Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet? Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified! But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)? And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night. It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right? They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars. Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a UA-cam video? Absolutely nothing!
Not the prototype, but a scale model, and it was in 1980. Northrop had not yet won the program, and construction on the prototype (which was also the first production plane) wouldn't begin for another few years, and it wasn't completed until 1987 or 1988.
@@JarrodFratesTHATS BECUSE PRESEDENT DONALD J TRUMP WASNT IN PRESEDENT ONLY PRESEDENT TRUMP CAN PROTECT AMERICA GOD BLESS U PRESEDENT TRUMP ✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️✝️✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️
6:40 Parasitic drag is a combination of skin friction drag and form drag. Change in shape only affects form, whilst increase in surface area changes skin friction drag. Induced drag only occurs when lift is generated. There is also wave drag as the in transonic and supersonic speeds.
He also made another blunder @2:44 converting the RCS to imperial: He said 0.0001 meters = 0.15 in (which's 50x the actual 0.003 inches). 0.0001 meters = 1/10th of a mm. Anyone familiar w metric should've caught that. (I'd also mentioned the drag mistake 2 weeks ago also). 🙂
Just one small addition: The efficiency gains are not only due to the lack of a tail assembly. In normal aircraft, the fuselage is basically a pipe which only creates drag and no lift. By blending wings and body into one shape, the fuselage also creates lift.
Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.
However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.
@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth. Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.
They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.
Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.
Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now
Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)
Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.
this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that? B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway?? your story makes zero sense.
@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well. i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂
@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does. A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
It is not hard to design a stable tailless flying wing; the YB49 was exactly that. You just need adequate wing sweep with long enough wings that the centre of lift remains behind the centre of gravity. The B21 has relaxed stability (ie unstable aerodynamically but the computer keeps it flying) because relaxed stability brings other advantages - notably shorter wings plus agility.
Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.
Detecting is far easier than tracking which is what you need to target the object. If you mix up LOAs with 4th gens the adversary may detect the LOA - possibly- but they can DEFINITELY track and engage the 4th gens. This creates engagement prioritisation conflicts which helps the whole package. I refer you to Prof Justin Bronk of RUSI.
There are both advantages and disadvantages with nuclear submarines. The disdavantages include higher cost to purchase, higher cost to operate, larger size, larger crew, more noisy, the inability, do hide on the sea floor or run to close to the sea floor (because the cooling of the reactor could suck up sediments) and the submarine being possible to detect, via the nuclear isotopes and hydrogen that it dumps into the sea. The avantages is greater (but noisy) speed for longer transits, greater endurance, and that they never needs to get close to the surface. So nuclear submarines are relatively more useful for nations with global commitments, and nations that need to escort aircraft carriers. D/E-subs are relatively more useful for nations that needs to operate closer to port and/or in shallow waters.
It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few. Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?
@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.
FUN FACT: during ww2 germany tried to produce a flying wing design called the horton ho229 now there was supposed to be a bigger brother from it but they had the same problems as usa and at the end of the war it was never used and they used their new jet engines for it.
I used to help maintain the N9MB flying wing at the Planes of Fame Museum in the late 90s early 2000s. I remember the pilot saying that yaw wasn't the biggest problem with flying wings. It was pitch. Flying wings have a tendency to want to flip like a coin. The N9MB crashed killing the pilot in 2019 because of what they suspect was uncrotrolled pitch.
@@cwf_media9200 even the YB-49 flew without stabilizer… the problem was the lack of technology from both sides. hence, it was both a piece of shite. decades later, the Americans finally perfected it.
I've seen them do low flyovers multiple times at the Rose Parade. When they're flying head-on, they're surprisingly quiet. Most of the time, without checking the timing, we wouldn't have known it was even coming until it passed over us. Only once it had gone past (and from the side as it banked) were we able to finally hear the roar of the engines. Incredible aircraft.
I came here to check by Google advertisement saying that's B2 bomber have upgraded to have a sub machine gun hidden in secret for any case 😅🎉❤ Oh 😱 sorry 😐 My reading in Google advertisements took a wrong concept 😅😢🎉
Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.
Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend. Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.
@@roo72 Yes, well, the Americans would most probably have studied it for potential advantages, but indeed, the flying wing concept was already well known and used by Jack Northrop and others. Still, the Horten 229 was about to be put into service, if it were not for the war going to an end then.
I wonder if tails decrease efficiency just because they increase drag or also because stabilizers usually have a negative lift. Moreover, I wonder if B2, B21 or in general long-range stealth airplanes could carry air-to-air missiles to take at least part of fighters' role or if that isn't a good idea, as it is better to use stealth bombers to destroy anti-aircraft systems and air bases and leave the rest of the job to stealth fighters or conventional planes.
@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.
@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended. Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.
@@NotWhatYouThink ah hell nah it will sound very strange speaking with the normal Arabic accents there are hundreds of Arabic accents and if I hear a different one I get annoyed and start laughing English is good
The problem with flying wings is they cannot utilize high-lift flaps on the trailing edge, else they will simply pitch nose down and crash. This means they have low maximum loft coefficients, so their maximum lift over minimum drag (Not max L/D, but Lmax/Dmin) is comparable to other conventional aircraft. Said another way, they need a lot larger wing area to depart at the same gross weight with the same engines. Therefore it is a larger aircraft with larger wing drag than otherwise would be. This is offset by the lack of stabilizer and fuselage drag. But the two types are not significantly different in absolute terms.
I'm convinced that the primary reason we don't travel in blended fuse/wing aircraft is the psychological shock to travelers. Their construction presents no special challenges.
Actually, the RCS of an aircraft depends on its aspect to the radar and the wavelength of that radar. The Israelis found that their "stealthy" F-35s were being illuminated by the Iranian S-400 system which is why they had to launch their weapons from a large distance away causing minimal damage.
The title is clickbait. It does not explain why flying wings are not suitable for commercial use. It explain the military flying wings history instead.😤
@@NotWhatYouThink a small portion of video is about commercial planes. most of the video is about military planes. For just two minutes of knowledge, you have to watch 15 minutes unnecessary detail. Unefficient way of storytelling :(
@@NotWhatYouThink You neglected mention of things like Burnelli planes, which were un-blended lifting fuselage bodies with extra wings and tails. None of the supposed issues preventing lifting fuselage bodies apply, and like the '70s Boeing model 754 get extra range and payload. If for military or cargo use, there's no issues with passengers. Everyone who has looked at the BWB or lifting fuselage says it can have less wetted area and drag, and less structure mass than normal planes, and can be built with entirely contemporary materials and avionics and get better range and payload and there will be no problems if carrying passengers, in evacuating them. Everyone from McD and Boeing, to Lock-Mart to NASA, to Airbus to Russavia and TsAGI all have published so. Yet "content creators" repeat the busted objections, while talking as if the only "flying wing" option is the completely tail-less. See the many things called "flying wings" by the media hype term in history which debunk all the usual objections against them (all of which are either fallacious and/or known to not apply). The 1936 Kharkov KhAI-3 busted all the reasons given for civil and passenger planes. To not be fuselage -less and partially tail-less. This is tabloid level reporting, re-hashing the common social media ignorance about the topic. It's also blatant military porn and advertising propaganda for the military industrial complex. The reason we don't see them, is because Boeing has a burr up where the sun doesn't shine and has stated that despite the superiority they will never build to the lifting fuselage body for a civil or logistics plane. Marketing execs who are ignorant of aeronautics say that passengers won't want to fly in something that looks funny, and that's it. We ignore easy ways to gain instant high double digits in efficiency. See the Frigate Ecojet see the Boeing 754, the Burnelli RB-2 and CBY-3 . See the recent Lock-Mart "Hybrid wing-body" logistics plane. By their published numbers, significantly greater range and payload into smaller runways compared to a "normal" plane, and entirely conventional materials and avionics and handling. Hear the resounding silence in return, and the fixation on military stealth as if a "flying wing" is only good for that
13:40 what do you mean by flying wings don't use the primary portion of their body to generate lift? I was under the impression that the entire body made lift
To whom it may be interesting, the first public announcement of making the bomber was in 1980. The first public appearance was in 1989. But it had been developed and had been being used for years before that. As a matter of fact, great britain used one of our bombers to bomb military targets in the falklands around 1983... Cool stuff. Its either the longest single bombing run ir the second longest. With refueling of course, but without touching the ground. It went there and back in one trip.
Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
vids 8 mins ago this comment is an hour, how? 😟
@@AFG.1youtube lets you schedule when videos go live, even if they are fully uploaded already
@@misterperson3469 ohh makes sense thanks
I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet?
Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified!
But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)?
And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night.
It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR?
They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57.
They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings.
The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right?
They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system.
Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR.
Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky).
The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including...
Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a UA-cam video?
Absolutely nothing!
I thought they weren't invisible on radar... that it makes it impossible for counter measures to get a lock on the target to fire.
"The future of military aviation will, without a doubt, be very triangle-shaped" lol I love this channel
"Comrade, that bee is flying at Mach 2. Is that normal?"
Isn't the B2 a subsonic plane?
“Ah, yes comrade, bees fly at mach 2 around here all the time. For some reason though, every time they do, our stuff starts to explode.”
Only Tu-160 can reach that speed, not B-2
Top speed of the B2 is Mach 0.95. You don’t need speed when you’re invisible.
@@bettyswallocks6411 it was a joke my guy
Jack Northrop was fortunate to see the B-2 prototype before he passed away.
Not the prototype, but a scale model, and it was in 1980. Northrop had not yet won the program, and construction on the prototype (which was also the first production plane) wouldn't begin for another few years, and it wasn't completed until 1987 or 1988.
@@JarrodFratesTHATS BECUSE PRESEDENT DONALD J TRUMP WASNT IN PRESEDENT ONLY PRESEDENT TRUMP CAN PROTECT AMERICA GOD BLESS U PRESEDENT TRUMP ✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️✝️✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️
@@VladimirPutin-p3twhat are you on about?
Grumman
@user-zb9lv3gh8s 😂😂
6:40 Parasitic drag is a combination of skin friction drag and form drag. Change in shape only affects form, whilst increase in surface area changes skin friction drag. Induced drag only occurs when lift is generated. There is also wave drag as the in transonic and supersonic speeds.
He also made another blunder @2:44 converting the RCS to imperial:
He said 0.0001 meters = 0.15 in (which's 50x the actual 0.003 inches).
0.0001 meters = 1/10th of a mm. Anyone familiar w metric should've caught that.
(I'd also mentioned the drag mistake 2 weeks ago also). 🙂
Just one small addition: The efficiency gains are not only due to the lack of a tail assembly. In normal aircraft, the fuselage is basically a pipe which only creates drag and no lift. By blending wings and body into one shape, the fuselage also creates lift.
Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.
However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.
@@luther0013 Indeed.
@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth.
Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.
@@marcondespaulo if your invisible what does it matter if you move slower than an iceberg.
They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.
Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.
Say that like it's a bad thing... maybe I want the roller-coaster experience..
There are private jets.
Not just that, but it would be nearly impossible to meet the emergency exit requirements.
Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now
Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)
Bro u explain so good!! I know more about military stuff then I know about anything in school! Love u bro
*than
@@Rotorhead1651 the irony xD
@@Rotorhead1651 be nice to the kid
Glad you enjoy our stuff!
@@Rotorhead1651 XD see? I told u I know better about military stuff THAN school.
Let's be honest here. Despite most people not liking the movie, "Stealth" was ahead of its time. I know I still enjoy it when I watch
That was a fun one still own the DVD
F-37 Talon design soo good that it became reason i like to play ace combat❤. I wish i can build detailed model of it
Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.
is it does lines on the tarmac that i've seen on military airfields? the description is the same I believe just want to know if i saw the in person.
this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that?
B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway??
your story makes zero sense.
@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well.
i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂
@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.
@@syntactyx my previous reply above this one answers your question.
“… or a bumble bee.” - Puts up picture of honey bee.
Grandpa Buff is never going away.
It's getting upgraded with new engines and radar.
It will never be useful either
@@MaticTheProto Found the Russian 😂
@@bigchungus1848 nah. You also wouldn't ride a horse to war nowadays
@@MaticTheProtoYou would. B52 may get old, but it is THE MOST terrifying bomber EVER. B52 is forever
My favorite fact about flying wings is that Northrup (the guy) was able to see the B2’s first flight
Jack Northrop died 8 years before the first flight of the B-2.
He only was able to see the concept plane after getting special clearance
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
Vertical stabilisers drag and "turn" capabilities should also be re-considered ;)
16:10 Highly doubt it. Grandpa Buff will outlive them all.
Huh, a man of culture.
The Buff is eternal.
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does.
A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
Lift surfaces produce drag, so if you can use fuselage to produce part of the lift itself, you can reduce wing size, thus reducing total drag.
Like how the B2 looks like an eagle from the side
i'd say it looks more like a falcon while diving, a lot of modern aircraft are inspired by bird shapes
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
Yea… cuz it was literally inspired by falcons. It’s supposed to mimic their shape
Awesome B2 footage. Great video thank u.
Thanks for sharing guys!
"How does the flying wing stay stable in flight without a tail?"
"That's the neat part. You don't!"
It is not hard to design a stable tailless flying wing; the YB49 was exactly that. You just need adequate wing sweep with long enough wings that the centre of lift remains behind the centre of gravity. The B21 has relaxed stability (ie unstable aerodynamically but the computer keeps it flying) because relaxed stability brings other advantages - notably shorter wings plus agility.
@kenoliver8913 it was a joke.
Another excellent video covering the subject from a-z 😊
Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.
B-52 will remain in service as long as the Air Force continues to operate.
I clearly remember the Bone being developed by the Ronald Regan presidency. I was in grade 3 and it was broadcast on Canadian national tv.
RCS size depends on what typ of radar band you use...
Thanks, I love what you do
Detecting is far easier than tracking which is what you need to target the object. If you mix up LOAs with 4th gens the adversary may detect the LOA - possibly- but they can DEFINITELY track and engage the 4th gens.
This creates engagement prioritisation conflicts which helps the whole package.
I refer you to Prof Justin Bronk of RUSI.
@6:12 be careful what you say 😂😂 that was said for so many planes 🤣
Interesting Video.THX-🇺🇸
Very nice discription
There are both advantages and disadvantages with nuclear submarines. The disdavantages include higher cost to purchase, higher cost to operate, larger size, larger crew, more noisy, the inability, do hide on the sea floor or run to close to the sea floor (because the cooling of the reactor could suck up sediments) and the submarine being possible to detect, via the nuclear isotopes and hydrogen that it dumps into the sea. The avantages is greater (but noisy) speed for longer transits, greater endurance, and that they never needs to get close to the surface. So nuclear submarines are relatively more useful for nations with global commitments, and nations that need to escort aircraft carriers. D/E-subs are relatively more useful for nations that needs to operate closer to port and/or in shallow waters.
Thanks for explaining unit cost.
It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few.
Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?
@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.
Yooo *this* is Awesome! The B2 🤘
FUN FACT: during ww2 germany tried to produce a flying wing design called the horton ho229 now there was supposed to be a bigger brother from it but they had the same problems as usa and at the end of the war it was never used and they used their new jet engines for it.
I hope so, they look absolutely beautiful
I think you used the wrong clip in the beginning. I only see a United 777...
Su57 “stealth fighter” it doesn’t have a radar cross section, it’s got a zip code
"I can see why God kept me alive all these years" is the most wholsome thing a person said said while looking at machine of mass death
I used to help maintain the N9MB flying wing at the Planes of Fame Museum in the late 90s early 2000s. I remember the pilot saying that yaw wasn't the biggest problem with flying wings. It was pitch. Flying wings have a tendency to want to flip like a coin. The N9MB crashed killing the pilot in 2019 because of what they suspect was uncrotrolled pitch.
Can we give every USAF aircraft job to the F15? That thing doesn't need stealth, we saw it survive without a wing
Dorito is also making a comeback with the aerospace industry
not gonna lie, that echo bit was a nice touch
Excellent work, as always! It's a shame the USAF doesn't let you tour their planes like the Navy did. :)
It’s just a matter of time 😁
@@NotWhatYouThink I hope I'll be here to see it when that day comes! :)
If you think about it: these videos are essentially big military Q&A’s
when comes a ho229 video? you always mention yb49 but overlook ho229
Nevwr hopefully. Can't say a thing about flying wing without hoerton brother's sympathisers claiming how hoertons were first with that desing...
@@CharlieH99 Well it was so duh. It flew without a tail stabilizer it was straight up better no sympathy needed
@@cwf_media9200 even the YB-49 flew without stabilizer… the problem was the lack of technology from both sides. hence, it was both a piece of shite. decades later, the Americans finally perfected it.
@@lazerbeamAndCo it has fins
To stabilize it
I saw a B-2 when I was hiking one day, it was flying pretty low and you could hear it from a while away.
I've seen them do low flyovers multiple times at the Rose Parade. When they're flying head-on, they're surprisingly quiet. Most of the time, without checking the timing, we wouldn't have known it was even coming until it passed over us. Only once it had gone past (and from the side as it banked) were we able to finally hear the roar of the engines. Incredible aircraft.
Nothing can replace the BUFF.
Except a bigger buff
Except itself
Its a shame you didn't mention the Horton in the video
I love this guy’s voice!
It’s like a Simpson’s construct of a far Eastern Charles Bronson.
Superb.
Stealth + range = strange, which is what the B-2 and B21 are.
We need this... as an airliner. Probably doesn't need to be stealthy so stick a tail rudder for extra stability at expense of some drag?
You say YB-49 ..
I say .. why not?
I came here to check by Google advertisement saying that's B2 bomber have upgraded to have a sub machine gun hidden in secret for any case 😅🎉❤
Oh 😱 sorry 😐
My reading in Google advertisements took a wrong concept 😅😢🎉
Props though for your description of stealth technology
O like the soundtrack - it reminds of the cool no BS shows of the late 90s.
The radar cross section is due to geometry, but not in the way indicated.
It is more related to invisibility than reflection!
Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.
just a theory but maybe he wanted to focus in bombers wing shaped
Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend.
Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.
@@roo72 Yes, well, the Americans would most probably have studied it for potential advantages, but indeed, the flying wing concept was already well known and used by Jack Northrop and others. Still, the Horten 229 was about to be put into service, if it were not for the war going to an end then.
Wasn't stealthy when tested by Smithsonian and others post war ...
We are on the cutting edge of the triangle.
B2: Refuels
The russians 100 miles away: "Why is there a flying christmas tree?"
What do you mean, ultimate stealth machine? It's right there!
Where?
I wonder if tails decrease efficiency just because they increase drag or also because stabilizers usually have a negative lift.
Moreover, I wonder if B2, B21 or in general long-range stealth airplanes could carry air-to-air missiles to take at least part of fighters' role or if that isn't a good idea, as it is better to use stealth bombers to destroy anti-aircraft systems and air bases and leave the rest of the job to stealth fighters or conventional planes.
“ATC,why is there a bee going Mach 0.95?”
“Its normal,there’s a lot of speedy bees over here. Tho stuff below them keep blowing up for some reason.”
how did a 17 minute video about flying wings not mention the horten Ho 129 or Ho 229, The grand parents of all flying wings
Because the grandfather of all flying wings is jack northrop. His first flying wing flew in 1929.
@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.
@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended.
Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.
@@USMC6169 and yet, I can't find a single trace online to verify.
including the Horton brothers contributions
6:40 did we just get a hand reveal of the person behind NWYT?
Hand reveal?
We are already at back reveal. You need to checkout our recent videos 😁
Please provide more videos that support the Arabic voice translation feature
Did you find the Arabic voice quality acceptable?
@@NotWhatYouThink Not the best, but acceptable
@@NotWhatYouThink ah hell nah it will sound very strange speaking with the normal Arabic accents
there are hundreds of Arabic accents and if I hear a different one I get annoyed and start laughing
English is good
The problem with flying wings is they cannot utilize high-lift flaps on the trailing edge, else they will simply pitch nose down and crash.
This means they have low maximum loft coefficients, so their maximum lift over minimum drag (Not max L/D, but Lmax/Dmin) is comparable to other conventional aircraft. Said another way, they need a lot larger wing area to depart at the same gross weight with the same engines. Therefore it is a larger aircraft with larger wing drag than otherwise would be. This is offset by the lack of stabilizer and fuselage drag. But the two types are not significantly different in absolute terms.
Edit, the Iranian flying wing drones are already armed. Even some propeller driven drones have some small bombs
Please do a video on the manta ray from DARPA. Still being developed.
I'm convinced that the primary reason we don't travel in blended fuse/wing aircraft is the psychological shock to travelers. Their construction presents no special challenges.
God... Where do you GET some of these videos... I swear some of these feel classified.
Finding great footage is once of the things we are good it … and no, none of it is classified :-)
Love how the planes from Stealth are always thought to be the 6th gen fighters
Actually, the RCS of an aircraft depends on its aspect to the radar and the wavelength of that radar. The Israelis found that their "stealthy" F-35s were being illuminated by the Iranian S-400 system which is why they had to launch their weapons from a large distance away causing minimal damage.
The title is clickbait. It does not explain why flying wings are not suitable for commercial use. It explain the military flying wings history instead.😤
We do explain it, if you watch the whole video :-)
@@NotWhatYouThink a small portion of video is about commercial planes. most of the video is about military planes. For just two minutes of knowledge, you have to watch 15 minutes unnecessary detail. Unefficient way of storytelling :(
@@NotWhatYouThink
You neglected mention of things like Burnelli planes, which were un-blended lifting fuselage bodies with extra wings and tails.
None of the supposed issues preventing lifting fuselage bodies apply, and like the '70s Boeing model 754 get extra range and payload.
If for military or cargo use, there's no issues with passengers.
Everyone who has looked at the BWB or lifting fuselage says it can have less wetted area and drag, and less structure mass than normal planes, and can be built with entirely contemporary materials and avionics and get better range and payload and there will be no problems if carrying passengers, in evacuating them.
Everyone from McD and Boeing, to Lock-Mart to NASA, to Airbus to Russavia and TsAGI all have published so.
Yet "content creators" repeat the busted objections, while talking as if the only "flying wing" option is the completely tail-less.
See the many things called "flying wings" by the media hype term in history which debunk all the usual objections against them (all of which are either fallacious and/or known to not apply).
The 1936 Kharkov KhAI-3 busted all the reasons given for civil and passenger planes. To not be fuselage -less and partially tail-less.
This is tabloid level reporting, re-hashing the common social media ignorance about the topic. It's also blatant military porn and advertising propaganda for the military industrial complex.
The reason we don't see them, is because Boeing has a burr up where the sun doesn't shine and has stated that despite the superiority they will never build to the lifting fuselage body for a civil or logistics plane.
Marketing execs who are ignorant of aeronautics say that passengers won't want to fly in something that looks funny, and that's it.
We ignore easy ways to gain instant high double digits in efficiency.
See the Frigate Ecojet see the Boeing 754, the Burnelli RB-2 and CBY-3 .
See the recent Lock-Mart "Hybrid wing-body" logistics plane.
By their published numbers, significantly greater range and payload into smaller runways compared to a "normal" plane, and entirely conventional materials and avionics and handling. Hear the resounding silence in return, and the fixation on military stealth as if a "flying wing" is only good for that
Looks like Flying Doritos are a thing now… so what’s next? More flying Doritos? 😂
You take that back. Grandpa buff is forever
13:40 what do you mean by flying wings don't use the primary portion of their body to generate lift? I was under the impression that the entire body made lift
It was exactly what I thought this time.
12:55 Blended wing body is not a new idea it's already been used decades ago in the Avro Vulkan
With the range of surface to air missiles ever increasing , you need something able to get close without being seen till its too long
the hand outside the window is Not What You Think!😂
Awesome
Make a video on how many aircraft the US lostin Vietnam
The answer starts in 12:08
"by it's shape and it's geometry"?
The geometry IS the shape.
It is what you think.
Genuine question, why does NWYT constantly change the tieles of his vids? He releases a video and a day later it's got a different name.
the first time i heard of the B2 i was like "Ok?" and didnt think of anything unusual
Perhaps Radar Signals could be severely jammed via Drones transmitting Radar signals in the opposite Direction.
To whom it may be interesting, the first public announcement of making the bomber was in 1980. The first public appearance was in 1989. But it had been developed and had been being used for years before that. As a matter of fact, great britain used one of our bombers to bomb military targets in the falklands around 1983... Cool stuff. Its either the longest single bombing run ir the second longest. With refueling of course, but without touching the ground. It went there and back in one trip.
Where is the virtical stabilizer
Kind to think of it,it kinda looks like a piece of a boomerang broken in half
I wonder what the pilot is trained to do if the stealth bomber completely shuts down/stops working until it hits the ground.
*The worlds fastest and most efficient birds are basically just Flying Wings, 'The Birds Of Pray'*
Why not build a B2 refueling tanker? Which is a stealth tanker too
Next-Generation Air Refueling System program, also known as KC-Z, aims to replace KC-46 and KC-135 tankers with a stealth tanker in the 2030s.
Damn those WWII flying bombers are cool as F.
What is the neglected side ?
A bumblebee sized object travelling at 400mph and 50000ft for arguments sake is unlikely to be anything other than a stealth aircraft right?
Me realizing that in a totally global nuclear apocalypse, only nuclear submarines and a few navy vessels (and their crews) would survive.
Maybe these should be the new stealth tanker for the B21😮