Why Flying Wings Are Coming Back
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июн 2024
- 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.
#NotWhatYouThink #NWYT
Music:
Orcas - Marten Moses
The Showroom - V.V. Campos
Subconscious - Nihoni
Sweet Talk (Instrumental Version) - Tyra Chantey
Virginia Highway - Tigerblood Jewel
Deeper Into the Jungle - Experia
Linda Low - Lucention
Lunch Break in Milan - Trabant 33
No Stone Unturned - Brendon Moeller
Thyone - Ben Elson
Flickering Neon - Marten Moses
Truce No More - Dream Cave
Enter The Night 1 - Fredrik Ekstrom
Footage:
Shutterstock
Select images/videos from Getty Images
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Go to ground.news/NWYT for on-the-ground perspectives on global issues. Use my link to *save 40%* on the Vantage plan for unlimited access dive into topics like aircraft and international affairs.
vids 8 mins ago this comment is an hour, how? 😟
@@AFG.1youtube lets you schedule when videos go live, even if they are fully uploaded already
@@misterperson3469 ohh makes sense thanks
I'm English, and what I'd like to know, is why we read so many Americans making such ridiculous claims, like the F-22, is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine chip technology), and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo Jet?
Seriously, just what on earth is that all about? Not only is that claim completely wrong, but it couldn't be any more wrong! The really obvious, and factual truth, is, they've no idea what the RCS of any military aircraft is, as they're always kept classified!
But even more stupidly, they never even ask any of the most obvious questions, as they all, always, just assume so much! Questions like, what do either the F-22, or F-35's have available to them, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft, from BVR (beyond visual range)?
And yet, if they had just asked that one, really obvious question, then maybe they'd understand, that today's reality is nothing at all, like they think! Seemingly, they don't even understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
Therefore, to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So, regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and they stand out like a beacon in the night.
It also seems, they don't know that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR). So, just think about that, and what it actually means? This is also a fact, the US air force will be fully aware of, only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
So, obviously, we must ask, just what do the F-22, or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR?
They have, AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries, real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
As, on the other hand, we find this Russian SU-57, (rubbish) the Americans all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57.
They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings.
The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right?
They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system.
Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR.
Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky).
The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar, design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including...
Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band, AESA 5th generation radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
Furthermore, just what have the Americans, ever seen the F-22 actually, do? Well, other than flying over a beach, on a RUclips video?
Absolutely nothing!
I thought they weren't invisible on radar... that it makes it impossible for counter measures to get a lock on the target to fire.
"Comrade, that bee is flying at Mach 2. Is that normal?"
Isn't the B2 a subsonic plane?
“Ah, yes comrade, bees fly at mach 2 around here all the time. For some reason though, every time they do, our stuff starts to explode.”
Only Tu-160 can reach that speed, not B-2
Top speed of the B2 is Mach 0.95. You don’t need speed when you’re invisible.
@@bettyswallocks6411 it was a joke my guy
"The future of military aviation will, without a doubt, be very triangle-shaped" lol I love this channel
Jack Northrop was fortunate to see the B-2 prototype before he passed away.
Not the prototype, but a scale model, and it was in 1980. Northrop had not yet won the program, and construction on the prototype (which was also the first production plane) wouldn't begin for another few years, and it wasn't completed until 1987 or 1988.
Just to clarify, nuclear submarines aren’t considered necessarily superior to diesel- electric submarines. Submarine stealth is centred around sound emissions and a quirk of nuclear subs is the need for certain machinery to stay active for safe operation of the reactor. This means when the boat is rigged for a “silent running” state (now referred to as ultra-quiet), even with the prop stationary, a nuclear sub will always emit a base level of audio emission. Diesel- electric subs in comparison don’t have such machinery and so have a far quieter audio signature while running in a similar ultra-quiet state. Submarines are never optimised for radar stealth because the main goal is to never surface in the first place. Most if not all air dependent submarines are fitted with snorkels so even they technically never need to surface for air.
However Radar deflecting shapes shush as those used on the F-117 also make submarines harder to detect on active sonar as Radar waves act quite similar to sound waves in water.
@@luther0013 Indeed.
@luther0013 then there's the difficulty, as with aircraft, of optimizing both aero (or hydro) dynamics and geometric stealth.
Given that drag depends both on the velocity and the viscosity of the fluid, we can see that this is a harder problem for subs.
@@marcondespaulo if your invisible what does it matter if you move slower than an iceberg.
They’re produced by the countries capable of building and affording them because they’re all things considered superior. If they weren’t there would be no reason to build them. Yes….you can parse via different metrics to argue for X or Y but in the aggregate, considering all mission types..they’re better.
Flying wings are great but they'd make terrible airliners because passengers sitting at any distance from the center of the aircraft would experience roll motions very strongly.
Say that like it's a bad thing... maybe I want the roller-coaster experience..
There are private jets.
Not just that, but it would be nearly impossible to meet the emergency exit requirements.
Eh, still you see concepts of airliners which are much more wing shaped. It’s 100% possible but Boeing would rather cut quality and R&D costs rather than innovate, which is why the French make better passenger planes now
Agree...I used to take a worker driver bus (greyhound style) to work everyday. They are fine out on the highway but suck bad on city streets where the road often slants one way or the other and you end up moving up and down what feels like 3 feet...it was a roller coaster ride to say the least :>)
My favorite fact about flying wings is that Northrup (the guy) was able to see the B2’s first flight
Jack Northrop died 8 years before the first flight of the B-2.
He only was able to see the concept plane after getting special clearance
Grandpa Buff is never going away.
It's getting upgraded with new engines and radar.
It will never be useful either
@@MaticTheProto Found the Russian 😂
@@bigchungus1848 nah. You also wouldn't ride a horse to war nowadays
@@MaticTheProtoYou would. B52 may get old, but it is THE MOST terrifying bomber EVER. B52 is forever
Like how the B2 looks like an eagle from the side
i'd say it looks more like a falcon while diving, a lot of modern aircraft are inspired by bird shapes
@@jakalantheman3402because why invent a wheel, when you can look at nature, that "developed" the most efficient shapes through evolution for million years
Yea… cuz it was literally inspired by falcons. It’s supposed to mimic their shape
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). 🙂
Bro u explain so good!! I know more about military stuff then I know about anything in school! Love u bro
*than
@@Rotorhead1651 the irony xD
@@Rotorhead1651 be nice to the kid
Glad you enjoy our stuff!
@@Rotorhead1651 XD see? I told u I know better about military stuff THAN school.
Lift isn't what determines range ... DRAG at the flown altitude relative to the available fuel stores does.
A high Lift : Drag ratio or L/D allows it to carry a large payload, which includes fuel. But it's the ratio, never just "lift."
Lift surfaces produce drag, so if you can use fuselage to produce part of the lift itself, you can reduce wing size, thus reducing total drag.
Thanks for sharing guys!
Awesome B2 footage. Great video thank u.
Fun fact, the taxi ways for the b2's are painted red on the tarmacs. Before a b2 starts to taxi an alarm is sounded for all personnel to vacate these painted areas because most people don't have clearnace to get anywhere near them. Guard towers have orders to basically shoot anything that moves inside the red zone when the b2's start taxiing. My cousin and a college of his were in the red zone when the alarms started to sound. So they ran like hell to get out of the taxi zone.
is it does lines on the tarmac that i've seen on military airfields? the description is the same I believe just want to know if i saw the in person.
this sounds like complete bullshit. do you have any corroborating source on any of that?
B2's use the same taxiways as every other aircraft. they are not painted red. and why would your cousin and colleague be in a taxiway??
your story makes zero sense.
@@taitai4993no. the only red things you will ever see on an airfield are red signs that indicate important intersections where pilots "hold position" much like a stop sign. Every entrance to a runway from a taxiway will have the runway numbers on a red sign, and often there will also be a painted on indication of the runway numbers on the tarmac as well.
i guarantee that's probably what you saw. there are various things that can be indicated with a red sign so could be any one of them. but it definitely wasn't a special goddam taxiway like the original commenter is trying to say exist 😂
@@syntactyx did I say sign? No there are red lines painted on the tarmac. If you watch the video you'll see a red line painted infront of the hanger. All of this is coming from my cousin who was stationed at Whiteman airforce base.
@@syntactyx my previous reply above this one answers your question.
Thanks, I love what you do
Yooo *this* is Awesome! The B2 🤘
Interesting Video.THX-🇺🇸
Let's be honest here. Despite most people not liking the movie, "Stealth" was ahead of its time. I know I still enjoy it when I watch
That was a fun one still own the DVD
F-37 Talon design soo good that it became reason i like to play ace combat❤. I wish i can build detailed model of it
Another excellent video covering the subject from a-z 😊
16:10 Highly doubt it. Grandpa Buff will outlive them all.
Huh, a man of culture.
The Buff is eternal.
I clearly remember the Bone being developed by the Ronald Regan presidency. I was in grade 3 and it was broadcast on Canadian national tv.
I think development costs are somewhat deceptive because a lot of the concepts learned from the development benefit additional/future projects, bringing their development costs down from what they would be otherwise.
Good progress on explaining that stealth is not invisibility, at last. But still half of inside story is untold - visibility to search radars vs SAM vs AAM radars. Long waves can see them, short waves got hard time detect and lock.
Vertical stabilisers drag and "turn" capabilities should also be re-considered ;)
Awesome
“… or a bumble bee.” - Puts up picture of honey bee.
Very nice discription
@6:12 be careful what you say 😂😂 that was said for so many planes 🤣
I hope so, they look absolutely beautiful
You say YB-49 ..
I say .. why not?
O like the soundtrack - it reminds of the cool no BS shows of the late 90s.
Well, RCS isn't fixed scale. It can be larger or smaller depending on the wave length and where it come from. B-21 isn't the replacement of the B-52, B-21 only replace the B-2 and B-1B.
B-52 will remain in service as long as the Air Force continues to operate.
Thanks for explaining unit cost.
It also includes the runways, buildings, tooling, materials, computers, security clearances (secret clearances was $50k in 1990 for reference, top secret was $100k), spares for 20 yrs to name a few.
Imagine buying a car, paying for the road to your house, your garage, all spares you’d use for 20 yrs and mechanics to maintain it for 20 yrs. Think your car would only cost $50k?
@@USMC6169 a lot of people as forget this also applies in NASA’s rockets which is why the SLS currently seems to have a price per flight that is spiralling upwards because it has only flown once and only 2 new rockets are under construction currently not to mention cost overruns with the ground systems which is responsible for the price per launch increases.
Please do a video on the manta ray from DARPA. Still being developed.
not gonna lie, that echo bit was a nice touch
Dorito is also making a comeback with the aerospace industry
It was exactly what I thought this time.
What do you mean, ultimate stealth machine? It's right there!
I think you used the wrong clip in the beginning. I only see a United 777...
We need this... as an airliner. Probably doesn't need to be stealthy so stick a tail rudder for extra stability at expense of some drag?
I love this guy’s voice!
It’s like a Simpson’s construct of a far Eastern Charles Bronson.
Superb.
It was exactly what I thought🙂
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.
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 saw a B-2 when I was hiking one day, it was flying pretty low and you could hear it from a while away.
I've seen them do low flyovers multiple times at the Rose Parade. When they're flying head-on, they're surprisingly quiet. Most of the time, without checking the timing, we wouldn't have known it was even coming until it passed over us. Only once it had gone past (and from the side as it banked) were we able to finally hear the roar of the engines. Incredible aircraft.
Top
Stealth + range = strange, which is what the B-2 and B21 are.
Nothing can replace the BUFF.
Except a bigger buff
Except itself
Edit, the Iranian flying wing drones are already armed. Even some propeller driven drones have some small bombs
Damn those WWII flying bombers are cool as F.
With the range of surface to air missiles ever increasing , you need something able to get close without being seen till its too long
6:40 did we just get a hand reveal of the person behind NWYT?
Hand reveal?
We are already at back reveal. You need to checkout our recent videos 😁
Dude, it's always what we think. That wore off a long time ago.
Su57 “stealth fighter” it doesn’t have a radar cross section, it’s got a zip code
Kind to think of it,it kinda looks like a piece of a boomerang broken in half
"by it's shape and it's geometry"?
The geometry IS the shape.
The buff is forever
I love you Not What You Think!
Excellent work, as always! It's a shame the USAF doesn't let you tour their planes like the Navy did. :)
It’s just a matter of time 😁
@@NotWhatYouThink I hope I'll be here to see it when that day comes! :)
B2: Refuels
The russians 100 miles away: "Why is there a flying christmas tree?"
the hand outside the window is Not What You Think!😂
Love how the planes from Stealth are always thought to be the 6th gen fighters
The radar cross section is due to geometry, but not in the way indicated.
It is more related to invisibility than reflection!
Why is there no mentioning of the Horten 229 from Germany in WWII? It did not see any combat, but it flew already then. As the Allies took just about everything out of vanquished Germany, this design was certainly something that the Americans used for their developments. Just like the V2 rocket.
just a theory but maybe he wanted to focus in bombers wing shaped
Because it was a shit project which is mostly an urban legend.
Also get your facts straight, none of the German flying wing technology was used by the Americans.
It is what you think.
Turns out to be exactly what I thought.
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
4:07 worn out tires?? 😰
You take that back. Grandpa buff is forever
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.
Plus it just looks so cool 😎 lol
We are on the cutting edge of the triangle.
Touch of Stealth movie props😂
"coming back" in an interesting way to say that the only operational manned flying wing is getting replaced with a similar plane
"Flying wings are not very manouverable" enter the ho 229
first video i watched today 💪
I wonder what the pilot is trained to do if the stealth bomber completely shuts down/stops working until it hits the ground.
Looks like Flying Doritos are a thing now… so what’s next? More flying Doritos? 😂
A bumblebee sized object travelling at 400mph and 50000ft for arguments sake is unlikely to be anything other than a stealth aircraft right?
Please provide more videos that support the Arabic voice translation feature
Did you find the Arabic voice quality acceptable?
@@NotWhatYouThink Not the best, but acceptable
@@NotWhatYouThink ah hell nah it will sound very strange speaking with the normal Arabic accents
there are hundreds of Arabic accents and if I hear a different one I get annoyed and start laughing
English is good
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.
Make a video on how many aircraft the US lostin Vietnam
Such an impresive technology. So many smart minds and so much usefull money wasted on the military...
Maybe these should be the new stealth tanker for the B21😮
Government spending money on things but not on its own people,
Lot to learn
There is no such thing as classified documents to a Warthunder player
That ECHO, ECHo, Echo, echo, ech, ec, e, .....
Perhaps Radar Signals could be severely jammed via Drones transmitting Radar signals in the opposite Direction.
Gonna need some AI processing for the collected radar data.
"How does the flying wing stay stable in flight without a tail?"
"That's the neat part. You don't!"
God... Where do you GET some of these videos... I swear some of these feel classified.
Finding great footage is once of the things we are good it … and no, none of it is classified :-)
What is the neglected side ?
Imagine hypersonic engines on the B-2 that would be unstoppable combo
It wouldn’t be stealth then. You’re supersonic footprint would give it away, not to mention heat, and your radar cross-section would go to crap because of the heat generated around your air frame, which you couldn’t use the special materials.
Eh, I think it would be stopped by its own aerodynamics, losing control & breaking apart somewhere between Mach 0.8-1.4, regardless of the engines you used. The idea of an armed space plane is pretty cool though, even if it's not practical in the foreseeable future.
I had to make three attempts to get this video to load. The reason I got from RUclips was that it has sponsor. When I saw the ad, I understood why RUclips ran its interference.
how did a 17 minute video about flying wings not mention the horten Ho 129 or Ho 229, The grand parents of all flying wings
Because the grandfather of all flying wings is jack northrop. His first flying wing flew in 1929.
@@USMC6169 so we just ignoring them because they were built during the second global disagreement. Also, northop didn't fly the scale model until 1940 the N-1M. Then there are all the gliders that existed. If you take that into account gliders was first experimenting with in 1924.
@@grapes008YT ghosted my first response. no one is ignoring them. I was addressing the statement that they were the grandparents, and they were not. Their flying wing designs didn’t start until ~1940. Their first jet powered wing in 1944-45 never made it off the ground before WWII ended.
Northrops first prop powered wing flew in 1929. And if it flew in 1929, and he built it himself, he’d been thinking about it for years and years before flight.
@@USMC6169 and yet, I can't find a single trace online to verify.
including the Horton brothers contributions
Solution, stealth tanker
when comes a ho229 video? you always mention yb49 but overlook ho229
Nevwr hopefully. Can't say a thing about flying wing without hoerton brother's sympathisers claiming how hoertons were first with that desing...
@@CharlieH99 Well it was so duh. It flew without a tail stabilizer it was straight up better no sympathy needed
@@cwf_media9200 even the YB-49 flew without stabilizer… the problem was the lack of technology from both sides. hence, it was both a piece of shite. decades later, the Americans finally perfected it.
@@lazerbeamAndCo it has fins
To stabilize it
Arsenal Birds are eating good with this one
Have you heard of oblique wings