Secret aircraft programs that ALMOST changed the world
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Since the very inception of manned flight, the United States has invested heavily into fielding game-changing military aircraft that leverage cutting-edge technology to provide a tactical or strategic edge over the nation's peers or competitors.
But for every F-117 that makes it into service, there's a long list of aviation programs that never quite made it, for reasons of economics, politics, or the technical limitations of the day.
Let's talk about 7 aircraft that could have changed the game... but were canceled before they could.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: www.tiktok.com...
Citations:
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- secure.boeingi...
- avalonlibrary....
- www.sandboxx.u...
- hushkit.net/20...
- www.globalsecu...
- www.secretproj...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.popularmec...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.sandboxx.u...
- www.sandboxx.u...
When Kelly Johnson retired in 1992 he was asked when does a technology cease to be top secret. He responded "When someone else invents it, we still have top secret technology from WW2".
The "ten or thirty years ahead" comment is accurate. I was working on the Lift Fan system for what would become the F35B in 1989.
So it was not purchased from the Russians?
And that tech is maybe closer to the Harrier, no?
@@SkipperMacky The fan design was similar to the Yak 141 (which apparently Yakovlev had some sort of early coperation deal around 1992 - 1994) as well as using the one off VAAC FBW Harrier prototype (which lessons BAe integrated into the F35B)
@@rubbernuke1234 Ah thanks dude
@@rubbernuke1234 Yak-141 didn't have a lift fan, it used multiple small jet engines and likely borrowed some ideas from the Convair Model 200 concept. P&W developed the rotating jet nozzle design for the Convair and used that as the basis for the F135 engine in the F-35.
As a retired Airman, learning the US was the 1st to put a machine gun on an aircraft, made me laugh. 😁👍
and, incorrect. first, was machine gun on German zeppelins
@PhotonFlightTeam incorrect? I'm talking about aircraft, and you're talking about airships. Apples and oranges, my dude.
@@jeremyortiz2927a craft. they traverses the AIR.. come on guy.. get it together.
@@o-wolf😂
@@o-wolf I'd play goofy before I go to war in a zeppelin. Tactical ain't always practical.
Imagine being a test pilot for these prototypes
Would be a dream job!
I remember being really excited by the possibilities of the Dyna-Soar back in the day (yeah, I'm a Boomer). Interestingly, it was only looking back at info about the program after starting college (late 1970s) that I learned about its use as a bomber, rather than a "research vehicle" and "new pathway to space."
There you are... we've been trying to contact you concerning your vehicle extended warranty.
The kingfish is my favorite plane off the list. I think the Kingfish could be what we need in this generation as far as stealth, speed, and fuel efficiency and still hold alot of weapons. Hopefully, we see something close to the kingfish in the ngad program.
At hypersonic speeds you aren't turning very tight, even at 9G. And also, no known aircraft can SUSTAIN such a turn indefinitely, simply due to lack of thrust.
The Kingfish would be a good strike aircraft, being able to stay high up enough and stealthy enough that the enemy radars wouldn't get enough of a return to get a true targeting solution, not with the typical antenna size of a SAM battery. Yes, even with those fancy AESA antennas, they're still restricted to the laws of how radio waves propagate thru space. The smaller the target's radar cross section is, the larger of an antenna you need to detect it, given that you stay within the same band of frequencies. The target might have other frequencies that it's a lot easier to detect on, maybe even with an ability to track, but only high frequency radars can provide the resolution to be able to get a target solution good enough for a weapons lock, and that's why sometimes "even if they detect you they can't shoot at you". Virtually all long-range AA missiles use high frequency radar for their on-board guidance, especially if they have a terminal active radar guidance phase of flight (in that case it's because the lower the frequency of the radio signals being used, the bigger the antenna has to be, which is again, part of the laws of physics and not amenable to being changed by wishful thinking).
I was really hoping that wishful thinking was the proper fix... 😔
Stealth is obsolete
@@44R0Ndin A subsonic stealth bomber or an F-35 would still be a better strike aircraft than Kingfish because you could deploy it faster, the logistics are much simpler, it would be far cheaper to operate and could hide from detection so the enemy would have no warning and wouldn't necessarily know what had even happened at first.
@@trolleriffic I was more going into the details of WHY things are able to be stealthy, and the basics of it boil down to "The SAM battery's targeting radar can't have an antenna array a mile wide or it won't be able to turn to track targets that are moving at a speed that would require the entire array to turn quickly". It's a physics problem, not a technical problem. If they COULD make the radar arrays big enough, stealth would be useless.
Basically, the size of the radar array determines the size of the "pupil" of the "eye" that's "seeing" the target (but in radio waves, not light, therefore the quotes). Same physics laws apply regardless of if you're using radio waves or photons, because either way it's still electromagnetic radiation.
So just like with optics, the radar array will have a limit to even it's IDEAL performance, given a specified frequency of operation and a specified size of the radar array. This is due to diffraction, which causes even perfectly focused, perfectly collimated, and perfectly coherent laser beams to spread out over distance. Actually for lasers trying to find the distance to the moon, the way they spread out over distance is helpful, because it means that even a "near miss" by the laser turns into a "hit" on one of the retro-reflector arrays that was placed there by the Apollo program. That special mirror array is designed to bounce the light directly back where it came from, hence the term "retroreflector" (retro = back, reflector = mirror, tho retroreflectors can be made for other segments of the electromagnetic spectrum, for instance navigation buoys in a shipping channel almost always have retro-reflectors which are set up to reflect in the bands used by most naval navigation radars, these can be made extremely durable because they're extremely simple, just put 3 sheets of metal together so that each sheet is at right angles (perpendicular) to BOTH of the other two sheets, which creates 8 "cube corner" retro-reflectors that work well at radar frequencies because the metal conducts electricity well enough (doesn't even have to be copper, normal steel works great)).
6 turning and 4 burning. The Peacemaker was a beast!
You guys also noticed that DYNO-SOAR and Virgin Galactic's spacecraft are VERY similar in design?
If you think that's similar-looking, you should get a look at the Sierra Nevada Corporation's commercial resupply services ISS resupply craft (that they might put crew on in the future).
It's pretty much just a dyna-soar, but using design lessons taken from the Shuttle program (that's why the nose of it is so blunt vs the dyna-soar's very pointy nose, turns out reentry heating of the nose-cone is proportional to how sharp the point of the nosecone is, because that forces the shockwave to be closer to the heat shield, and most of the heat is from compression heating (aka ideal gas law at work) not just "drag" aka air friction).
Blame it on the same tyrant that makes so many cars look alike: the wind tunnel.
A little correction, Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 as studies showed that swarms of AGM 86s would be more effective at penetrating Soviet defenses. Also a little program called Have Blue showed stealth aircraft were worked, hence the start of the Advanced Technology Bomber program that led to the B-2.
Fascinating stuff Alex! And I don't know if anyone has commented on this before, but you are the King of A-roll & B-roll footage. Many RUclipsrs just toss a few vaguely relevant still shots on screen and lean on the Ken Burns effect. Yours is almost always actual video footage, always engaging, and always relevant. Great job!
Yes! It's actually hard to find good info with relevant imagery.
I have enjoyed, without commenting, many of your videos. I appreciate your work. Thank you to you and your team.
Not integrating vectored thrust & forward swept wing research into the super hornet would be my choice, but agree with all your choices especially the A12.
Well that's not so much a "different aircraft" as it is "what if the aircraft we know ended up differently", so not quite the subject for this video.
However, that would indeed be an interesting subject for a FUTURE video!
@@44R0Ndin Fair though by the time the design was modified moving the wing root back adding forward canards internal weapons bays. Possible changes such as switching to a smaller Xtail to complement 3d vectored nozzles, & reduction in length by moving the engines apart/in. One major change often opens the way to many minor ones.
Bravo Alex! One of your best!
I love this trend of making videos about things that almost didn't happen. Many things may have almost been something, but didn't. So this makes for a long playlist of topics about events that would've been important if they happened as imagined in the script
It's channels like this that confirm why cable TV isn't worth it. These videos are great.
It looks like the Quiet Bird influenced the LRASM, definitely has the same body shape! Great to see how projects from the past can influence designs today, Great video Alex, thank you!!
Love these Alex!
I think you left out a few aircraft that should be on the list. For example. The XB-70, YB-35, YB=49, The XF-103, XF-108 and XF-109 for example.. Of course you could add in the B-15 and B-19 if you want to go way back.
Fair go Alex, what about Germany? Best fighter of WWI, first production built helicopter, first jet to fly, first jet fighter, first jet bomber, first rocket fighter, first cruise missile, first ballistic rocket. You could have mentioned the X-20s inspiration by name, the Sänger. Hail Sandbox!
I would be interested in more accurate information about the stealth capabilities (or lack thereof) of the HO 229. Can that be compared with the YB-49? I can always hope that creates exists..
All you have to do is watch Lockheed skunk works HO229 build and test on the stick. They showed that although stealthier than a P-51 or a Spitfire, it was still very visible on radar.
It was Northrup Grumman not Lockheed and it was featured in that documentary he mentioned. The mockup itself is in the San Diego Air & Space Musuem and the original is in the Udvar Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA.
Excellent Videos Alex !!!!
I would have added Comanche and YF-23. Also, if you want to look at other nations, Avro Arrow and TSR2.
Future program suggestions...
More videos like this one!!!
X-plane videos are so short. Too short. And the photo quality in the experimental aviation, is the best.
This video is excellent.
Except too short!😂
Thanks Alex.... 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😎👊
Great video Alex! 👍
You bring up QB. I have several pics of her on the walls in my computer room. Years ago, when I sent my brother pics (he's an engineer) he said they were fake. I just smile.
Excellent episode!
Great piece Alex
Thank you, Alex.
the 299 video essay was brilliant. didn't agree with everything, but brilliant non the less.
Another great video! Another great job. It goes to law!
Excellent video!
As always, quality content.
Alex, Best content ever!
Loved the detailed look back at Air RnD...
Fantastic :)
Alex please repost the Horton video. I'd watched it, loved it, and wondered where it went.
That Boeing stealth fighter in the 60s. Man, that is cool
Reminds of that one time I almost changed the world, but decided to stay in bed instead.
Well done with the research
The kingfish is my favorite drawing board design omg
Just finished reading Ben Rich’s book “Stealth”. A fantastic read on the early years at Lockheed regarding stealth. But what I found interesting was the ramjet powered M-21 which road on top of a modified A-12. Mr. Rich was saying the M-21 had the lowest RCS of any plane. About the size of an eagle eye. Was not really successful program as this was before computers. But really enjoyed this video.
Again another Brilliant Video 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Please repost the debunking of the Horton.
Please post that video about the Horton aircraft - I always want to learn more about it!
Personally, I'd like to see that piece about the Horten plane! Even with blurred out stuff. Please upload it again!!!
another great video, thank ya . . .
Thanks (again) Alex for interesting reporting with a cerebral twist.
Loved the X-20 DynaSoar as a kid
Enjoyed your video .
One of the three X-15s was refitted with the control system of the X-20 Dyna-Soar. This advanced control combined the aerodynamic controls with the reaction controls automatically so the pilot simply operated “stick and rudder” inside or outside the atmosphere.
Could we get a collab with Habitual Line Crosser on patriot? I was thinking a video on why Russia's air force has been struggling to defend against it.
Thanks Alex....
ln memory of Steve Shoemaker of the Blue Angels who passed away in 2022.....
I have an old 1960 encyclopedia that shows the X-20. So I've been aware of it, as a small child, since 1964.
Some good points here particularly around why some of these technologies aren't used. Remember a documentary on some of the advanced design put out a long while back talking about this and they said most people forget that with the advent of sophisticated computers and electronics along with vector thrusting much of the capablitities of advanced designs and air frames can be built into much simpler and older school airframes but that are much simpler to operate and cheaper to build and easier to fly.
One would hope the L301 documentation would be in the hands of all those working on current projects. We can learn so much from history - "There's nothing new under the sun"; we just have to be looking for it. Thanks for a great summary Alex.
The Navy gave up a flying Dorito chip for a Fat Amy. Great decision making and critical thinking skills.
Yes man post the old video love to see it.
Thank you for the college course!
Awesome content as always Alex.
9:11 From my understanding, the Horten Brothers never said it was stealth or a stealth plane. They said that after the war, they realized that because of all the wood used in the plane combined with its shape, it had a significantly lower radar signature.
Media and Fanatic Wehrboos made it then to this stupid steal myth. Nobody in the Museum/ Historical Community ever claimed that at least I never heard it from them.
So it’s another example of an “accidental stealth”, along with DH Mosquito, Polikarpov Po-2, XB-49, Avro Vulcan, etc, when they got an unusually low radar return due to used materials or/and shape.
Ya Alex covered this myth already in a previous video.
@@KF99 Add the Antonov AN-2 to that list as well, it's got a cloth-and-dope skin, so the radar return is a lot less than if it was truly metal-skinned.
Even the well-known J-3 Cub is technically a "stealth" aircraft, they're also cloth-and-dope skin (tho these days it's likely to be polymer film), and the airframe itself as originally built back when it was initially designed was actually just made of wood, if memory serves.
About the only thing that would have provided a radar return in the J-3 back in the '40's was the control cables and the engine.
@@44R0Ndin I don’t think so - An-2 is too large and uses metal heavily in its construction. But it can fly extremely low and slow to avoid detection.
@@KF99 OK, but what about the J-3 Cub I mentioned? That one certainly, right?
It was 100 years ago that Americans achieved the first air refuel.
Post that video about the Horten 229! It's one of my favorite aircraft ever.
Yes please repost the Horten!!!
Yes, Alex. Please re-post your video about the Horton flying wing aircraft, without the copyrighted material. It was an interesting video on a few levels and I'd like to be able to view it again in the future. Thanks!
Definitely repost the Horton video!!!! (With the clips blurred out) 😂
Outstanding and insightful episode, my friend. Thoroughly enjoyed this video.
May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed Independence Day!
🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸
Great video, and I share the sentiment. Could you do a video on John Boyd and his theories sometime? I haven't found a reliable one
Good job, bud. You're a great storyteller.
Amazing episode
Will you make a video or have already about the LRHW? I’d like to see videos about all the new hypersonic programs.
Did you know a UFO expert designed and implemented nuclear flight. He was called: Stanton B. Friedman. He worked for Lockheed(GE, and several other nuclear and airframe builders, for 9 years, if I am remembering accurately. In my mind, he was a genius who was not afraid to join all shorts of projects trying to add credibility to his own sightings and discoveries of the UAP phenomenon. Here’s to Mr. Friedman. One last thought: Why that genius of a man was not titled, Dr. of Nuclear Physics. Rest well Dr. Stanton, I miss your insights on our current “aircraft.”
P1: "Nuclear Hubris" lol
Cool vid!
I saw a documentary that said that there was much more to the Sputnik Crisis, only recently declassified.
It seems that Van Braun's group was ready to go and chomping at the bit to launch their artificial moon. He had to be nearly physically restrained as he wasn't taking "no, wait" as an answer.
There was the legality of overflight of territory, and an argument that orbital flight should not count. The U.S. was very clever in letting the USSR *make* that argument rather than the US making it with the USSR opposing it.
How about looking into that, and making a video?
I saw that too. Wasn't it a video called something like "Sputnik unveiled"? Two reasons Russia did it first, the US wanted an entirely civilian effort and Von Braun's was based on military boosters, and what you said about Eisenhower wanting to let Russia back into an "open skies" policy. If they did it first, there's no way they could object to the US flying satellites over Russia.
I've seen the NB-36 crusader at the boneyard in tucson, it's incredible to behold. Nothing says airpower like that airframe. It's one of the scariest concepts of aircraft come to life.
Excellent content keep em coming
One of my A&P teachers was an engineer on the Dynamic Soar project, he said exactly what Alex is saying, great tech but no home for it.
I seem to remember that 20+ years ago the 'Rapid Dragon' concept was suggested but using the 747 as the transport aircraft (holding up to 120 cruise missiles). At the time it was apparently not taken up, but clearly the idea had been around for a long time.
Along with fractional orbital bombardment, I think the 'Rapid Dragon' is a methodology fraught with the risk of escalation. When a single vehicle is capable of launching potentially dozens of what could be nuclear-tipped missiles, their is room for miscalculation.
Great video. Yeah, it's interesting how all this news about Hypersonic stealth ramjet scramjet ext is actually decades old tech! I like the history lesson also. I think Germany is also a worthy mention of aviation innovation! I believe the British had the first official Airforce!
The X24 looks like an evolution of the Dyna Soar
Please repost that Horton Ho video!
9:50 please blur and repost that Horton plane video - it was excellent.
At the time the A-12 was cancelled in January 1991 John Boyd was adviser to Cheney. And Boyd hated everything that had to do with high-tech on fighters. His ideal manifested itself in the prototype of the F-16 the YF-16. It was a fighter that was supposed to use a radar only as a rangefinder for the gun. It was to be equipped with short range IR-missiles. Its only purpose was to dogfight and to shoot down fighters that were trying to get at the bombers that they were escorting. Boyd and "acolytes" hated every high-tech weapon they heard about. Of these Pierre Sprey was the loudest. And they wanted them cancelled. The very weapons that made Desert Storm a success!
9:55. PLEASE post the vid of the Horton debunking.
Ahhh yes! Post the Horten video again please good sir!
On e of my friend’s dad was one of the Dyna Soar program pilots. Ended up building and testing the Apollo LM
A note on the NB-36 sits at the Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL) and was not used because they found that the reactor was releasing radioactive material over the areas it flew.
Growing up near Cape Canaveral you can see a lot about the 1950s and 60s development of spacecraft like DYNA-Soar at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum and the Sands Space History Center near Port Canaveral, Florida.
Please post the Horton video. Would love to see the deep dive.
Bring back your Horton Ho video! It was great!
Another great video as always. Can you try to find info on the ufo's that were popping up at the Sametime as the Chinese balloons we shot down. I heard we took out a couple of the other ufo's but never heard what they were or really anything about them. It's like they made a full media blackout on them
Thank you for the excellent video.
Yes, I would like to see a video with regards to the Horton and the hoax documentary.
Quality content as usual 👌
Have you done a deep dive into the YF 23 yet?
Alex, I remember seeing a short video of Northrup employees that worked in their "Model" area building a supposedly 1:1 replica of the HO229, then testing it. The hype was it was possibly stealthy. However it really never came out and proved the real version had stealthy properties. Is that the video that you are referring to? When I saw it my first thoughts were they were trying to see if the German plane was buildable with modern techniques? Second thought was more hype than truth. So yes I would love to see your version.
Yes that's the same video.
I had seen it too, when it aired in... 2009 I think it was. Which I took it as gospel since it was aired on a prestigious cable channel, and had utilized a real model (made as accurately as possible), by a prestigious company (Northrop), and tested on a legitimate radar test stand...
Was saddening to hear Alex debunk it, but, I'm all about the facts, so I'm ok with it in the end!
I had no idea about most of these - a maze zing.
You didn't show the declassified pictures of the kingfish at Groom Lake...😔
From the looks of the Kingfish, there could be some crossover to the Aurora.
Definitely put up that vid on the Horton plane.
4:53 Do I see a U2 being used to send sensor data to other aircraft, ships, and tanks? Very cool.
Remember we had wooden planes and spitefire propelled planes.
People never seen this secret technology
Dynasaur born out of the earliest days of the cold war. Actually it predates WW2 by German aerodynamicist Saenger-Bredt with the Silverbird intercontinental skip-glide rocket bomber