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 RU-vid 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 ✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️✝️✝️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️
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 :>)
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). 🙂
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.
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does. A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
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.
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.
Lemme ask you this, do you have a radar? Did you work on the su 57? Are you an expert on military shet? Who are you to say it isn't stealth, as if you truly understand it?
@@krystalmae5557well, the actual experts all agree beyond doubt that it’s not stealth but has some stealthy features. Russia, as usual, lies out their ass
@@krystalmae5557 yeah, rotormotor. you never heard of hop skip and jump? 6th gen, 7th gen, 10 and back again. does seem whenever science leaps, everyone gets some soon enough. like electric, like tv, like atom bombs, like ssssh... we need the whole wide world's best scientists at cern but you all promise not to tell your own governments, just uncle sam/uncle schwaab/uncle xi?
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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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.
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.
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.
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 😅😢🎉
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.
If Russian were able to hit their proposed manufacturing targets, we'd already be drowning in T14 Armatas and SU-57 Fighter Bombers. SU-75? Similar story. First scheduled maiden flight was 2023. Then 2024. Currently 2025...
@@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
@@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.
No, there's little risk of collision with Commercial or Civilian traffic, as the B-2 flies above them, where only the military drones and U-2's fly. The XB-35 & YB-49 we're not failures, they were bypassed thanks to Jobs Lobbyists for Convair having more money to spend, and because the Air Force decided that if the USSR found out how low the Radar return was for them, they would copy the Wings and make Soviet bombers harder to see by US Radar. If flying wings aren't maneuverable, why are they the only choice for the high maneuverability requirements of FPV Pylon racing and FPV long range mountain diving?
@@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.
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
