exactly what is being attempted right now by quite a few actors and it is possible, unlike what the other replies are saying (for some reason).
The method you described would work. That’s kind of the entire point of L-band radars: to provide early warning and vector fighters. And if you could get a fighter in range of the stealth aircraft, say 10 miles or so depending on the aspect of approach, it could detect and fire on said stealth aircraft. Now, getting within 10 miles of a stealth fighter without getting shot down, that might be a little tricky. But it would work as long as you survive until then.
And EOTS/IR systems are THE systems for detecting stealth, although they suffer from a lot more limitations than radar does. That’s one of the reasons you see a lot more EOTS/IRST systems on modern fighters nowadays, and on modern SAM systems. Modern ones could detect stealth aircraft at potentially much longer ranges than their radars could, but as always that is dependent on the conditions. These systems are also greatly benefitted by being paired with L band radars, since a fighter can use the data it gives to slave their EOTS/IR systems to sector search that band of space, which would increase the detection range of those fighters significantly.
7:06 oh wouldn't even have to be Argentina. Remember when TU-160's landed in Venezuela not too long ago a few years back?
What an exciting and thought-provoking episode this has been.
Interesting, as always.
Glad you think so!
Going to be interesting to see how the U.S reacts to the introduction of such aircraft. No longer will we be only worried about ICBMs.
The Think Tank reactions will be especially juicy. I can imagine them calling to try and bring the Chinese H-20 into part of an arms control treaty.
Informative as always M7.
Arms control treaty? Why
Depends if China can build more than couple or if American stealth bomber will be the only massproduced ones.
Well, just look at what they did in Venezuela after the Russians sent two Tu-160's there in Dec 2018.
@user-hh9pr2ek4p Cause Strategic bombers were part of the SALT treaties with the Soviet Union and Russia. And in the case of the H-20, we have already seen America try and push the Chinese into arms control especially in regards to their extensive IRBM's inventory that the Americans don't have.
Americans don't like joining or being part of treaties that restrict them, and especially don't like others having the means to hit them back.
@@JarlPeregrine I remember what they did : they told the Russians to get those bombers out of Venezuela and the Russians did
Ooooof that subtle nudge at one potential American target.
Just oooooooof.
The one thing that I would say is that I think you are evaluating the generations and where different systems are incorrectly. I mean this specifically about 5th Generation and 6th Generation aircraft. I also think what you try to do will become almost impossible. The reason I say that is that 5th and 6th generation aircraft are software machines. What is really important is the quality of the code base and the ability to move that forward into the future. I would argue that none of us can really know where all this stands until these systems actually go into combat.
How good is F-35 sensor fusion? How much better or worse are Chinese systems at this? How about being a drone control node? Who has the lead there? Who has the best software architecture? Who has the most mature code base? Who has put money into automated regression testing? I know I don't know. I don't believe this is knowable at the moment.
Just an educated guess with little prejudice attached
Hi!
I have a question
I am not able to understand the importance of bombers when there are icmbs for nuclear warheads and cruise missiles for precise strikes, furthermore I don't understand why putting effort into developing stealth bombers rather than stealth long range guided munitions
Apart from this I also don't understand the use of an autonomous bomber when countries are now developing autonomous long range cruise missiles
Obviously I'm not saying that countries are stupid, but rather that I'm apparently missing something to understand their tactics
Because missiles are predictable and if you need to hit a potentially mobile target you need up to date knowledge of it's position which satellites can't always do.
Also stealth is expensive which would make stealth munitions non attritable.
@@georgethompson1460 i guess the second point makes sense, but I'm not convinced about the first one
I mean, if you need up to date info about your target for guided munitions you need it also for bombers: they need to know where to go rather than you know, running circles trying to find a target
Furthermore, wouldn't hit moving targets be the aim of strike/multirole aircrafts such as F-35, Su-34 and so on?
@@cristianocaccia347 the main reason is that a flying wing bomber has a way longer range than any fighter. it also is stealthier in both RCS and IR, and as they have long edges they have a LOT smaller RCS in long wavelengths such as L-band (The whole concept of it is very complicated but you can find info about it in the surface web). It also have enough space to deploy more powerful ECM systems.
So the F35 is a jack of all trades, it can do ground strikes as well as air superiority. the B21 lacks AA functions but masters ground attacks way better than a F35.
@@GabrielVitor-kq6uj Thanks a lot!
In addition to what User said, keep in mind that ICBM launches are observable via satellite as well: their launch sites are static and under observation, and create a large and distinctive IR signatuture.
Submarines mitigate much of that for launching nukes, but that's the second part of this: launching nukes isn't supposed to be the prime option, because MAD. Bombers are therefore needed for conventional weapons, so a potential war can be fought short of triggering nuclear exchange.
Now, cruise missiles and glide weapons with conventional warheads can be delivered by non-stealthy bombers, and that is part of the strategy, which is why the B-52 is being retained in service.
The thing is, platforms like B-52 are also highly vulnerable to advanced SAMs, and going into the future, things like HK RPVs or autonomous UCAVs, and perhaps even directed-energy weapons, all of which a near-peer like PRC may have soon. In other words, SEAD and offensive counter air would need to be done to create an environment where B-52 and such could effectively deliver conventional stand off weapons, and to do that, ie. destroy or hobble advanced IAD, stealth will be required.
This leads back then to what User's reply detailed, ie. how a stealthy bomber platform is in turn necessary, to perform missions beyond what F-35 can do, or to complement F-35 strike packages, as well as cruise missiles delivered from naval assets, so that the cumulative effect is great enough ("1 +1 +1 = 5, not 3").
So the short of it is: ICBMs are relatively predictable and signal move to MAD; conventional weapons must be delivered; to do that, standoffs are very important in a modern, high-threat environment; further, stand off platforms are themselves vulnerable in the first phase of the war, so IAD of enemy must be as destroyed as possible; this requires stealth; stealth fighter bombers alone are not sufficient to that mission, because of what User was talking about, eg. aircraft such as B-21, with large wing planform and big linear segmentubg, are more stealthy against low-frequency search and track radars than airframe designed for high G maneuver (ie. dogfighting), can carry heavier ordnance than fighters, can carry larger and more varied ECM equipment, etc.
The nation leading the way on stealth-technology is probably the leader in countering it. Having the goods is the best way to to train against it.
B2 was 35 years ahead of it's time,
same with the B21;
odds are there is subsequent aircraft.
The B-2A is not a VLO stealth. Look at the cockpit/windscreen glass. It is almost conventional. The B-21 looks closer to the F-117. How does that stand with your '35 years ahead of its time' assertion?
People will, someday, wake up to the Great Stealth Myth that is the F-22/F-35/PAK-FA etc. ad nauseum and understand that cutting a giant hole in your jet and then covering it in complex curveature ITO treated glass panel to make it behave like a metal scatterer instead of a cavity reflector is not a solution to the Stealth Engineering problem. It is simply the lesser of two evils.
The B-2A has a Reduced Observables RCS, probably in the range of the Super Hornet, around .1m2/-15dbsm, band dependent.
Everything else is jamming (on and offboard) and some minor degree or restrictive viewing aspect.
If you could see the globals for the B-2A, F-22A and F-35A, you would be astonished at how NON STEALTHY they actually are, at anything more than 20-30` to either side of head on and probably 10-20` below waterline.
Why not use drones at this point? Or cruise missiles? Considering B bombers cost like a billion dollars each or more I'm starting to think I'd prefer 1000 cruise missiles.
It's going to be a interesting listen and watch, Cheers
I see a sort of problem.
If a US stelthbomber fly close to or slightly into china, realize a missile turn around, they probobly be beoyned Taiwan before Chinese fighters are scrambled.
If a Chinese Stealth bomber would do the same, they would need to pass a dussin or so fighter bases on there way back. And even if the play would not be detected at this point, there is really just a limited pathways and time slots to go back. It would be incredibly hard to dodge fighters if they know somewhat where you would be. On top of that, pretty much all stealth aircrafts are more visible from behind than front or side. With aircraft like F22 and F35 able to super cruse they will catch up after they detected the aircraft. Back in gen 2 or 3 when a fighter was behind a bomber it would have very little time to catch up. Now with gen 5 the ability to catch up a enemy bomber is quite considerably higher.
The Tu-160 resuming production while the F-22 being put to pasture is not the food for thought you think it is. It’s more likely that their next gen bomber is out of reach while the F-22 is considered to be surpassed by the NGAD and F/A-XX. For more context America is in the middle of a trillion dollar infrastructure rebuild while in Russia Putin was recently embarrassed by at his yearly press conference with questions about towns promised funds to replace Soviet era power infrastructure never getting the money.
Aren't the U.S. having a net of observers in space , capable of tracking IR signatures if not pure visual observations with AI ?
Thanks for the vid.
They do, they’re meant for detecting ICBM launches. How sensitive they are and what they could track beyond ICBM launches is classified and anyone’s guess, so no point speculating.
The tupelo vs f 22 may be down to the associated costs of stealth, materials, retooling, vs money on other projects.
um... i think tu160 are old frames or old parts not really new build anyway. also what would be purpose of new stealth bomber? seems russia already has lots of types
As John Martin already mentioned, it seems you are referring to combat radius (at least in some cases) and not total range. A radius of 12,000 Km would be immense, given that the B-2 “radius” is 5,500 km and the total range of the longest ranged airliner, the 777-8 is 16,200 km.
Yes, I realized that there was some confusion. For range I mean combat radius. I should have used the latter even if it is understandable from the context. I was sidetracked by the fact that my brain calls what you call range the "transfer autonomy", literally translating the Italian term.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech stupid idiot
8500 km is not enough to get home. If this should work the bomber needs refuelling on it's way out and back again.
Great video!
A high speed bomber that is relatively economical to use and limited low observability is also needed. Something to replace the B-1B while retaining all of its features. Just extend range, improve situational awareness, ease maintenance, and improve stealth slightly.
B-1B has been the workhorse bomber for the last few decades, being tasked with the majority of missions in or near hostile areas.
B-2 spend most of the time on standby for the nuclear deterrence role. B-21 will likely do the same, at least until there are over 50 in inventory. B-52 backup the B-2 for the nuclear deterrence role because B-1 is not allowed to by treaty. But they seldom do more than show up and show the flag sitting on an airstrip within range of an adversary. This is because the B-52 is not considered survivable in a contested environment and hasn’t been since the 1980s. Even when used over Iraq after the air defenses were suppressed the USAF was less confident in their survival and gradually shifted most missions over to B-1B.
A fast bomber can provide faster response to urgent time sensitive missions and can provide extra energy to launched cruise missiles, extending their range.
Fast penetration bombers aren't survivable in modern air warfare, a non stealth bomber would by restricted to coing with PGM's hence done by B-52's.
How long is a kilometer in Chevy pickup trucks?
People everywhere seem to think that the shape of the plane is what it is important.
I understand why Lockheed, Boeing and Cia want all to believe that, but one could argue if we had learned something in this channel and know better now.
I really would like the EU to have one too. Maybe the 6th Gen technology will help with that.
I'm late, but i still need to ask, what is 6th gen bomber?
Sometimes strong medicine tastes bad. I hope American intelligence analysts are paying attention here. Well executed, sir.
The idea that A russian/chinese stealth bomber, with the range figures you quoted. could strike mainland US is ridiculous. This completely ignores the idea of a combat radius. There is no point in flying all the way to strike mainland USA if you don't have to fuel to make it back. Also both Russia and China have a nonexistent tanker fleetr to support such operations, or the basing to do so. Even if they HAD tankers comparable to the US, who's gonna defend them hundreds if not thousands of miles deep in the pacific??
I addressed this in other replies.
EDIT: Confusion solved with replies
An aircraft requires to land too... So your range representation on the map is misleading, unless they go on suicide mission.
They would need carriers to be effective no?
No, they are really thinking about these extremely long range aircraft. 8000Km is two ways, call it the combat radius. I say 12000 is very difficult, but 8000 is ~50% more than civilian airliners that are not flying wings. Obviously in flight refuelling would help, but they know these assets are vulnerable, hence the emphasis on the extremely long range.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Oh then it's their effective combat range? Fascinating! Thanks for the clarification!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I'm very skeptical of their claims. A Tu-160's combat radius with only 9 tonnes of payload is 7000 km. Payload of 40 t brings it down to 5250 km. A B-52H with only 5 t (of its max 31.5 t capacity) has a radius of 7100 km. The Tu-95 can go a bit further, 7500 km, with 5 t. A B-2 with 5 t has a radius of only 5500 km. An empty B-1B has a radius of 6000 km, half-load brings that down to 4700 km and chock full brings it down to 2800 km. There is no way Russian and Chinese engines have surpassed the Americans in specific fuel consumption, so if the range numbers being tossed around are correct the planes must be huge and absolutely stuffed with fuel.
@@JonMartinYXD That is a possibility. but the flying wing is more efficient than a conventional configuration.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech The B-2 has a reported 5500 km combat radius with a 5 t bombload. This lines up with how a pair of B-2s performed the January 2017 raid on Sirte, Libya, so we have a pretty good handle on the B-2's unrefueled range & radius. Considering that the official maximum payload for the B-2 is 18 t, what can we say about the reported ranges for the PAK DA and H-20? Having a combat radius of 8000+ km with a useful bomb load means that they are either huge and fat with fuel or that Russia and China have taken a stupendous leap forward to surpass the US, and by quite a ways.
Great video, any updates?
Hmm, the claimed photo of the claimed Chinese stealth bomber, is not really a plausible image. The intake ducting, in themselves, present the rearward view of several horses. Which is not a feature of stealth aircraft, as I understand it.
Hello! Great overview indeed, thanks for all your work. About Russia was able to easily restart Tu-160 production, unfortunatelly it is not so easy. I know they were have to rebuild the electron beam chamber to produce the titanium backbone of the plane, and the engine seems to be produced in Ukrain when USSR was in existannce, so they had the documents but were have to redesign it,as they also did it with helicopter engines for Mi 8/24 etc, as they were all built at MotorSich in Zaporozhye region.
Why is B-21 a 6G plane and not a 5G or 5G+?
What makes it a different generation?
IR&Radar stealth, significantly improved range, manned& unmanned teaming/module. (To my understanding)
I have the slight impression that after 1990 all actually produced implementations designated as "bomber aircrafts" are practically outdated the moment they became operational. History suggests that all "mega" war tools (in their field of use) were actually useful as intimitading factors for a first blow or/and for brief period and that was all. War is a very complicated "job". Relying on a "super" weapon has proved rather optimistic so far. As technological exercises are undoubtably more than useful.
The first victim of high tech warfare...is high tech warfare itself.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Fortunately, with better high-tech comes better mid-tech.
engines for russian aircraft are ready? what engines would it use than? edit 5:21 wow thats old engine. i wonder if something more modern would be better something with higher bypass ratio
russian one would be huge...
About that south base in south America to be able to hit the USA Venezuela has a security agreement with Russia I believe they already have rotation of tu 144
America can neutralize any Venezuelan airbase pretty quickly. About time that murderous evil socialist dictatorship in Venezuela be destroyed, for the good of the Venezuela people.
No, they don't
@@junkookbts1273 yeah they do RT and fox and cnn had a snip of it about a year ago
@@lorenzoo90 no, they don't
@@lorenzoo90 there is no Russian military base in Vzla
7:57 makes one wonder why
Please allow me to compliment you on your tremendous achievements over the past many years. I have been an ardent follower of you and your channel, since its early inception, at which time, you were much less familiar with the spoken English language. The improvements you have since achieved are of the highest order, and are no longer of any possible consequence for any fan. I would go on to suggest that Lockheed Martin should hire you, in what ever capacity, for your skill set and breadth of knowledge in aerodynamics and avionics systems.
BRAVO!
Russia ain’t making didly.
The sad thing will be that we will probably never see the stealth bomber from Russia, unfortunately. I like the PAK-DA design, the renders look very promising (I know it's just CGI, but from the looks of the SU-57 etc. it's very likely that it would look like this). You may think what you want about Russia's politics, but they have always built beautiful aircraft.P erhaps their designs were more promising than their performance, but that still doesn't make them bad. Always show respect to your opponent. That is what distinguishes us from the animals.
That’s right…Think
It was already unlikely before the sanctions, the financial costs of the war et al…Now it looks nigh on impossible
I think and hope we might see a prototype, but certainly no series production.
They can (fortunately) barely produce the Su-57 as is and even calling that series production is almost a stretch.
Well they seem to be doing better than what the US government expected them to be at with sanctions but its still a blow to their budget and imports for now. Ive heard theyre trying to be self reliant on themselves so maybe that'll help them out in the future but for now they will probably be doing little advancements in the bomber
First ve mabye see PAK DA in testing phase second it's first time Russia training to build lov obzervble bomber it is difrent tan su 57
I'll be seriously surprised if a nation that's had stealth for over 3 decades doesn't have at least some research and development into identifying and tracking stealth aircraft... Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
There is some news of India planning on acquiring bombers. While I don't think we'll be making a stealth or regular bomber anytime soon. Buying some from the Americans or Russians is being discussed. India is in need of around 2 squadrons at the least I believe. We do have platforms like the Rafale, mirage and the jaguar for nuclear and conventional delivery, but a dedicated bomber fleet is still needed to bring parity against the Chinese.
Y’all want the H-6? Coming from a Chinese
Imao why bother, China doesn't even care about India
Gen 6 or Gen 5.5?
Gen 6 the b21 is way move advanced than the b2 everything is just different, different stealth coating different engines different shape different everything and it's unmanned or manned
@@Americaisgreat12 and why its 6?
@@Americaisgreat12 We know very little about the B-21 at this point and the B-2 is officially a third generation stealth aircraft (the SR-71 being the first gen, the F-117 being the second generation). What we do know is that there was no massive investment in leap ahead technology for it that would normally associate with a generational change. It appears to draw heavily on the systems developed at great cost of in both time time and money for the F-35.
It looks more like Fifth generation tech perfected, like we saw with the 4.5 and 4.5 generation aircraft of the nineties.
@@marktucker8896 I think you’re forgetting this is the US Air Force here. They will never allow a plane which isn’t leagues ahead of their previous planes to roll off the tarmac. Look at the B-2, there were basically no targets which it was needed to destroy yet it was still incredibly advanced. Now with more advanced opponents I don’t doubt that the USAF could settle with another 5th or 5.5th gen bomber. This is most definitely a 6th gen bomber.
@@Custodes_Veritatus what makes it gen 6? lol. revealing ceremony? lmao. it's just opening a new production line for more advanced and glorified b2 as it getting retired off the sky, because it's already shown how expensive it is to revive older production lines.
Americans - Hold My Beer !
Did someone say we did have something !!
US Congress - here’s $100 billion enjoy - oh yeah that’s every year just for this !!
Goodman brother
Wouldn't the US use it's naval assets with Aegis for defence against stealth?
The SPY-1 S-Band PESA Radar of the Ticonderoga class cruiser and flights one and two Arleigh Burke are supposedly not capable of easily detecting flying wing aircraft and have limitations against other stealth platforms. The AN/SPY-6 S-bwnd radar on Burke flight 3 and Constellation class frigate might do a better job as these are active electronic scanning arrays.
Ticonderoga class used to have the AN/SPS-49v8, which might allow them to detect stealth aircraft under the right circumstances. Most of our carriers also have this radar. But it dates back to the 1960s and I don't know how well it's been integrated into the Aegis system.
Many European countries use the Smart-L and derivatives which are AESA L Band radars and supposedly have some ability to detect flying wings. I really think we should have upgraded our carriers to have this but we completely rely on the E-2 Hawkeye.
I'll be curious to know how well the E-7 Wedgetail can't detect still aircraft with its modern L band array.
The US Navy is planning to purchase the
G550CAEW which is a Gulf stream business jet modified to carry the EL/W-2085 L-Band Radar and S-Band radar. Supposedly, these are just going to be used for missile tests, but I think they would be quite effective at detecting stealth aircraft.
there seems to be this tendency, where people take something the US did/does (as a standard, a reference) and then exaggerate everyone else's capabilities and abilities just to make a "comparison" "race" "competition" "rivalry", ... content.
Unfortunately TH-cam favours clickbaity titles. I am not very happy but I have to comply...
Bet they thought J20 then was a cgi too.
Why would you assume that all "stealth" is equal? Bad assumption.
Good chance PAK DA may not even see the light of day…Moreover, IF the discussion point is the range along, pretty sure Tu-160 can also get close
Enough to North America to launch cruise missiles
Yes, but it is not stealth
@@Millennium7HistoryTech true…though how stealthy PAK DA will end up being is also…debatable?
Well, people keep learning, and there are physical limits that can be surpassed... I guess we will see.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech indeed, though both financial resources and sanctions on critical components seem to spell bad news for the PAK-DA program thus far
Tu-160s what ? How can they get close to North America ? By way of the North pole ? That's the only way
Does Otis also pronounce the second b in bomber? 😉
Tell Otis the second "B" is silent in American.
@@sirsmeal3192 actually it is English.
"What the ### is a kilometre" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1.6 miles!
The US system is based on the metric system at a ratio of 2 to one.
@@Delgen1951 0.62 miles ..... check any car speedometer: 100kph = 62 mph ...... but 1.6 km = 1 mi.
The civilised world standard.
One of my favourite memes on the internet
Interesting speculation.
Arguably, there other - already developed means - to deliver _strategic_ , conventional surprise strikes upon US territory like *_orbital glide bombing_* at hypersonic speed e.g. from the direction of the South Pole, literally 'under the RADAR' of NORAD.
Long range bombers may well serve as cruise missile carriers, reminiscent of strategic submarines within 'a naval bastion' - difficult to track, delivering retaliatory strikes into the Arctic, Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific - or supporting ground operations.
Bro; so what? US$20K Teheran drones redefined the Zussia Wukelan war; the way Exocet ASMs redefined the Falklands War & beyond back in 1982. FORTY years ago. Moral of story, one B21 bomber won't change the game.
Pak-da exist only on paper. China is the one we have to worry about.
Define we...
People like to throw these nonsense terms around without defining them. What is a sixth generation bomber? There were no previous generations of bombers because the concept of bombers having generations never existed before but suddenly the B-21 is a sixth generation bomber for reasons? Progress in bomber development has been almost continuous since 1913. A lot of modern bombers aren't meant to drop bombs at all. Now we're capable of throwing pallets of precision guided cruise missiles out of ordinary transport planes and hitting targets hundreds of miles away. What generation bomber is the C-130?
Great video, i hope you make a video about southamerica (Argentina in particular
There are a lot of operations against the relationship betweem Argentina and China. First one being a deep space base,with the same characteristics as one that the EU already has here, and idiots call it "military base".
Now we have a competiton for buying a new fighter which is between jf17 and f16.
We are making a logistics base in the south (Ushuahia) for our operations in Antarctica, it is said that China wants to finance it but i cant find anything clear, to me it looks like fear mongering. And of all places, Ushuaia doesnt make sense as a base to operate bombers, its literally the southern most city in the world
I think it would be good if you did an article on the SU 57 being used in Ukraine as its becoming increasingly apparent, the SU 57 is the 1st gen 5 aircraft that has taken out a fighter aircraft of an adversary. With their long range air to air missiles.
What an accomplishment... do Ukrainian fighter jets even have Fox 3 missiles ?
@@artiefakt4402 war isn't about a fair duel. A kill is a kill, from an engineering perspective, as well as from a commander's perspective.
And from a commander's perspective, even a plane that isn't shot down can be a mission kill (as explained in another video on this channel).
Only from a war planner's perspective it may be different, if the fox 3 is more expensive than the target. But that is virtually never the case for a manned plane.
@@artiefakt4402 By this logic, do you think the F-15s 105-0 record isn't an accomplishment because they didn't go up against other 4th gen aircraft?
Yeah, cool, though its not at all performing in the role it is superior to the f-22 in, aerial dogfighting. If you are talking Long-range kills, the F-22 will see first, acquire target first, score the kill and probably get away before being detected. Though playing a game of chicken with an airframe you barely have more than a dozen of and has your most cutting edge tech, that is a bit iffy to me. Seems like Russia wants propaganda wins.
@@wodenbyers2593 Quite a tortured way to say: USA number one no matter WHAT.
B2 fleet is grounded due to crashes.
So, the Russians and Chinese are close to where the American Air Force was in the eighties. Good for them, I guess.
Still puuushing your Algorithm!😉
Why can’t they restart modernized f22
They can… But it’s too expensive at this point. It’s makes more sense to make new fighters. That will surpass the F-22. Hence the F-22 should have never been pulled out of production.
I'm a bit skeptical on a Russian bomber with reasonable stealth characteristics, the 76 or so Su57 are being delivered in the single digit unit per year, we are talking about an airplane that is an order of magnitude more complicated, plus the semiconductors aren't there for russia (it's biggest Weak point bar none)
I would disagree on that. They have reasonable amount of experience on stealth aircraft at this point(Su 57 and S 70), experience that they can directly use in designing a stealth bomber. S 70 is also a flying wing design, a very important aspect of modern stealth bomber design. As for the delivery, it doesn’t entirely rely on their technical prowess but also their industrial capacity and even their economy (Russia is 2 trillion economy and their aircraft production rate isn’t far away from other 2 trillion economies). The whole Russian semiconductor thing is just a myth, born from their lack of presence in the commercial semiconductor space but the reality is, they do have ample capacity is producing semiconductor for military use, otherwise, Su-57, S-70 and even Su-35 wouldn’t have been a reality.
"plus the semiconductors aren't there for russia"
even the most advanced aircrafts only have very little actual electronics on them. An F35s computer is less powerfull than a 2 year old midrange PC. They have just too different requirements, but the manufacturing of semiconductors is not a problem.
@@aswinottapilavil495 No, semiconductors under 90 nanometers are out of the reach of even their most advanced fabs, and remember the Su57 is covered with radar absorbing paint, no Ram integrated into the skin, have you ever seen a Russian made car, they sure do the work but the finish quality eghhh....
@@amzalkamel3009 100nm chip is small for a plane. Software matters more and they won’t make that
@@LOL-zu1zr depends on what part in a plane ......we are seeing the results in Ukraine man ...we see the results
I just do not understand your optimism in regards to soviet or chinese airplane design. Just remember in 50`s myasishchev designs, tu-144 design, tu-22 (any mods) in comparison to their western counterparts, or just promises attached to them. I am more than sure that it is still the same song 70 years later. What is giving me the conviction? rusians, they do not have modern power plants for the aircrafts. They are just resuscitating engine designs from 70`s. And almighty china? They cant even properly copy those... But that is not even the biggest laughing point: Where is rusian air force right now? Why there are not red star planes over Kyiv? Not because of the planes (tactical part) but because the state of entire rusian military (strategy).
5:54 🤣🤣🤣
What do you think of the lower lift to drag wing proposed by Albion Bowers? Do you think this is viable for a flying wing bomber with extra range?
th-cam.com/video/bCwtcDNB15E/w-d-xo.html
Why are there people who don't like otis...he's too important and precious
B-21 is 5th generation not 6th.
Incorrect. The B21 is said to have next gen stealth which absorbs all radar frequencies including that low band frequencies the S400 and S500 claim to be able to track but have never demonstrated. This new stealth coating is also said to include thermal control which which will make the aircraft near invisible to (infrared)IRST. That's why the B21 stealth coating is lighter color.
@@hillbillysceptic1982 not true. that would violate the laws of physics. don't be a retard
Like with the other russian "high tech" projects like armata and pak-fa their new pak-da is just boasting on paper. And like with armata and pak-fa, we might see one or two pak-da planes for propaganda and their real capabilities against western or chinese counterparts are pure trash.
Your range estimations are for a one way trip...
No, two ways, there is some confusion, I already replied to this in a few other comments.
The premise that the US is protected by oceans is ridiculous. Both China and Russia have nuclear submarines that patrol the coast lines of North America and can launch way more cruise missiles than a bomber ever will. And of course we are not even talking about submarine drones that are going to become a big issue in this decade.
Good point
It's protected from invasion though. Sure a potential enemy could destroy infrastructure and fixed targets but not much more than that
@@alexdunphy3716 US will think many times going to war if its enemy can destroy its nuclear submarine bases or electric power plants or the military industrial complex plants. Essentially Russia and China want to have conventional weapons deterance power besides nuclear deterance.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Reply just shows how bias you are. The clown above claims that America the nation that has been building defenses from submarines for decade don't know if there are nuclear submarines along their coast. Just say next time "I'm bias so please don't watch me of you want unbias viewpoint".
Russia doesnt seem to be in the power projection business as much as the u.s is. And thats a good thing. So they wouldnt have a need for too many stealth bombers
7:14 , I can't believe you fell for those fake news, there's no Chinese military naval base in Ushuaia (a city that's in the southern extreme of Argentina, BTW), and there will never be. If the US and western hemisphere is soooo concerned, they can do what China does: come to invest and offer a better deal for the construction of the port. As simple as that.
We need a new fighter, we wanted FA-50 LIFT, *blocked*, the US offers those battered Danish F-16s trash, we're gonna buy JF-17 then. Just offer a better deal.
Please leave Tinker field off your list
Please allow me to disagree on the status of US bases. In all cases, Russia and China have been systematically boxed in by the US, with the tacit approval of all concerned, except or the potential adversary of course. In the European theatre, by NATO and further afield by the various islands or harbours of widely spread elements. The advantage of this, is a limited concentration of weaponry for both defence and attack of allied aircraft and naval vessels. It should bare little influence on the decisions made by ourselves and our allies, of course, if we make our potential adversaries uncomfortable militarily. For that is the very objective. We are not bobbing for apples, for god’s sake.
So, can we also talk how USA would attack Russia and China in the same way
Sure. Now USA is ahead in offensive terms (even though the numbers will be small till the B-21 enters service) but China and Russia have deployed during the years several systems to mitigate the risk. How effective, let's hope we will never find out.
@Millennium 7 * HistoryTech I was talking more about how would USA attack Russia or China, like how would USA use it bases and alliances? Similar to how you show chine or Russia would use it
@@Millennium7HistoryTech If the Russia is benchmark of top of the line air defense system then the Ukraine war show that it is not very effective. offensive still over match defense.
@@jimc1654 We haven't been shown that western air defenses are any better with how many missiles are flyinf through
But i dont see russia building too many of them. China might
1 KM IS .66 OF A MILE.
The chinese aircraft looks like the aircraft they used in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". 😆
I think you are buying into the PR Hype about the B21, Stealth and it's ability to penetrate an opponents air space. Think of the B21 as modern more affordable and maintainable replacement for the aging B2. Improved LO characteristics give the B21 more options. With the advent of the new Stealth Strategic Cruise missile penetrate enemy air space is not necessary.
@@piotrd.4850 I was thinking more strategic not tactical.
missile range can be extended with a bomber
Maybe Israelis could help USA with stealth air defence technology.
I would be surprised if the United States didn't have satellites that can see everything that flies and render stealth useless.
From my understanding, the US has new ceramic coatings that not only absorb the low band freqs. the S400 and S500 claim able to track, but can also change the tempeature of the skin to fool infrared tracking as well. They have also touted holographic heat emitters to confuse heat seekers. It's hard to think China and Russia have serious competitors when neither have produced any full aspect stealth aircraft at all. They may be low observable from the front but nothing they have produced should lead to the reckless speculation that can even make an aircraft with comparable capabilities. I'm sure they'll be able to fly and look cool though.
Yeah time lag of like 5 mins, good luck finding a jet from its location 5 min ago.
B2.1 is gonna be just another fail35 with it's "modularity"
Since when was the f35 a faliure
@@godhimself478 To some extent before the induction of XA100
Point to the doll where the bad man touched you 😂😂😂😂😂
@@godhimself478 F-35 is a multirole foreign-trade fighter for lower intensity conflict.How powerful do you want a Swiss army knife to be?
@@izana6179 F-35 is not for lower-intensity.