Is the Air Force already developing a replacement for the B-21?!

[@SandboxxApp]

Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use.

[@ADB-zf5zr]

@15:50 you / the USAF say they want "loyal wingmen" to fly alongside the bomber of the day, but also noted that the USAF rolled-back their claim that the B21 was going to be optionally manned.! My suspicion is that the B21-X (the B21 replacement that I just named) will be the new manned bomber of the day and the B21's that are now in production will then become the unmanned "loyal wingmen" with a relatively (for any project like this) small upgrade, and they stopped saying that the b21 was going to be "optionally manned" for a few reasons: . Recruitment, they still need to recruit pilots, and broadcasting that they might not need any a few years in the future is going to wreck their recruitment possibilities, many of whom are in school right now.! . They do not want to give away too much of what they are planning on doing to other less than friendly countries. . They are not sure yet whether they will continue to need someone in the cockpit essentially as a "backup" if there is an EMP that takes out their "web of communication" and breaks their "killchain", or IMHO, in the even of nuclear war, the great likelihood of an EMP (or many, plus mass satellite destruction) and they need to rely on the Human onboard plus the onboard sensors because the chain and web are no more, and without them what would the AI do.? . They don't actually know, and they are changing their minds / unable to make up their minds as time and technology progresses, and likewise the likelihood of their need in a near-peer hot war that the decision now could be very different from one made a month from now and so they need to keep their options open. . That the B21 was truly designed to be from the ground up (as I have heard), an upgradable, AND an iterative platform, so they could be working hard on the B21A, whilst planning the B21B and considering what might be needed for the B21C, and for example the B21 and B21A could both be quite similar and have 50 of each produced for the 100-total and the B21B and B21C might be different enough, but still use the same airframe that they are considered the new orders that are being considered. Alternatively the B21B and B21C could simply become the B31 and B31A, noting that you have suggested that future F35 upgrades are so large it could warrant a new designation.! . Any combination of the above plus things that I have overlooked, or not even thought of (by far the most likely) as I am no expert, I am just an interested observer not even an "enthusiast".

[@hawaii50th]

Any idea if it's true that the Russians recently shot down an Israeli F-35 as it left Jordanian airspace to launch an EMP over Iran?

[@lewiskemp5893]

Hi Alex. can you make a video on Horsepower???? Cars Planes Trains. It doesn't matter. I think you would say it cool

[@jaredyoung5353]

The 4 engine hypersonic AirForce One replacement is probably the bomber they are thinking about.

[@TravisAngel-p7y]

This is just a guess. What if Starshield the $1.8 billion dollar satellite. Built by SpaceX with Lockheed Martin sensors. Comes equipped with the same advanced sensors suiteas the B21. An unstoppable kill web

[@samuelanders7597]

I just hope this doesn't turn into we are gonna buy 200...no, 100...no 50...and then they do it again with the next model too. The procurement pipeline has become a bigger threat than most nations

[@cyronader]

it's exactly as you say. Happened to B2, B1b, and F-22.

[@gordonwardhaugh8266]

Come on guys we have to let China catch up with us we can't have the greatest of everything and lots of it

[@paulcoverdale8312]

Yup long history of this🙏🙏🪬🪬👍👍🥃🥃💎💎🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@ApocolypseZombie]

Exactly. What's the point of making your bomber extremely modular if you only take minimal advantage of that? These functions can't be added to the B-21?

[@Istandby666]

But that's how it goes. Money has to be allocated to these programs. At the beginning things look big and then they have to scale down to keep everything within budget (lol).

[@jajssblue]

Air Force and the engineers behind them just have no chill and I'm here for it!

[@jimandnena4]

I retired from aerospace after 29 years on the F-16. Started with the A model and finished with Block 70. The Viper was the first truly modular AF aircraft and we took advantage of every new technology. With AI being the next big technology, I would bet that it is a big driver for new programs. The rate of change with technology is exponential, not linear.

[@MrCateagle]

Shield AI already has software flying to add AI capability to the F-16. It would be nice, too, if a production divererless inlet could be added. The one tested on the AFTI-16 was a scabbed on prototype to.prove the concept for the F-35.

[@ogdocvato]

Retired M.D. here. I always enjoy reading what the engineers have to say!

[@mENTALdRIFTER]

it is more accurate to say that the rate of change with technology _has_ been exponential. Thus far, tech has been the limiting factor, but we are quickly coming up against other limiting factors such as materials or energy availability that may blunt, or even end that trajectory. They also may not, but we cannot be sure, so we should not make declarative statements which include an uncertain future.

[@OGDocHolliday]

The New AI Intergrated F-16 is INSANE

[@NinjaRunningWild]

It’s really not exponential. It’s a number of sigmoid curves laid over each other. IE - A ton of iterative upgrades over a long span of time. These things don’t happen “all of a sudden”. They take large teams of highly skilled people gradually making things better, such as yourself. - ex game programmer

[@Wised1000]

In fact the B21 is a much simpler aircraft to build than the f35. First and foremost, there is no provision or thought of a lift fan system. There's no afterburners. The engine is a fully mature design. There is no need for supersonic speed and finally, as you well pointed out, its based on an airframe design that's over a decade old. Basicly, its an off the shelf design meant to bolster our sagging bomber fleet. The fact that they already working on a replacement comes at no surprise given that its really an "interim" solution.

[@governorTarkin]

Also no considerations needed for supersonic aerodynamics.

[@Drauzet]

No wonder it is on time and budget

[@wstavis3135]

The f35 is 3 DIFFERENT aircraft. Not exactly the best comparison. Only the so called F35B has a lift fan and is almost completely different from the F35A, for instance.

[@Wised1000]

@wstavis3135 In fact, no. The dimensions, power and function of the engine were all dictated by the liftfan system, In fact, the whole airplane was. The other small differences between the aircraft are mainly due carrier fleet considerations or reuse of the space that not having a lift fan allowed. You can take the engine module from an F35B and graft it into any other model with minor adjustments. The software takes care of everything else. That is the strength and the weakness of the F35. But the whole principal of the system was sound, its not as agile as an F16 because what ever dogfighting ability it may have is of little use for a plane that is basically a mini AWACs that happeneds to have missiles and carry bombs that it can drop with pinpoint accuracy 50 miles or more from the target without ever being detected by hostile radar. The B21 leverages tge same thing but with even more stealth and a much larger internal weapons load.

[@hoghogwild]

@@wstavis3135 The F-35A prototype was modified into the F-35B prototype. I disagree that Raider is much simpler to aircraft to build. Much simpler, negative Ghostrider.

[@shrugg6593]

Bombers, in general, are becoming cruise missle, and JDAM shuttles... The US's focus on eliminating collateral damage in conventional strikes is pushing precision weapons as doctrine. Just hope the cost isn't prohibitive...

[@Mountainlake1]

I would assume that stand off weapons are cheaper than the vehicle.

[@granatmof]

That's actually very dependent on the battlefield. For decades the US pivoted to fighting insurgencies, not near peer. In those cases you want high precision missiles that deliver knives instead of explosives to take out a driver in the middle of a city, instead of carpet bombing the city. With the US pivoting now back to more traditional near peer, military V military type of fighting, saturation bombing and large area bombings are back on the menu. A $20m missile to take out a $5M tank is not a good use of money, but $500k of dumb bombs capable of demolition sing a tight groups squad if tanks is a great investment. This gets even more dynamic with the use of drones, and loitering which can sort of straddle that line. Finally missiles can be shot down, I have yet to see anything that says artillery gets shot down.

[@tfkia356]

Frankly, it makes a better AWACS than a bomber

[@thelizard556]

​@@granatmofcant the Phalanx system (land based CIWS) shoot artillery/mortars or am I wrong about that?

[@zacharymorris4504]

​@@thelizard556 yes, that's C-RAM or Counter Rocket/Artillery/Mortar which is the role land based phalanxes fill. Also something like Israel's Iron Dome can shoot down shells and mortars etc with a bit larger of a kill envelope than the gun based phalanx.

[@mikek9297]

And when B21's replacement gets retired, B52 will be getting another upgrade...

[@l3ete1geuse]

Elegant and deadly. Those two don't always to together, but did for the B-2 and B-21.

[@michaelalmasian4710]

Silly question. My uncle designed missiles for Raytheon for 30+ years told me that by the time the public is allowed to see the plane, it’s already obsolete to the people who designed it. That’s because of the crazy amount of time and work and Pentagon and Congress between concept and deployment. And like any project great or small, what you’ve learned during Project X is pre-loaded for Project Y.

[@brianboye8025]

This has only accelerated with all digital design, manufacturing, operational modeling, war gaming, and even maintenance. Add autonomous AI and new aircraft pop up naturally. Run to keep up.

[@recoil53]

The is true of a lot of commercial technology as well. However, product must be brought to market so choices must be made and a design finalized. IRL it's not obsolete, since the technology isn't equaled.

[@Iamdarthplague]

When I was in college in the early 2000’s, one of my professors had retired from CINCSAC. He told us that civilian technology is roughly 30 years behind military technology. He described technology to us that we now have in the civilian world but were not available in 2001. He described mesh networks, large flat panel touch screens, and fully wireless speakers/headphones. He further talked about rods from God as something we already had.

[@hoghogwild]

@@Iamdarthplague There's a big difference between drawing board aspirations and operational weapons systems.

[@Iamdarthplague]

@@hoghogwild you're not wrong but he described these systems as active and functional.

[@rgonz81]

Calling it now, the replacement for the B-21 is going to be arsenal bird from Ace Combat. A giant mothership that releases dozens of AI controlled combat drones. Fast, agile drones replacing manned aircraft, it'll be an aircraft carrier in the sky

[@granatmof]

Whether the drones are recovered or not, Autonomous drone swarms that have a target list to take out without need for continuous data streams will be something in the future. Saturation strikes are just that important.

[@jeffrymilton1093]

Along with a gimbaled laser cannon to take out ground to air threats and air to air threats.

[@LOBricksAndSecrets]

"Why do I hear Boss Music?"

[@scottystacker4660]

Zerg!

[@fire2k11]

They'll just retrofit a B-52 for that. 😄

[@mrtgwilsonable]

Thanks!

[@TheStormpilgrim]

I was helping a friend move in the late 1990s and we found a computer magazine in a drawer from 1990. Dell was selling a system with a 128 Mb hard drive, a whopping 4 Mb of RAM, two floppy drives, VGA monitor, and printer for....$5999. And the B-2 hadn't bombed an Iraqi position yet. I remember playing Tetris in stunning monochrome on the Game Boy.

[@granatmof]

A big reason why the US hasn't fielded new generations for 30 years is just the leaps in performance year over year of computational power leading to better modeling, digital design, and even 3d printing. Combine complex models with generational algorithms that may spit out hundred of design evolutions to something even more optimized, and it makes since to keep delaying new decades long purchase programs until your data models start to stabilize in capability, which let's be honest, they have for the most part. This means that the new generations of systems should be smaller since the new design processes are going to maybe be fast enough to take practical lessons from a large scale deployment back to the computer model and make something even more powerful. The US has massive computational resources to drive all of this, and it's not always about raw computational power. Big elements is the bespoke air modeling systems created and maintained by Boeing and Lockheed et al. Reliable modeling data is the single most important part of computer modeling. If your data is bad, it doesn't matter how great your computers are.

[@lewiskemp5893]

I remember playing a hand held football game in 1978. My first game console was Pong followed by Atari

[@ElonMuckX]

My parents must have been rich, we had a Super VGA monitor, Dot Matrix printer, and 2800 baud modem. Still had to use DOS though.

[@HKim0072]

Commodore 64 had 64!KB of RAM, lol. Still was pretty cool. My friend and I would log onto random BBS sites when we were in elementary school in the '80s. We were 8-9 years old.

[@dwainsellers6453]

​@@lewiskemp5893I remember having a party line phone, people shared the same line, if they were in an active phone call you could listen in .

[@scottbattaglia8595]

Wow look at how smooth those bomb bay doors are on the raider......beautiful

[@phartbay327]

I sure hope they are

[@SeattlePaulie]

To me, they looked taped over to conceal something. But I had the same thought as soon as I saw it.

[@xenophagia]

​@@SeattlePaulie Exactly. They're concealed.

[@MarkAMMarrk]

Alex, you're the most reliable and thorough military reporter out there. Please send me a link a discount link to a vpn. Thanks for being you!

[@mikebrown9997]

The adaptive power engines excites me more than anything. More range for the aircraft.

[@omegaz3393]

New one fits all platform. Five seconds in. Enemy- Found, fixed, tracked, targeted, engaged, assessed. 6 seconds in. Returning to base.

[@Olsonic]

Great feed. Glad I discovered it!

[@GauntletKI]

FYI for the smaller size adaptive cycle engines they have moved up in numbers to the XA102 & XA103 for P&W and GE respectively.

[@jml_53]

Great video. I appreciate all the great insights you bring to bear on these topics. I've been studying kill chains/ webs for most of the past 35 years and you brought out a lot of key ideas. The one misunderstanding most folks have is with the target step. The word target has many different meanings as both a noun and a verb and every Service has a different take on the subject. According to Joint doctrine and most kill chain definitions, target is a C2 step. It is a decision-making process focused on weapon-to-target pairing: what weapons system with what munitions has the right combination of lethality, responsiveness, and survivability to strike each of the targets under consideration based on their priority. It is also focused on authority to engage the target: ROE, collateral damage risk, clearance of airspace and friendly forces, and providing the striker with any support that is needed EW, gas, supporting fires, DCA, SEAD, or threat awareness. Who does this and how it's done depends on the scope and scale of the kill chain as well as the timeline and location on the battlefield. In a deep strike against an emerging target, it might be done at the CAOC, Division TOC, or on the carrier. In a CAS sortie, on a SOF mission, or on a sub doing ASW, the whole kill chain is likely done on one platform or by the one SOF team. In all these examples, target is the C2 decision making process involved with the selection of the best asset to use to engage the target and the authority to do so.

[@deepmind9854]

Thanks for all these excellent episodes!

[@MrCateagle]

With regard to shortening kill chains, there were studies for a BDA derivative of the AGM-137A. I could see JASSM-ER modified for a similar role.

[@SandboxxApp]

That’s an interesting concept that would be pretty practical without a big price tag. I’m familiar with discussions of fielding a ground-launched variant, and the LRASM already has VLS capability, so plenty of potential customers. The Air Force may not like the idea of anyone biting into their high-end ISR business, but I want to see LRASM production increase anyway, so it’s got my vote.

[@MrCateagle]

@SandboxxApp I was part of the design team for the AGM-137A/BGM-137B and a BDA version, with potential follow-up attack capabilities, was under study. Too, the modular nature of TSSAM would have allowed a vertical launch version by combining elements of the A and B variants of the missile. By the same token, the modular design would have allowed quick development of an extended range air-launched version for the USAF & USN.

[@terryfreeman1018]

I love Sandboxx. You're a great narrator.

[@MrCateagle]

Given how design and analysis tools have evolved and improved since the B-2A's were designed, I could well believe that a B-21 followon is well under way.

[@Axemantitan]

I would say it's a certainty. If I could use the computer industry as a comparison, you have the product on the market, the next product in public development, and the product after that in alpha stage that is in internal development.

[@kaylzshter6153]

SR-72 Hypersonic Stealth Bomber lets goooooo!!!!!!!!!!

[@OtherTheDave]

B-72?

[@ElonMuckX]

There is no room for bombs, dam thing is all engines! 2 turbo fans and 2 ram jets.

[@Dean00001]

@@ElonMuckX I'm sure Skunk Works can figure those funky stuff out.. attach a 500lb directly on the damn engines!

[@ElonMuckX]

@@Dean00001 At those speeds a 500lbs wouldn’t need to explode.

[@phayzyre1052]

That’s something I don’t understand; why piss away money on a rebooted version of the B-2 stealth bomber? Why not put that money into hypersonic technology instead of a rehashed 1940s airframe coupled with 1970s stealth technology? Not very wise in my opinion.

[@dextermorgan1]

17:45 Funny. "Tomorrow's fighter" sure does look a lot like the Yf 23. 😉

[@phayzyre1052]

The YF-23 was the better airplane but the leadership at Northrop Grumman back then screwed the pooch. I was told they didn’t even have a fly off between it and the YF-22. Lockheed chose to put their airplane in the air and let it strut it stuff while the doofuses running Northrop at the time just sat back on their ass and thought it was theirs from the get-go. I used to work with Northrop Grumman and not much has changed; they were an arrogant elitist company back then and they still are. Of course Northrop Grumman would deny it all day long but I worked with people that worked on the YF-23 program and they told me all about how Northrop Grumman screwed it up.

[@dextermorgan1]

@@phayzyre1052 I believe every word of that. I know the YF 23 was the better plane. It was stealthier, faster and better looking.

[@NPC-fl3gq]

Superb video, Alex. Well done!!

[@Pikeandglaive]

Okay, I'm going to throw this out there, just because its the type of system that, if you think about it, would be super sneaky and highly unexpected. Do you think the Raider has a possible stealth tanker function meant to top off drones or shorter range fighters in such a way that an adversary REALLY can't see them coming? China HAS to have doctrine to track our takers so that they have ideas where where single seat strikes packages and patrols are coming from. Take that high-viz part out, and you really could give a small strike package some legs while not breaking stealth. Just a thought.

[@marknordberg5518]

This week's stuff has been exciting. Very nice.

[@terryfreeman1018]

Alex, you're one smart man. I appreciate Sandboxx. Keep it coming buddy.

[@55Reever]

Technology is moving faster than we can build them. What's amazing is the engines, the actual thrust isn't as important as the fuel efficiency and the ability to generate electricity for future systems.

[@jeremyortiz2927]

May your surgical recovery be fast and good!

[@steveshoemaker6347]

We thank you Alex🇺🇸

[@Will-W]

Zero doubt that we already are working on something better. The idea that we aren't always looking to fight the next war is laughable. The B21 is a great strategic deterrent and tactical asset. But it's not an end all, be all, of deep strike capability.

[@richeharrison]

If they're comfortable affirming they are working on the next generation of aircraft they already use, most likely it's already completed and everyone's started on the next leap (if not the next). I wish they'd just acknowledge what the silent black triangles are already! (Thanks for your vid on the TR-3B btw, it was spot on!)

[@Istandby666]

Have you seen the new photo release of the B-21 taking off from behind? The exhaust looks like the F-117 and the YF-23. The bottom part being angled up like the F-117 and the top angle exhaust of the YF-23.

[@blvck.8197]

The B-22 Raider gonna go crazy

[@Spinex0196]

fr

[@mrhassell]

It would want to go faster than 630 mph for it to be of ANY use at all.

[@emmettturner9452]

Raid3r Mk.III

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

@@mrhassellYou clearly don’t understand modern aviation at all

[@timpost2981]

@@mrhassellno

[@jameswalker7899]

The possibility of a prospective replacement, so soon after work has already begun on the B-21, certainly lends itself to some exciting conjecture. If the idea is that a new replacement--not a mere updated or upgraded block-- is now in the works, that certainly implies something fundamentally more capable that cannot be accommodated by what is presently envisioned for the B-21. What could that possibly be. Maybe a spaceplace, with maybe utilization of dual cycle, hybrid engines, both air-breathing and rocket, with a ramjet, or rotary detonation combustor. One feels like practically bursting with curiosity. :)

[@sambojinbojin-sam6550]

There's also ionic thrust/ air displacement for airfoil/ control surface shaping without actual control surfaces, and plasma sheath shaping by related technologies for hypersonics. Current jet engines (f-35 onwards) are now getting to the sorts of power/ weight outputs where it's feasible to sacrifice some thrust for large electric field generation, if that ends up being useful. Can also be vaguely used as a form of "electric chaff", or as a sort of magnetic thrust vectoring or engine wall heat shielding with the right fuel dopants. The future is going to be very interesting, though I'm not sure if any of the above mentioned technologies will be feasible in the near-term future.

[@granatmof]

The B21 has some limitations. It's a medium range, medium payload high stealth platform. Having a new large Frame replacement for the B2 or even the B1 could be important. Imagine tactical bombing by a heavy bomber that's invisible to air defenses.

[@sambojinbojin-sam6550]

There's also the high-end computing available to the USAF. Where processing power allows many other things. And the huge advances in material science/ manufacturing availablity. Why not make the entire (ok, just lots of bits of it) airframe out of distributed radar elements? And fairly high power or very sensitive ones? Processing power... Now not as much of a problem. Why not have hundreds of IR/ UV detectors/ cameras on an aircraft? Again, not as much of a problem these days. Why not have 10x the communication abilities? Well, it's doable these days. There's so many things the B21 or its replacement could have, it's hard to speculate on what it will actually have. Just depends on what's useful, how much of it is, and how much it costs.

[@raysloan4899]

Huge Raptor fan right here, as I know you are as well!

[@ronjon7942]

Tell it, brother!

[@goodsocksproductions9397]

I wonder if the sr-72 Darkstar could be a part of this. When the b-21 was announced, I was surprised at how similar its uses seemed to be when compared to the sr72, but at a 10th the speed

[@hanrockabrand95]

The SR-72 is designed for reconnaissance, not bombing. Dropping bombs or missiles at those high speeds is problematic. There may be hypersonic bombers and fighters someday, but it is not this day.

[@goodsocksproductions9397]

@@hanrockabrand95 obviously nothing's been officially confirmed, but most people who report on the sr72 report that it's capable of strikes

[@hanrockabrand95]

@@goodsocksproductions9397 News to me. I'd be curious to see how they work that out.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

​@@goodsocksproductions9397 Most people who report on the SR-72 also draw their "facts" from their personal aft passage...

[@theAverageJoe25]

I always assume whatever our most advanced weapons/aircraft are we have something even better in development

[@Maxxorz]

god damn the "... and this, is Air Power." (or Sea Power or Fire Power lol) drop is always my favorite part of every Sandboxx video

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, by merging bombers & fighters into 1 design - that would free up funds for a new design every 10 years.

[@texasranger24]

Could you do a video about the future of Shorad? Will short range air defense provided by the laser stryker? Will the Bradley replacement IFV XM30 function as an anti air cannon? Should the US look at the SkyRanger / Skynex / millenium gun system? And will there be a Stinger replacement with a better battery, targeting, and most importantly more affordable? Or is this affordable future the APKWS guidance upgrade for the cheap and plentiful Hydra 70mm rocket? Should we slap that on Avenger Hummvees? Or IRIS-T? And what are M-shorad Strykers doing?

[@ZaphodOddly]

I agree. Those subjects would be fascinating to learn. 👍

[@phayzyre1052]

I worked with Northrop Grumman for over a decade and in all honesty if a rebooted rehashed re-tread is the best they can do by taking a 1940s airframe, coupling it with 1970s stealth technology and adding a few new bells and whistles on it, I’m not the least bit impressed. In all honesty, I think Northrop Grumman is a company that’s trying real hard to stay afloat but it’s only a matter of time before they are gone from aerospace. They might still play part in building satellites and other space related components, but compared to what they were 35 or so years ago that company is a shell of its former self.

[@vincentrivera743]

The general could be correct on stopping the procurement of b21 bombers at 100. Cutting edge technology for penetration bombers is moving rapidly to the point wherein a better platform should be had when these new tech becomes available rather than back fitting to existing aircraft. However, before spending a fortune on new weapons with AI-assist or unmanned platforms, the us defense department must settle a fundamental issue first - whether to allow AI to make war decisions in order to efficiently perform missions or to retain the man-in-the-loop that could defy mission orders if these are seen as unjust/illegal or if the situation has changed to a point wherein the mission parameters no longer apply.

[@texasranger24]

The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs. Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.

[@TheHk1966]

Why do you keep asking this question? Do you have some monetary interest in that story?

[@jimnaz5267]

well done and appreciated. thank you

[@MrCateagle]

If the full B-2 production run had been produced, its modular design would have allowed some to be modified as RB-2's with a recce package in one weapons bay and a fuel tank in the other.

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, B-21 next-gen every 10 years make more sense than every 30 years to use off-the-shelf solutions

[@joshschneider9766]

the entire idea of rapid iterative prototyping is that you ALWAYS have a developmental cycle going, from which you are free to choose which ever looks best whenever you please. In military terms this translates into the ultimate ability to flexibly respond to "current" events. Its the new way.

[@Peter-or8oc]

If I were a raptor or lightening pilot is feel a lot better with a b21 overhead keeping me fully informed of what's happening all around , the big picture so to say I know the two stealth jets alone can see lots but if your focused on a certain task it's good to know that there is someone actually with me in the same air keeping their eyes on the whole situation it gives me even more confidence to complete my specific mission

[@sabercruiser.7053]

Keep up the great work 💪👍

[@FLUFFYCAT_PNW]

Whoop whoop great stuff as usual 🎉

[@zergbonbon4770]

Not exactly on topic, but it would be cool to see a comparison between how the Airforce decides to prosecute targets vs Naval avaition....

[@jimkluska253]

@zerg.....good question!

[@hoghogwild]

That would be interesting seeing how B-52 used to help out the USN via Harpoon missile missions and continues those missions with LRASM. Then there's the B-1B with its internal loadout of 24 LRASM on its 3 8 shot rotary launchers and another 8 externally with the Boeing's new adaptable Boeing rail system. That's a lot of LRASM/JASSM capability.

[@Llyrin]

I should hope so, because we should never stop trying to improve.

[@buckwheat6722]

Excellent Thanks!

[@DeanIllinger]

Alex ... in a future edition of which there will likely be many, consider letting us know based on some research (I'm guessing it's out there somewhere) how much additional mission payload space could be accommodated if the cockpit and all the crew life-support accommodations (fuselage pressurization for example) were removed from a B-21 design to create a remotely piloted variant. Deano

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great Video ! A small version of the B-2/B-21 is the F-117 (or the F/B-117)... Load some of them up with Air to Air missiles with the F-35 cockpit and large radar... Then maybe a F/B-21 ! tjl

[@phantomechelon3628]

Given how military R&D programs work - i.e. the stuff that we know about is already several years old by the time it becomes public knowledge, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a replacement or companion aircraft already in the works. Though given how modularity / upgradeability is the new mantra, I'd have thought the Raider will be in service for a good while yet, even if a new platform is put into production.

[@RedSinter]

IMO, it seems recent developments you spoke of concerning a variety of military platforms have been developed with Modularity in mind. I get the sneaking suspicion this could be the forward momentum with the B-21 Raider. Especially when you look at that in light of the Air Force saying they have already test flown the basic NGAD, thus cutting down drastically the development cycle usually associated with air frame development. And seeing this in similar systems would make sense. As Modularity is seen in missiles of wide stripes, Subs, NGAD, the continual upgrades to the BUFF, and so on. And we have 3D rendering, flight testing, testing designs in computer modeling and running all present knowledge with Super Computers to virtually design, build, and test for a faster, more accurate, and optimal design theories for considerably less $. We also have high speed proto typing, 3D printing, Sintering of dissimilar materials and continued on going Material Sciences advancing all these platforms.

[@tomdarco2223]

Right On Go Army!

[@myhometechguy]

Something based on NGAD perhaps? Maybe something very fast? I'm thinking hyper-sonic.

[@dtploeg1000]

11:55 I heard somewhere that the b-2 can also do BDA with its onboard radar after it hits a target. So that would mean it can do the last step as well. Idk if thats true tho. Just thought i'd mention it.

[@TK199999]

This is all because the USAF wants high altitude/near space supersonic/hypersonic stealth bomber. The new ceramic based stealth coatings allow for high supersonic and possible low hypersonic speeds without damaging the planes stealth coatings. Using the new adaptive cycle and high supersonic hybrid engines being created by HERMEUS. Add in new stealth pods/pylons and you can have fast stealthy bombers carry oversized weapons on the outside any where in world in few hours. Basically the mythical replacement for B-1, B-2 and most importantly the immortal B-52 (starts playing Highlander theme).

[@theEVILone0130]

At least they are considering what the future might hold as far as a strategic next generation bomber.

[@LowcountryMan]

Great information

[@ramonpunsalang3397]

The B-21, configured with dozens of AAMs, would be an awesome Offensive Counter Air platform.

[@petergerdes1094]

Will the fighter/bomber distinction even persist into the next generation? Given the increasing capability of over the horizon missles will it even make sense to have a seperate fighter aircraft in the future?

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Same question was asked in the early-mid 1960’s when we got involved in Vietnam & was the entire reason the early version F-4’s were built without a gun and was why our loss-ratio in Vietnam as no better than 1:1 until 1969-70!

[@mikelittle5250]

Like the music sample from the beginning....nice touch-up, lol....long-time fan, no disrespect

[@willdsm08]

With luck, yes. Unless you are looking for a completely unique airframe, designers should work with the previous model and make improvements. As more and more flight hours are logged, more areas for improvement will be found. It takes far too long to move from design to flight, so make the most of it by getting that initial jump.

[@saul3332]

From what I think he is saying this replacement is not a different aircraft. It's a improved version. That means the older b21 could adapt this new technology and will in essence replace itself.

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, USAF want a new design every 7 to 10 years - instead of every 30 years - in order to take advantage of newest *mature* technology. Since F-35 already got multiple upgrades, one could argue that the successor to the B-21 is merely a large update. As 6th gen/NGAD will look like the B-21, and F-22 now can act as a bomber, too, then its likely that 7th gen will merge fighter and bomber into one single design. Why? Fighters anemic 500 to 800 miles range doesn't cut it when Aircraft Carriers have to stay 1.000 miles from China's coast and be able to penetrate 500 miles in plus +30 minutes to 90 minutes loitering time. This means "fighters" with +1.500 to 2.000 mile range, and likely +3.000 miles, which means a B-21 design to accomplish such range. So then a fighter or bomber would essentially have the very same design. That again would free up budget for a new design every 10 years - within today's budget.

[@TheDolphin5588]

Some of those deep strike capabilities alluded to relate to not striking targets below….but up. The F35 has that capability as well. ASAT is the name of the game. Modified missile payloads that can reach out and touch enemy satellites (and engineered to create as little fragmentation as possible). F35, B21 and of course both NGAD programs.

[@rustyshackleford2723]

Yes, but can not confirm or deny 😮 Progress is ongoing in all areas

[@sidewinderEV]

The USAF would be talking about NGAD. The rumours point to it being F-111 size. NGAD of course will be able to strike ground targets. Being highly maneuverable and supersonic it should be able to hit higher risk targets than the B-21.

[@intrepidpursuit]

Is it possible that the B21 has been flying for a lot longer than we've been told? I've heard that implied in rumors along with the idea that there are at least several of them and that they've flow some analog of operational missions. It would explain why production and testing seems to be going so well and why they may already be thinking about the next generation.

[@alamy313]

Do you know if it still has a bedroom, mictowave and a toilet like the B2?

[@The_ZeroLine]

Like F1, which has transitioned to using mostly digital sims for development and testing, ASI is using that to make dev faster and more economical. In F1 there are even rules limiting their hours spent using CFD to prevent the cars from becoming too fast and secondarily to keep the bigger teams from gaining too much of an advantage.

[@granatmof]

Honestly if the B21 is the "low" to another air frame's "high" it would make sense. It's a smaller air frame to the B2 so it would make sense for a larger heavier longer range upgrade to the B2, especially if they could develope a supersonic stealth platform. I'm a big fan of the medium range format in the modern airspace with longer range missiles against ground and sea targets. Long term if they build smaller generations of aircraft centers around modular engines and avionics systems, it could be a pretty impressive long term advantage.

[@jubjub7101]

Due to computer modeling advancements, we no longer live in an age of decades long design and testing prior to new platforms going into production. Makes sense we’ll continue to see faster advancements going forward. The B-21 was meant to be modular and could be upgraded as newer technologies come around.

[@ItiscalledaMANDATE]

Lasers, yes, lasers. Stealth + most advanced radar/sensors + lasers + towed decoys + drone wingmen = hell yes

[@Its-Just-Zip]

My guess is that this isn't something like a b22, probably a b21b or some other sort of next gen upgrade for the b21 platform. That's at least my initial guess based purely on a hunch. But I also would not be surprised if there is some sort of replacement program for the B1 that is attempting to design some sort of supersonic high capacity bomber that has a maximum speed somewhere around the Mach 3 point as a launch platform for future scram jet-based hypersonic weapons. And I could see that eating some of the requisition funds that were being planned for the b21 platform

[@chrisp.5272]

I hope the B2 remains in service, and is upgraded and supported well into the future.

[@jcmount1305]

Of course it is. Given development cycles. When one product is at production.... you have to have the next generation in development. It's negligent not to .

[@Truex007]

It basically boils down to "Previously, you needed a whole suite of other platforms to assist the B-2 to perform optimally, to complete that killchain. But, theoretically, the B-21 can do EVERYTHING in the killchain. It doesn't need anything else to do it's job. But that's the thing. EVERYTHING else can help it do it's job even better."

[@cccalifornia7206]

Thanks ALEX !!!👍😃🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@_Mutineer]

Hi Alex, (luv ur stuff), and I would like to suggest a topic for future coverage. I'm very interested in finding out your take on what capabilities that SpaceX's "StarSheild" will provide to the US Military. You have touched on some potential additional benefits new encrypted high bandwidth communications could bring to the table, but apart from the obvious, how would the Military utilize such an LEO constellation?

[@testuser2709]

Where’d you get that 80mb hdd for $1300 from? It sounds off as I think the gameboy came out in the early 90s and I’ve got a full size 80mb hdd from the late 80s that I think cost

[@testuser2709]

Oh I think I got a PackardBell with a 540mb hdd a bit after the gameboy was released (in the US) for ~$1500

[@ARFuller]

The idea of the B-21 and it's successor taking on an AWACS-like role is interesting. I'd argue that at least as interesting to the flight hardware is the communication systems needed for this approach and I'll bet there's a story here if there's any public information at all. A stealth aircraft can't fly around emitting signals, even in short bursts. It would be detected immediately. Maybe some sort of line-of-sight connection to a satellite could be used (RF or even laser), but are satellites safe in a modern battlespace? If you walk through the logic that follows from that, you have to question whether the stealth aircraft make sense as AWACS platforms. Sure, for strikes and intelligence-gathering, they might make sense, but maybe the next generation of battle management is just done semi-remotely via some kind of drone swarm.

[@MichaelRoy-hc3lz]

Since the sudden step back from the NGAD and B-21 yes it could be budget but maybe, just recently we've made some type of game changing leap with some technology that will make these two planes obsolete. My guess would be in propulsion or weaponry that can't be added to an open architecture design

[@i-love-space390]

What concerns me is how similar is the RQ-180 to the RQ-170 that Iran captured and decoded and probably sent on to Russia and China after their attempt to reverse engineer it. I hope Iran, China, and Russia do not have too much of the RQ-180 technology that came from the RQ-170. That will make them much better at developing a counter to its abilities or almost as bad, develop their own version. And if the B-21 Raider uses very much of the RQ-180s technology, they would be well on their way to countering or copying that too. At the very least, the encryption needs to be upgraded, since Iran was able to decode the data in the RQ-170.

[@mightymoyan4788]

They are more than 2 generations deep mate.........when one comes out it means another is in full scale test while another is in design stage......

[@xm8553]

Love the intro as always, but I really feel like you should consider doing a longer intro over good music. It’s such a good part of your videos, it’s a shame it’s only like 3 seconds long!

[@emmettturner9452]

It’s fine. Why ruin it?

[@ItsJoKeZ]

(before watching) Feel like the b21 was fast-tracked due to the increase in conflicts and need- while another model had been in the works for a longer 2030-2035 timeline. If anything longterm upgrades or at least varients of the b21 (B21a B21b B21c, etc.) But the B21 needed to fill a superiority gap early on and could be finished sooner.

[@joshualandry3160]

They better be. The replacement aircraft should be in development before the aircraft reaches production. That is the only way to keep up.

[@bmhh123]

I would love to see an overview of the current USAF tanker procurment situation!

[@commanderbensisko]

Once my Friday fix, now it’s comes more often. I’ve got no complaints 👍

[@dgthe3]

A successor program to the B21 could also be a factor in why B21 is coming in on time & under budget. Cost creep happens when you keep adding things to the design. It then takes longer to incorporate those new features & technologies. With a follow-on program already underway, you can dump all those really cool ideas onto it & leave the current one alone.

[@WasabiSniffer]

with how long it'll take to finish rolling out, i don't think it's unusual to look into at least making a wishlist of features and development roadmaps. though i wonder whether it'll be better to develop upgrade packages rather than design a replacement from the ground up. it's crazy to think of what the b21 can do on its own if needed. it seems less a bomber and replacement for the B2 and more like a brain.