It has half the payload, but it comes at 25% the cost of the B2 in 2022 dollars. So, for the same cost ($2 billion), you get double the payload, and 4 times the planes, which makes the platform a lot more expendable.
Now by golly your thinking. Gee Nick, how... did you make this so fast? Thats the wrong question. Rather... how did I get such an accurate 3d model for a plane no one has seen? ;) How do I get any of my information? Thats why you come here, thats the Found and Explained difference ;)
@@FoundAndExplained it was my whole food for the day man 😭 Why didn't you even ask first that was the only food I could afford for the rest of the week
@@FoundAndExplained the Raider replaces the spirit but not the lancer and the stratofortress according to Wikipedia the B-21 will enter service by 2026
I can’t wait to see NGAD. Also, I wonder if the B-21 could conceivably carry a bunch of AIM-260’s and fly in formation with networked 4th and 5th Gen fighters. So instead of Raptor having 6 BVR missiles, they could now fire dozens from someone else’s plane, missile-truck style
I believe that in terms of AAMs, the F-15EX is what will more often take up the mantle of missile truck. B21 is likely to carry mostly cruise missiles and such.
America is completely screwed and they know it. China is soon to be the world's #1 superpower. Apparently, there is no one smart enough in America to counter the threat. China has not only successfully stolen America's military technology they have improved it. The downfall of America comes from within -- a country that is at war with its citizens due to endless government corruption. In the end, the corrupt government leaders will sell out their citizens in a desperate attempt to save themselves.
If Putin has his way when the last B-21 lands they will be a hot air balloon waiting to take the crew to New Zealand; I would say Australia but he Chinese haver them on the radar, no one thinks NZ is dangerous too many sheep and people who think they are still living in 1950's England.
Key to what? Having a successful campaign of dropping bombs of small children. Honestly, do you people actually know what your country represents around the world?
@@clivepilusa7734 we didn't develop precision guided munitions to cause even MORE collateral damage. If you think the U.S stands for dropping bombs on small children, then you've got some contemplating to do
From what I've read, the big advantage that Northrup-Grumman had over the Lockheed-Martin team was that the roots for what would be the B-21 go all the way back to the 1980s when N-G was developing its design for the Advanced Technology Bomber that would become the B-2. Initial US Air Force requirements called for a high-altitude long-range stealth bomber, which N-G went to work on and supposedly either was close to fully developing or close to it when the USAF changed its requirements to a low-altitude stealth design. Northrup-Grumman switched gears to produce the B-2 Spirit, and the rest is history. But it apparently kept all of its design, research and manufacturing resources for the high-altitude bomber safely stored away in anticipation of the day when it may be useful. Which it did. The B-21 is basically Northrup-Grumman's first ATB design but further refined and engineered for its 21st century mission. Prototypes of both the Lockheed-Boeing and Northrup-Grumman bombers may have been in the air approximately 2017 or so in a flyoff competition for the USAF contract - as the one image of a blurry high-altitude object shows in the video. With Northrup-Grumman winning, finalizing all the engineering, design and manufacturing to produce the first pre-production example didn't take long at all, thanks to all the data they had in hand from 40 years earlier. I think the B-21 looks awesome, but the official rollout this past Friday unfortunately didn't tell its whole story - as intended. The rock show lighting and staging was intentionally both overdone and underwhelmed to intentionally obscure the new bomber's exact features. And its white-ish appearance may in fact be the result of intentional overlighting to obscure its exact coloration. In fact, all the windows on the B-21 appear to have been blacked out to prevent anybody from seeing what's inside. I've read comments in other channels that the B-21 shown on Friday was just a mockup - which is entirely false. Yes, one or more mockups do exist (somewhere) to for design and engineering purposes. But this was the real deal, because to present anything else would just undermine what the "show" was about - a calling card to both Russia and China that their own bombers aren't even in the same league as the B-21. In fact, thanks to Western sanctions that Russia has relied upon for needed technology for its own weapons systems, it may be a very long time before the PAK-DA ever takes off or even be able to taxi down a runway. And China's H-20 still hides behind a sheet and probably won't fly before the B-21 enters service in just a few years. Thanks for the video and keep up the good work!
I’m curious, how much of this is known 100% fact and how much is consensus among aircraft enthusiasts. It seems like all info around the B21 is hazy, I’m not sure what’s true and what isn’t
@@nathanjohnson9464 You are correct. And Friday's presentation was certainly intended to be both hazy yet deliberate in its execution. Everything was choreographed down to the last light bulb focused on the bomber and last inch where it was positioned at the edge of the hangar doorway. There were no accidents or missteps with this show, that's for sure.
@@nathanjohnson9464 You can find images of the original B-2 design here on the internet. Its completely true that the B-21 is essentially what the B-2 was originally intended to be, injected with modern technology.
There’s two reasons it’s smaller. The kind of engines that achieve the amazing efficiencies the B21 is rumored to have peak in efficiency at a certain thrust; so if you design a bomber around that thrust you get a weight lighter than the b2. Second, certain radars at low frequencies are great at picking up stealth. The problem with such radars is the probability of detection goes down dramatically if the aircraft in question is physically smaller than a certain ratio of the wavelength. With those two things in mind it makes sense why the b21 is the size it is.
In order to be mass produced, it needed to only have 2 engines. As long as 2 engines could lift it and its payload and take them on a global strike mission profile unrefueled, that was plenty of capability and lots of return on investment for well over 100 airframes. The Pratt & Whitney F135 engines used in the F-35 produce 28,000lb of thrust without afterburner. The new core module of the Enhanced P&W F135 allows it to produce 30,800lb of thrust 5 years ago, with likely improvements since then. That would be 56,000 - 61,600lb of thrust. If the B-21A has 86% of the take off gross weight of the B-2A, it would be 289,820lb. B-21A wingspan appears to be 147ft. This is a rough estimation extrapolating wing span and TOGW, but it’s a fun exercise to see if the math makes any sense for basic take-off performance: B-21A estimate is 61,600 (2 x F135 variant motors in mil power) to 289,820lb or 0.21 Thrust-to-Weight Ratio The current B-2A has 4x GE F118-GE-100 motors that produce 17,300lb each, or 69,200lb of thrust for a 337,000 - 376,000lb Take Off Weight. B-2A is 69,200 to 337,000lb or 0.2 Thrust-to-Weight Ratio 69,200 to 376,000 is 0.18 T/W ratio at Maximum TOGW.
@Karl with a K Cool. Thanks for explaining it to me. 20 years in aviation manufacturing experience undone by one guys theory in youtube. I'm sure you're right.
@Karl with a K So what RCS variability did you see at the lab when you were testing the B-21 raider skin compared to control? At what "u" was the surface finish when you saw the variability in comparison to the experimental control surface?
Northrup-Grumman actually does a surprising amount of subcontracted manufacturing of components for planes known under other brand names, so even if there would not be any planes with their name front and center, they would be unlikely to be out of military or civil aviation manufacturing entirely
Yeah, the comment that whoever lost would be done forever isn't remotely accurate. Unless something drastic happens, all three firms will be around for quite a while
@Jack Smith it's not even as good as the 20 year old B-2, and the H-20 doesn't even exist yet. It'll be a near peer to the state of the art 30 years ago when it first flies
Yeah whoever runs this page is talking out of their ass really. “ naked to the human eye “ It’s like saying Raytheon is out of the defense business despite being a joint venture with UTC ( UTC, Collins aerospace, Pratt Whitney ) with UTC formally owning Sikorsky. Most of these companies work together.
The thing that impressed me the most was how smooth it is. If you look at the B2, you can see all sorts of little lines and features, but you see none of that on the B21. To me, that would imply a significantly improved stealth characteristics
There have been rumors of improved stealth coatings (paint) being worked on, as this has been one of the big problems with the F-22 and F-35 designs. They have to paint over all the seams and edges, and the paint they have been using is too expensive to paint the whole aircraft, and has to be reapplied constantly because it's fragile. Every time one of these jets goes supersonic they have to replace some. The rumors of the next-generation coating is it will be better able to survive the heat encountered by supersonic jets. It's also possible that the actual airframe of the Raider is composed of more advanced materials and won't require the paint. But I don't know. I don't think the white color of the thing in the roll-out has any relevance to its final appearance. It's actually been proven that for long-range optical low observability that a pale pink color works best. The lighting on that thing was pretty blue, which would tend to hide the fact that it's pink. A possibility.
Grandpa helped with b2 project and brings a tear to my eye that one of the best stealth planes keeps its legacy and my grandpa was a part of a great thing and im so proud R.I.P
This will go the exact same way. We're going to hear about how it's the "cheaper" option, then about how the price is higher than we originally, thought, and we'll probably end up with just a handful. Which is fine by me, long range bombers are a 20th century weapon, so the less we waste on this the more we have for systems that are actually modern.
To be fair , the f22 was conceived before the internet , your smartphone is like alien tech to f22😂😂 When it was conceived technology was growing linearly now it's exponential!!
I've been told lately I'm old, I'm a fan of that swing wing B-1, a few days ago I'd tell you nothing could surpass the lines and look of the Lancer...then we all saw the Raider. It's a deadly good looking aircraft. Absolute love your work mate! Cheers
@@phillipbampton911 England was supposed to get the F-111K, and airframes were already under construction when UK cancelled the purchase order. Those then went to Australia.
Add that B-21 also has electronic warfare, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Including with possible ability to control drones and other planes' missiles. B-21 can do a lot even air to air if USAF really need it from the backline as the official said B-21 is a quarterback.
@@simonm1447 Even F-117 had (a very limited) air to air capability. However it wasn't known by public until long after they were retired. Targets would have been big and slow soviet AWACS.
Read up on the Ngad program and you’ll realize this is exactly what it will be used for. With drones that are modular and can preform a variety of task such as electronic warfare or early warning you can send this bomber on a strike mission with stand-off munitions while simultaneously gathering intelligence and data linking it to other assets in the area. It could even fire a missile from one of these modular drones giving it a2a capability. Now that I think about it you could literally send in unmanned strike teams and it could defend itself 😮.
Negative, according to the Pentagon will rely on specialized airplanes for that end and it will also require advanced decoys to spot air defense radars, which means the whole thing is a fraud and like the B2 spirit will only be able to use stand off weapons launched out of radar range and might as well be launched by a legacy bomber. If you want to know how much of a fraud this program is look for Brian Berletic's video about it on yt
The original B2 spirit was such a badass, but the real standout feature for this new generation seems to be versality, and taking advantage of an upgrade in tech. You dont need tons of bombs if you know exactly where to drop them. I think this is a good move and I can see why this went to NG.
The name is a real snoozer. So they named the bomber meant to target chinese air space after guys that "landed" in China??? They should have named it Ghost or Wraith, something similar to keep in line with the B-2 Spirit. But considering a guy chose the name that was shot down in his F-16 over Yugoslavia by super old Anti-Air, I'm not surprised he related to that name. Let's just hope that it's not an indicator for the B-21. Considering the same Yugoslavian Anti-Air battery also ich shot down the F-117. Which should be a reminder that no matter how fancy your aircraft is, ingenuity and clever tactics can overcome massive differences in technology.
"Super old anti air" yeah a 60s SAM shot down 70s tech. In 1999 Have Blue was 22 years old, and the SAM that claimed it around the mid 30s. Always mind how a narrative is presented.
Dang I remember Russian officers coming onto our military base every year and we'd have to cover everything with paper. I think they had higher security clearances than most of us did.
@@kevinp6823 I mean it's not a secret that we work together in many ways. Same with China, were in direct competition but also build major tech together
STEALTH PLANES ARE NICE.BUT WOULD BE ABLE TO USE ALL MILITARY ASSSETS WITH CLOAKING DEVICES AND PERSONAL.CLOAKING DEVICES AND CLOAKED FORTS. MILITARY AND ASSETS COULD BE COMPLETELY. HIDDEN PLANES WOULD NOT NEED TO BE FAST.
This aircraft isn't declassified. We did know it was developed for years. We did know how it will roughly look for years. We now have real pictures. It isn't declassified. It is merely revealed. Huge difference. And we will always know if they are building a new plane. There are at least two companies competing for the job. And the large sums needed will be debated in Washington.
There isn't even a picture of it, beside the ones taken from the front at the presentation (and not from upwards). The systems and avionics of the B-2 are still classified, and it's not even known which engines they use on the B-21
When any aircraft is put into service research and development on a successor already start. No need to act like it's something special or top secret. It also means decades until anything comes of it.
With the quantum leap in guided munitions over the past 20 years I would suggest sheer throw weight isn’t as important as it used to be. Anyway, if it’s payload you want the Buff is getting a huge upgrade and is likely to remain in service until at least the 2050s - a hundred years’ service. Astonishing.
As much as I’m not a big fan of our military industrial complex, I have consistently been held in total awe of what my country is capable of making. ✌🏻🇺🇸
China has a monopoly on commercial drones and has the most advanced military drones with the industrial capacity to mass produce them. This single expensive plane will be met in the air with hundreds of cheaper Chinese drones and won't penetrate a single air defense or deliver a single payload like what the makers of this plane are fantasizing about. The American pilots manning it won't even know what hit them when they are on the ground in flames.
@@mikewheeler3994 absolutely, and I both understand and appreciate that. That’s not what the term “Military Industrial Complex” alludes to however. It was coined by Eisenhower, which is something people should think about a little more carefully in my opinion ✌🏻🇺🇸
@@Pretermit_Sound I think if we all knew how much of our tax money is being spent we'd be pretty pissed off. Some of the biggest advancements that happen in private industry have been stopped in whatever way that worked including many many hits on scientists. Military keeps all the coolest tech for themselves esp if it came from another galaxy
4:28 Dam I agree. Also gotta love some classic USA military hardware, there is something so brute forced about all of their designs that I can get behind
Only 692 million per jet? It's called the military industrial complex. Our politicians are being bribed by defense contractors to buy this ridiculously expensive stuff that we don't need.
700M per plane? That seems somewhat cheap, giving that B-2 was (IIRC) close to 1B (including inflation). IMHO USAF will use it for highly strategical bombing runs instead of cruise missiles, and giving that they will built in even smaller numbers than B-2. Also probably it have UAV technology giving its mission profile.
Apparently Eglin AFB named this after the Doolittle Raiders, makes sense, because I am right next to them and they test stuff all the time, the occasional KC-135 will be here every now and then, and I saw a B-2 here once
😂😅🥴. What a waste. Bankrupt us even more while you're at it. 31 trillion in debt. Hard to project strength when we are so bankrupt we can't even pay our basic bills.
God damn living in America today must be like what the Roman’s felt like at their peak pretty much unstoppable and the most powerful nation on earth I LOVE IT
Hardly, it is nothing the Russians do nit have already. Watch The New Atlas recent video on this place, it's garbage really. Who just lost to Iraqi street gangs and Afghani spelunkers? The unstoppable?
@@firstnamelastname9141 We beat them militarily, You cannot defeat them ideologically. You cannot force "Democracy" on a country. What you can do, is prolong an endless war to get the cash rolling. Also, what about Russia? Is that the country that famously conquered Ukraine, their neighbors, in the 3 day war? It ended so quickly I had forgotten about it entirely. Was it the prized Su-57 or hypersonic missiles that crushed Ukraine and their Western weaponry?
@@firstnamelastname9141 I watched The New Atlas video. Hysterical. A man lecturing us on the inferiority of our planes in relation to S400 air defense systems, meanwhile Russia cannot gain air superiority over Ukraine...
The design looks so minimalist and more stealthier than the previous B-2 Spirit. Talking about the weapon capacity, does it also has a same weapon capacity with B-2 Spirit?
Oh my god Gary, you're a genius! You must tell the US Army or the Government about this they'll surely make our newer planes invisible, why haven't they already though of that!
I'm very interested to see what will come of the B-21 once it's officially adopted. It seems like a very versatile reconnaissance, ECW and strike platform which could even be interesting to other nations' airforces, given it's lower price and size, when compared to the B-2, if the US government ever gives Northrop Grumman the go-ahead for any potential export-deals.
Unlikely they export this with the amount of classified and proprietary tech inside this beauty. I see it going the way of the F-22 cause our government can never make up their fucking minds
I'm gonna Be comment Raider 21 since the video just hit here in US. Thanks for thr upload Bro always a pleasure getting to watch your content. Very thorough and overall a cool dude. I especially like when you transition from subject matter to advertising you have a funny way of making that changeover. Classic. Line I still favor is the WHERES MY DAMN HOVERBOARD opener a few uploads back. Starting dialog like that tells you it's gonna be good! Gonna watch the raider now guys enjoy as always
The us is on a bit of streak of "coolest aircrafter ever made" we have had: sr-71 (and variants), b-2, f-117, f-22, f-35 and b-21. When is someone else gonna get a go? *stares at BAE systems Tempest* 2:10 as a computer scientist that actually understand how AI and machine leraning works, i can tell you that taking the button away from humans is gonna end more badly than if we had it, and much quicker too. 3:59 so the fact that aty this time thereis a war in ukraine, that russia started, and has threathened to escalate to the end war. It is the perfect time to remind russia that the US has tech so far beyond what russiaa has that the US can nuke putin from existance without anyone ever getting ut of bed. Yet Russia couldn;t even succesfully invade a country that had an army a fraction of the size of russia's. It's basically a sit down and shut up screamed straight into russia face from 3mm away 5:03 the problem with that is since the b-52 the US would order a bunch of something and then cancel most of them. B-2 as a prime example. They built 21 of 132. The cost is based on the fact they only made 21. if they had built all of them or made it to 200+ it would have been cheaper. Same with the raptor.
@@M3PH11 it's so cool to live in the united states knowing that no country would dare attack the united states we are so strong we have the best airforce and navy tanks better trained soldiers we are better in every way
Also I look forward to seeing whether or not this aircraft can lift a Massive Ordnance Penetrator (like the one from the B-2 about 2:00) as that weapon is a uniquely non-nuclear threat to some deeply-buried targets.
MOP is 20.5 feet long. B-2A weapons bays are approx 21.5” feet by my estimation from looking at diagrams and scaling the measurements. LTG Breedlove mentioned a Next Generation Penetrator that should be 1/3 the size of the MOP, which maybe refers to weight. That’s a 10,000lb class weapon. B-21A should have 2 large weapons bays that will be at least 85% of the B-2A’s bay volume, and possibly more than that since it only needs 2 engines and less fuel. B-2A can carry: 80 Mk.82s or 34 CBU-87s or 16 JDAMs or 8 GBU-37s or 16 JASSMs or 16 JSOWs or 16 B-61/B-83 nukes 2 MOPs You can mix and match half of each of the above with each other since there are 2 large bays splitting the above loads. B-21A should be able to carry at least 85% of the above loads.
They refuse to say what the program cost for "national security" reasons. How it's OK to give out the incremental cost but not the development cost is mystery - other than the former is a much smaller number.
There is no way this stays at 700 million it will exceed 1 billion a plane by the time we see any in the air complete waste of money. Small unmanned precision guided bombers are the future and the ability to drop nuclear weapons is why the world hates us, the constant threat that we need to nuke the world.... Russia wants to decrease the nuclear threat but we the dumb USA can't be trusted to honor agreements...
@@bubba99009 those are beyond our understanding. The medias are run by idiots broadcasting poorly researched information and thus often exaggerated the claims on the military spending in order to pursue their agendas, not realizing that their actions of rallying people against the military work against the US’s national security. You gotta pay top dollars to be in the top league of military power.
In the CGI, it shows 2 bomb bays on either side. This is unlikely, unless the engines use dimensional shifting to take up zero space ;) should be 1-2 centerline bomb bay doors ;) pretty good render otherwise though.
Poetic justice for Boeing, who fought tooth and nail against NG's already built tanker jet to get their concept forced through. Now it's late, over budget and underperforming. What else is new from Boeing? Starliner?
As mission requirements change, as the costs skyrocket and as we hopefully get a few generals who realize that long range strategic bombers make about as much sense on a modern battlefield as dreadnoughts, that number should drop even more. I'm betting that they settle on about twenty, just enough to replace the B-2, and they'll try to spin that as a win.
Yea as far as I know the actual cost of the program is still classified for "national security" reasons so we don't really know what they'll end up costing - I bet a whole lot more than the quoted price - which I think it the theoretical incremental cost and doesn't include any of the development or tooling. I've seen estimates of $200+ BILLION for the entire program which currently has 100 planes on order which would not be shocking at all considering what these programs cost these days. If true (and we make exactly 100 no more no less) that would be $2bln each including the entire cost. It looks cool and all (hard to know more than that considering the lack of stats) but I think they are being pretty cagey about it just showing a pic without even giving the true cost. Also seems kind of short sighted to not have a drone variant, though I guess they could always develop that later.
If I understand correctly, the B-21 Raider was introduced to address these problems with the USAF's current bomber fleet: 1. The B-52 was too old; 2. The B-1 was overused; and 3. The B-2 was too expensive.
How do you know its updated B2 Mr. Garbage? By the looks? Flying wings design share the same physical shape no matter in which year you make. The differences will be invisible to naked eyes like new stealth material and coating, new avionics, new ISR concept New engine so on.
Have to disagree with you on a few points. This new stealth bomber will definitely be a problem for Russia and china. When we witness USA gaining air superiority over Iraq fir instance, they were using Soviet/Russian air defense systems mostly I believe the s300. Don't recall one USA jet of any type being shot down. The Serbs did manage to shoot down a stealth bomber with a older Soviet SAM system but this didn't happen on a regular basis. Maybe the s400/500 will be able to counter this newest bomber but I'm not to sure the Russian Air defense systems will be able to be a huge deterrence.
The problem for S-400s is that the brochure stats are optimistic. HARM will get it, cruise missiles will get it, glide bombs will get it and HIMARS firing Prsm will be able to drive forward and create a path where no semi-static defense can be emplaced. And the S-500 is an anti-ballistic missile system, not a S-400 upgrade.
Of course it won't. What ever happened to the glorious Russian Hypersonics? The F-22 Killer (LOL) Su-57? The godlike S500 systems? The titan of a tank the T4 Armata.... Why would ANYONE believe what they're putting out is beyond me.
@@meintingles4396 slow down. Russia has to be smart about how they produce and put out their systems. Their budget isn't half of that if the USA. But that doesn't mean they don't Maje good weapons systems. The su 57 is flying around Syria and ukraine but it is limited in it's use. The s400 is common inside Russia and the global markets. It's so feared the USA puts sanctions on any country thinking about buying it! the s500 not too sure if it's status but it's already being called the most advanced AD system in the world. T-14 also is being called the most technically advance system produced. But we all know it hasn't been battle field tested yet. I understand Russia doesn't just pump a lot of this stuff out, but it doesn't mean it isn't good. Actually it's great weapons! What or who else has anything better besides the USA and that arguable. My comment wasn't to knock Russia, I'm not a Russia hater or on of these you tube comment section Russo phobic arm chair generals that diss Russia at every turn. No. I'm just a realistic person and I wouldn't right off this new bomber as Brian has seem to have done.
@@meintingles4396 lol seriously? I just stated they have the best Air defense systems in the world, no other systems compare to the s400/500. This is so much so USA talks about sanctions for any nation considering buying these SAM systems from Russia. Russias strategic long range bombers in the TU series tu-22 and tu 160 etc... Outside of stealth technology, these bombers are highly effective within stand of missile attacks and the ability to carpet bomb effectively at extreme speed and heights that they can fly and maintain. Their "SU" series fighter jets 27/30/35/57 with their super maneuvering capabilities they're un matched in dog fighting scenarios and still has some BVR advantages over western fighter jet platforms. Russia currently have and used hypersonic cruise missiles. There is NO Air defense system in all the world currently that can intercept these missiles that have a speed up to between mach 9 to 12 depending on variables. Now lets stop there. You have what seems to be a balance between projecting power and defense with a edge going to defense. We haven't even discuss nuclear deterrence. So with Russia cutting the massive Soviet style, Russia has reinvented this doctrine to consider quality over quantity. This is just scratching the surface and I would say their defense doctrine is actually very smart and capable in a variety of battlefield scenario. However, the biggest part of it all is no country would be able to invade and hold and amount of territory without paying for it dearly.
The military seem to intend on using the B-1 and B-52 as large stand off bombers or essentially cruise missile launchers in the sky. The B-2 and B-21 seem to be used as nuclear deterrents or to be used for getting past monitored enemy airspace allowing for deep conventional strikes.
@@johnbean9797 - modern air defences make the B-1 and B-52 almost useless against anybody but the defenceless. Hence why they're still in service with the US military.
B-52 will stay while B-1 and B-2 will slowly be replace. (B2 will be around until 2030s) B-52 job is long range missile truck (which why B-1 is out as it would do the same job as 2022) so they shouldn't get close to the enemy. B-21 would be essentially smaller, cheaper, better, versitile B-2.
@@fadli_1577 True.... But Airline jets usually meet that price during production....and doesn't have much maintenance cost.... Military jets usually don't meet both of these criterias 😅😅😅😂😏 PS: B2 had a similar 500million initial price projection, but soon the price hiked mid production to 2 billion, due to cuting down production from initial 130 units to just 21, of which 6 were Advanced prototypes, that were later turned into Fully Functional aircrafts...
So awesome, I've been watching all I can find nonstop. Growing up with the B2 I still want to fly in one, but this is no doubt the newer updated version. The mentions to the coating are indeed intriguing, would love to know from an engineering/manufacturing standpoint how they decided to go from great to great-er. Also, I saw an eye-open comment the other day since everyone's talking about how this one is "so much better" The B2 is was and still is stealthier than the new F22 (which is also a sweet jet) and this is even more invisible. The B2 is no slouch, its like saying the SR71 "Only did Mach 3" I'll take the so called "slouch" any day, along with the B21, My birthday is early next year.
@@RU-vidRavan2 Russia officially estimates an introduction in 2028 - if this is the official date you can add at least 5 to 10 years until they have enough aircraft to have a real operational fleet. Even the SU-57 (a much cheaper aircraft) took ages and they still have less than 10
American capitalism has reached such astounding levels of greed that its a threat to national security. America will have half as many assets because the money that would have paid for the other half is instead being spent on swimming pools. Meanwhile the cost of a jet in China is the cost of materials plus labour.
After 3 decades, they managed to make a cheaper B2 with tech and stealth 2 generations ahead of the original B2, i dont think america is running out of anything
USAF: Hey Northrop remember the B-2? The one crashed because of moisture in sensors? Northrop: The one almost bankrupted the company, yeah? USAF: Yeah, that one, can you make it smaller and... Make it more modern? Northrop: Want fries with it?
I can't wait for the sequel for this video in 50 years to watch with my grandchildren about the American hydra of the B-29 Roadrunner, F-85 Emu, F-90 NeoRaptor and the MQ-50 Kiwi.
Different band radars cant track aircraft, that's why X band is almost always used. It goes from "there's an aircraft right there, shoot a missile at it' to 'theres a bomber somewhere in that 10 km by 10 km space'. Now that you know there's a bomber somewhere over there, what are U gonna do with that information? You cant track it or launch a missile, and by the time U get a plane over there it's already gone. Practically useless information
@@marcushen3751 It is not just "somewhere over there", the precision is not enough to put exact target's location into a missile, but fully enough for the missile to go to the target close enough to finally pinpoint the target's exact location. This is how it works. There is nothing invisible about it.
Long waves are not usable for fire control radar. A fire control radar needs short waves - but here the stealth coatings are quite effective. It don't help if you know there's something, but you can't attack it
Not enough for precise missiles, there is a reason why good Air-to-Air used X-band waves to guide the missile into the target not long wavelengths radar which mostly uses as surveillance (and yes, there is nothing new here... long wavelengths radar has been used for a long time.) Everyone knew what those wavelengths mean and can do since the 80s or even before.
