Deep Intel on the B-21 Raider 

When the b 52 is retired the crew would be dead

They will travel by horse & buggy because EMP from last B-21 will destroy all electronics.

Fairly early in the next war, the only planes than can fly will be all analog and steam gauge.

Isn't it great when you get to know truly historic people of substance like that. The Raiders were truly brave men that loved our country & what can you say about bravery beyond belief. My best friend was killed at the battle of Mogadishu, 3-Oct-1993, Mst Sgt Gary Gordon. I have no doubt of God & they are all at pease in heaven with him, at least we were blessed to know people of such true character.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend Gary. I'm sure he was quite a young man.

@@Terence.1 Ah yes, no truer words spoken... He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions that day, thank you.

The B-52 has a new role as a cruise missile carrier. One B-52 can carry 21 cruise missiles. 58 of them can launch a total of 1,218 cruise missiles. So it's more A-52 than B-52.

At this point it's a sad fact that many of the BUFFs flying now have outlived a large number of their past crew-members and maintainers. You have third and soon enough fourth generations now taking to the air and turning wrenches with them though, which is incredible.

@@orlock20 Either way, it's the 18-wheeler of death in the sky.

I worked on the B-52 in the late 90s. The remaining 1960-61 tail number H models were pretty much the oldest aircraft in the USAF fleet even back then, I was born well after them (1974), I’m in good health, and I would rate my chances of outliving them 50/50 at best.

@@nkotowsk Yep, the BUFF will remain the 18 wheeler of death in the sky for a long time.

The B-52 is being converted to a very large attack aircraft. The B-52 can carry 21 cruise missiles and I believe it's new role will be hunting enemy fleets. The idea is that a B-52 is much faster than a submarine and because if the altitude find the enemy fleet quicker due to bypassing the curvature of the Earth. 58 bombers means 1,218 missiles can be dumped on an enemy fleet. Nobody has a SAM that can go 1,000 miles so the B-52 will be safe from counter fire.

I think half of them would say, 'of course it's still around, that's what we intended!' The other half would be deeply touched. All would be proud as hell.

They would immediately suspect treason, and be right.

And I’m sure it won’t be long before they look at it as a carrier for parasite drones.

I have a friend whose father was an engineering professor at MIT. During breaks between semesters his father worked for Boeing and my friend attended the rollout of the B52.

Probably thinking, Oh wow they forgot to put it away

Im curious how they deal with drones these days. Its really easy to send one up and if u dont care about retrieving it, really hard to track. Someone could have easily just zipped into the hangar itself with one and while it would definitely be seen and heard, it wouldnt be easy to stop and the video feed can be remote captured. I hope they have some sort of jamming system

@@GonzoDonzo That is an interesting question as it relates to classified locations. Palmdale plant 42 is right in town and there are even residences starting at 1.5 miles from relevant hangars, so it would technically not be difficult. But there are regulations over airports and location where, first it would be illegal, so risky if traced back. Second, they could just jam control signals in the area to prevent casual operators. Outside of Palmdale though, security borders at Edwards are beyond control range of commercial drones, and of course places such as Area 51 are even deeper behind security perimeters. As to a determined national adversary and capable spies, I have also wondered how they keep the Palmdale area secure when it's right off public roads. The sight lines are obviously blocked, but a drone can dart in and out.

@@wyskass861 you ever see the little bungalows that were just on the other side of groom lake? A family owned that property and were legally allowed to stay there and bring guests. From the design they were definitely renting them out for people to observe what was going on at the base. I think they finally shut it down a decade or so ago.

@@wyskass861 Unfortunately the nature of this threat is far more complicated than "beyond control range of commercial drones". A guy recently dumped a bunch of photos on a forum that he claims he took of Area 51. He detailed exactly how he did it by using a drone pre-programmed with GPS way points. This airspace intrusion was not detected and no one knew about it until the guy blabbed about it online. We do not currently have a great way to detect and stop these threats, even from motivated citizens.

I've long figured Pratt were the type to do their own manufacturing? Interesting.

You have the best dad jokes.

😂😂😂 great story

Now THAT'S stealth.

Loll

A+ dad joke 🤣🤣🤣

I'm still not sure why they thought the British forced consolidation model would work…

@@DrewNorthup I think it was just trying to reduce the DOD budget.

@@michaelharper4989 I agree, but the method they chose is the reason why the UK doesn't design or manufacture military aircraft anymore. That's what I was making note of.

The Chinese share your fortune, they love Ward Carroll!

Scott did not have a model out on a stand. The sun casts a shadow on it. So the Russian satellite got a great picture of this secret program. My father-in-Law was a flight Engineer

I remember reading the A-7s were for currency but also a cover.

@@rzr2ffe325 I can't comment on the currency story but being Nellis was such an active base with so much going on there all the time, the cover story was quite believable. Obviously there is always talk about secret programs but you know how people like to think they know something you don't. None the less it was a real surprise when it was finally announced.

Thanks! That's what I was going for: Edutainment.

@@TheMergeMedia "AIR FORCE! We're the smart ones. Send the Offices Out To Fight." Tsgt Roosevelt Williams (C Flight Security Osan 1968) :-)

Looks like a B-2

@Nick Well it doesn't look like a F 22 or a F 16 now does it???

You can tell how deep they understand these topics with how they can say so much with the smallest word count. Pako especially, with this episode

That comments gonna get a lot of likes

Agreed, but at Aud $1+ Billion ea , it'll never happen. But at least we'd get them before 2050, unlike the CGI Subs we're told about !

I think you'll find that Oz may indeed get a Squadron of these and have a joint facility in Australia to support both USAF & RAAF aircraft. The only difference will be the nuclear ordinance delivery equipment will be removed from the RAAF versions, but logistics and training will be integrated. The cost of these vs the strike capability these provide prior to the SSNs becoming available is why Oz is seeking these since they'll likely be available prior to 2030. Also, since the B-21 likely shares a lot of commonality with the F-35, Australia already has a regional support facility that could be expanded to support the B-21.

@@tlevans62 100% I hope it happens. Might explain the recent announcement about US/Darwin expansions - hangers, workshops, accommodations etc. I still don't see the point of the Subs without Nuke Weapon capability, is like having a Attack Dog without Teeth. Im Not a Nuke advocate , but at least the B21's can if ever needed , be modified to carry them. The Subs would need to be built around the missile system. IMHO

​@@tlevans62 I think Oz will adopt a "wait and see" with the initial US experience with the B-21, though have to admit its almost supernatural to see a 6th generation platform come in on time and on budget. But I suppose ultimately the decision as to timelines will depend a lot on the behaviour of our friends up North...

I don’t know the odds or if Pacos are statement about selling B-21s down under is speculation or really under consideration. I say that because things like the 3 primary US bases for B-1s & B-2s are likely going to be the home of the B-21s. I agree they will at least rotate deployments overseas like other Global Strike Command bombers and Australia does seem to be a likely place to forward base the B-21. Especially since it is smaller than the B-2 and likely does not have the same environmental requirements as the B-2.

Not really. What they did was saying "we need this function" and then look around "what is there that can get the job done?". In essence, that is what the COTS-proponents envision to be the ideal case scenario.

Tacit Blue is now at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patt.

@@brucebuckeye Tacit ;)

@@Av-vd3wk oops. That's what I meant :) I'll edit

We’re talking bombers so Have Blue is probably not relevant

@@chrislaska5728 huh?

As an American I'd like to see our Commonwealth and NATO allies rebuild their own aerospace industries, so you don't have these kinds of critical dependencies. If the US shuts down Hornet parts, for example, Canada is in the lurch. And while I'm more than happy to see Lockheed Martin keep selling brand new C-130s (still in production since the 1950s!) to all you guys out there, I think we'd all be stronger if you also had some indigenous aircraft designs to go along with the Hercules. Worldwide the aerospace industry in general just seems so fragile, with Boeing and Airbus being the only game in town for big passenger transports, and each of those two companies always seems to be one or two bad decisions away from leaving the field.

F15 with conformal fuel tanks is the only thing that comes close.

@@RCAvhstape Up to the late '70's Australia used to have the Government Aircraft Factory (GAF). Their last locally designed and built aircraft was the N 22 Nomad, designed for both military and civilian ops. It was not very good at either and was withdrawn from all service after only a few years. It gained the sobriquet "Gomad"!

@@RCAvhstape Appreciate how your comment zooms out to view the big picture.

@@RCAvhstape UK, Canada, and Australia all make substantial amounts of parts and systems for F-35s. 50 companies in Australia are involved with global F-35 production. Canada has a ton of companies in the JSF production enterprise as well. UK makes 15% of every F-35, the ejection seats for every F-35, and the lift fans for every F-35B. The US, Canada, UK, Australia JSF industrial bloc is pretty huge.

The difference between the XB-35 and YB-35 was the engines and propellers. One had 2 counter rotating propellers for each engine (original XB-35 I think) while the other had different engines with single propellers. I believe the counter rotating propeller and engine combination had vibration issues.

F111 was a conventional strike aircraft, not a bomber.

I believe the FB-111 was an F-111 adapted as a MEDIUM range bomber. Both could have been more clear with terms. Paco mentioned long range INTERCONTINENTAL bombers including the B-36 which did start with “only” 6 propellers then added 4 jet engines (Thus the phrase 6 turning and 4 burning). Like the B-47, B-52, B-58, B-1, and B-2 they were all capable of carrying nuclear bombs. The B-36 was huge, but could only carry 2 nuclear bombs. Over time nuclear bombs got smaller and lighter thus planes like F-15s FB-111s could also carry nuclear weapons. I would find it very interesting if Australia ever owned B-21s and if so would they carry nukes? Time will tell I guess.

@@mikeet69 The FB-111 was not operated by the RAAF. Also, despite the bomber designation, it was essentially an F111 assigned to carry up to six SRAM Missiles, thus really a dedicated nuclear role for a strike aircraft (a bit like the Mirage 2000N I guess.)

@@mikeet69 Good points btw

I think the US should have an F111 type medium bomber again.

I totally agree with you! I still can't believe it took one of my Lt. Col's an entire week to kill a BONE at Maple Flag in his F-16! She was such a beast and I will mourn her early retirement and look upon Boeing with disdain. Read my comments up top.

The other impact will be airflow at high angles of attack. It won't be easy to control air entering the engine from such a narrow inlet.

@@dougrobinson8602 I mean we're all armchair engineers here, but I'm sure they've run the design a few 10,000 times in Ansys and done a few thousand collective all nighters, and have decided it'll be just fine.

@@dougrobinson8602 that doesn’t seem like it would happen unless it were going for a crash landing. Also, they might have allowed some wiggle room for AoA but really…it’s a flying wing…I bet it will get barely any AoA at all unless it’s carrying a LOT of weight

@@orderlyhippo1569 AoA is where you get most of your lift, even with a lifting body. If you don't have around 3° you don't fly (subsonic). Sure, they're not going to want to pull 15° AoA, but that doesn't really address his concern.

@@DrewNorthup I guess my point is that the plane isn’t built to pull g’s and have any serious AoA since it’s a stealth bomber meant for long range cruising. High AoA & long range don’t go together. To be honest, the inlet’s teardrop shape looks like it was formed through computer simulation more than anything, which didn’t exist when building the older bombers. They can figure the exact shape to maximize air intake and those volume’s at different AoA’s and airspeeds. Fluid dynamics are what make planes so neat imo

Perhaps just as interesting will be keeping an eye out for a possible B-52 replacement. Most likely, the biggest improvement on the Raider will be avionics. The four main wheel gear is an interesting touch. Park that puppy on asphalt in the summer and you will be extricating it with air bags.

@@dougrobinson8602 the replacement for the B52 will have to be something special but I will probably be long gone by then.

It’s likely it has already overflown a major American city multiple times and never been detected once

It’s also about deterrence. For example, having nukes in your arsenal is of little value if the enemy doesn’t know to fear them

F14 was more expensive than the f22 and higher in operation cost. Overrated fighter.

Fundamentally, a B-21 can go a lot further on a tank of gas than a F35, and carry more stuff. That can be really convenient over the Pacific.

B-2A and B-1B are already equipped with multiple AESAs and EW sensor suites integrated with other sensors. It makes more sense to avoid threat air and deceive them with EW, while sending VLO cruise missiles to their home bases and divert airfields, munitions stocks, and Radar installations.

The design is inherently subsonic. Only the swing-wing B-1 could go supersonic, with afterburners. Supersonic speeds are no longer the asset they were when it comes to bombers, hence the development of the B-2 then, and the B-21 now.

@@Ryan_Christopher I agree but I hoped with changes in surface modeling and engines that they could go just at supersonic, short super cruse like the F-35. Really it was a passing thought/hope.

@@Ryan_Christopher Why? The faster you go the less exposed you are to a given threat? Serious question please.

@@Whitpusmc Friction Heat increases your infrared signature. What’s the use of reflecting radar away from you if you’re just going to give your hot position away against a cold sky or warm ground? IADS includes IR sensors too you know. If they know your heat signature they can spam your location with more heat seeker ordnance than you have decoys for. Plus RAM coatings don’t take well to hinged moving surfaces, which is what you need for supersonic bombers.

@@AdamosDad We have long-range stealth glide bombs and stealth cruise missiles now. We don’t need a fast bomber anymore when the ordnance can fly themselves to their targets. F-35 needs to sprint from time-to-time because it’s supposed to have a Tactical CAS Mission. Troops-in-contact need fast movers to deliver ordnance within five minutes of the call. Raider is more strategic than tactical, though will be capable of both.

me too

Imagine if that shield didn't exist, you'd have some kind of wog PM by now...

It was

IF that one type is very durable and easy to maintain for a very long time it probably is worth it. With the won Cold War programmes like the F-22 got downsized too much. The graft ist mostly about dispatching too much gov spent in too many states to save programmes. Starting the war in Iraq 2003 was an absolute folly. But whether 2, 3 or 6 percent of GDP to be spent on national defence pretty much depends on the strategic goals of the US and the current threat situation. Producing more small arms is easy, as is ammo. Navy ships and strategic stealth bombers take a long time and commitment, but you reap the rewards of this programme by guys like Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim dynasty to think very long and hard about making something stupid. 21 B-2s was not enough, but they probably kept the real rogue states to proxy wars and state sponsored terrorism instead of raiding convenient neighbours. (and the next ten allies are much smaller. UK, France and Germany combined are not even close to 2/3rds of the US power and finance. Japan only self defends. Just my 2 cents from abroad).

Iran, North Korea and similar states might disagree with you.

It’s safe to assume NOC considered hostile radar frequency bands, real and emerging threats when they designed it lol…if anything is good at true broadband stealth, it’s likely a flying wing

Think Air Force had a program to replace certain critical frame parts that were in danger of fatigue failure due to so many takeoff, pressurization and landing cycles. You have to wonder what percentage of parts are original?

Yes they go to Depot level maint and get new wings every few decades.

They built like 700 + B52's - there are probably a few brand new ones left in the desert

You can keep them flying by replacing bulkheads, spars, skins, entire wings, and other major structural components. I wonder what percentage of the jets are original? I'll bet it's a low number. If they were all original, they would've been falling out of the sky in the 1980s. The B-52 is being kept around for nostalgic reasons. Thank god for cruise missiles because that slow-ass pig has the radar cross-section of downtown Chicago, no way is it getting anywhere near Russia.

@@Skank_and_Gutterboy The B-52 is still around because nobody has come up with a compelling case for a replacement. If you look closely at what those aircraft can do it is clear very quickly how much it would likely cost to replace them-vastly more than anybody wants to spend. Russia still uses the "Bear" for a similar reason.

www.themerge.co

Probably coming if not already a thing

Thanks for the support, Alan!

One of the coolest things, from some rear angles, the b-2 looks like it's disappearing

Hell, if Falklands 2.0 happened tonight, I highly doubt the UK would have the reach to deliver a prompt response without resorting to nuclear SLBMs.

@@eddietat95 UK would be begging the US and relying on cruise missiles

@@eddietat95 even in 1982 , the RAF bombers were getting phased out. For nuclear deterrence, it really didn't make economic sense for them to have a land-based and Air Triad . So like France, they have relied largely on the submarine base delivery system. The use of long-range bombers in the tactical role for conventional strike really kind of came up accidentally.

@@WALTERBROADDUS Fair points. I would like to see the UK buy into the Raider program in light of escalation tensions with Russia/China. If the costs are well-managed as advertised, it would be well-supported by any USAF Raider presence in the UK. They are the only nation the US trusts with highly-classified strategic weaponry (e.g. Polaris, Trident, the one time in the 80s when they were offered F-117s).

@@eddietat95 right now the UK is focused on developing its next generation submarine program. They share with the United States and the Trident missile program.

Thanks for the support, Thomas!

​The Smithsonian Magazine: "...Jack Northrop, showed keen interest in the Horten brothers’ flying-wing glider back in the 1930s and built flying-wing airplanes of his own in the 1940s"

That said, the concept of a flying wings was not new - while few worked on them the concept was widely known. So as has happened before Northrop possibly just followed interesting developments in the scene as i.e. the Wright brothers did in studying (...and crediting) the work of Lilienthal and then taking the concept further. Calling it Northrops "original idea" (4:38) however is plain wrong!

@@resaca5367 Sorry, to clarify what I meant by that was that the original idea that Jack Northrop's aviation company was formed around was the flying wing.

Correcting myself. It may have been the paint barn.

Me too...but i m sure they have the hovering version too just not for publice eye...

The hovering on the B21 is only authorized when above the troposphere.

Yes of course. They’d never design a craft of this level that couldn’t sustain flight after just a single engine loss.

Split aileron can break on the side with the engine but thrust is an issue on LO designs.

There is "rudder" authority through split ailerons.

Yes, 100x smaller RCS than a B-52. The low observability, low altitude combo cut down on exposure to Soviet SAM sites during pen missions. Max. A/B, TFR set at 200ft/ride=hard 600+kts delivering 24 SRAM all internal carriage